Am i a vegetarian??

Hi i HAve been a vegetarian for over 7 years now,well at least i thought i was one.You see i became a vegetarian because i didnt like the thought of eating animals but one of my friends has a very strong veiw that i am not a vegetarian because i wear leather shoes is this right?

Unless you are planning on eating them - I would consider you a vegetarian.   :)

good, thank you. :)

well, you're a vegetarian because you don't eat meat.  Whether your moral stance on becoming a vegetarian is invalidated by the fact that you still choose to use products made from dead animals for your convenience is going to have to be your decision... but my personal feeling has always been that if you object to the killing of animals, you object to the killing of animals and you shouldn't wear leather if you don't eat meat on those grounds.

So, um, I think you're a vegetarian, but I also think you're a hypocrite?  That's a pretty mean way of me to put it, but it's teh way I feel.

ED: if you don't eat meat for health, rather than moral, reasons, wear all the leather you like.

yes i suposse i agree thank you.

don't tahnk me, i was pretty mean :(

at least I'm honest, though?

Wear the shoes you have thil they wear out, then start getting veggie-friendly ones.  there are some great brands out there.  Just watch out for stinky feets from synthetics!

yes that is the main reason why i dont wear synthetic shoes because my feet already smell without the help of plastic shoes also they doent seem to be to healthy for them .i have been told that leather was chosen for shoes because it allows air to circulate in and out.

do you no a place where they sell good synthetic shoes?

shes pmsing today.  :)
She is right though.  if you dont like the thought of animals being killed then get rid of the leather and anyother products you use that involves death of animals.  there are some many different types of "vegetarians", you have to figure out where you stand.

ok thanks :)

Though, to be fair, if you don't like the idea of animals being harmed, you should be VERY wary...
Makeup, for one, is usually tested on animals. So... to say you don't like the idea of animals being hurt and than being makeup is pretty hypocritical too.
Then again, most to all drugs are tested on animals as well, so.. you can't necessarily win.

HUMAN TESTING TIME!!! WOOOO!!!!

um... yeah.

anyway, I hear very good things about http://www.mooshoes.com/ and http://www.zappos.com/n/es/d/722000395/page/1 .html.  Remember non-leather can still be natural fiber like canvas, rubber, etc.

HK, other than a few big manufacturers, it's VERY easy to find non-animal tested makeup/hair products, etc.

I didn't know, saro.. I've never looked :) But I believe you.

Vegetarians do wear leather and fur and such, it's vegans who do not wear fur or leather, or use soaps and shampoos and stuff containing things like honey and animal proteins

Aprii13 is right; from the perspective of most veggie authors I've read, generally the word "vegetarian" just means a person who does not eat meat, poultry, fish.  The reason they do not eat meat is irrelevant.

Most vegans I know, and veganism is also described as such in most veggie books, think of "vegan" as a person who does not eat animal products, wear animal products, or use products that were tested on animals for ethical reasons.  While some might call a person who abstains from eating meat, poultry, fish, dairy and eggs a vegan; vegans usually prefer that these people be called/call themselves "total vegetarian" ... ack whenever labeling comes into play, things get complicated.

As far as I'm concerned, if people who eat chicken think they can call themselves "vegetarians", you sure can even if you wear leather boots! About the "hypocrite" thing, that's actually an argument you might frequently hear if you continue wearing leather (because really if you're saying you're a vegetarian cuase you don't want to hurt animals, but wear leather, it IS kind of hypocritical) and after hearing it all the time it just gets really annoying.  My suggestion, wear out those shoes and pick a pair of non-leather next time.  The only companies I recommend are:
Vegetarian Shoes (www.vegetarian-shoes.co.uk) who also distribute through MooShoes in the US (www.mooshoes.com); and I more recently discovered No Sweat Apparel - check (www.nosweatapparel.com)

To steal a concept from Avenue Q
"Everyone's a little bit a hypocrite"

You should do what feels right to you. I wouldn't get so wrapped up in "I am a vegetarian so I must eat, live, breathe, think" this way because thats what they believe.

I battled with that for awhile and discovered that I really did care about what I wore/used so I started to find out what products were tested on animals vise versa

So you have to look at it from where you stand and not from what other vegetarians or vegans do.

Personally,
It's amazing at such a young age you are taking into consideration the world around you. So many kids have no clue what they do or what they are doing to the environment and of course to themselves.

"I'm a level five vegan, I don't eat anything that casts a shadow" - The Simpsons

I think it's generally bad for the "vegetarian community" to focus so much on definitions. It's only divisive.

The achievements towards conscious eating on ethical, environmental, and social fronts have been great in the last ten years. (Probably more).

I really think it's great that people are now thinking about where their food comes from, who makes / grows it, how it impacts local communities, the environment, our bodies, and the animals and eco-systems that we share the earth with.

Anyone who tries to exclude someone who is consciously eating from a concious eaters group (which I think vegetarianism falls into) is being counter-productive.

I think it is incumbant upon everyone who conciously chooses to recognize that food has politics and impacts on our daily social lives to recognize that eating in any form is a social and cultural activity. And, because we all experience society and culture differently we will make different lifestyle choices.

I would have a hard time choosing who makes the "bigger" impact, the person who eats meat but only buys locally produced, organic foods, or a vegan who never eats meat or meat bi-products but may buy from the multi-nationally owned supermarket.

Kudos to everyone who thinks about these types of choices, and thank you to everyone who eats conciously.

Just wanted to let anyone who is interested in this topic know that we are talking about something similar in this thread. :)

I agree with saroful (unless you are vegetarian solely for diet preference as opposed to moral issues). You are still a vegetarian, though. Don't feel bad, though, alot of the time we just don't think of a cow dying when we buy a pair of running shoes are heels for the dance.

Feeling guilty about it won't save any animals, action will. So wait until your current shoes wear out (throwing them out would "morally" be worse XD) and buy either fake leather or sandals. Since I live in Florida, I wear flip flops year round without worrying about this issue. :) Good luck, hun.

well, if i'm a hypocrite, i know i'm not alone.  look around at the house you live in and think about its impact.  do you know how big a hole you have to dig in the ground to build even a small house?  think about the insect colonies you've destroyed, the habitat that's gone, the birds and mammals that have to find somewhere else to live.  do you know what kind of toxic chemicals are in your drywall, your insulation, your paint, your carpet, the woodstain on your furniture, your roof shingles, the electric components in your computer?  do you understand the effect that human waste products have on other species, from water pollution to air pollution to seeping landfills to creeping suburban subdivisions? do you realize that nearly everything that you purchase has been manufactured, processed and packaged in a large polluting factory, then shipped hundreds if not thousands of miles under dirty diesel power?

face it, as long as we live in society, we have impacts on other species.  our society destroys other animals' homes so that our own can be more comfortable.  those of you who are eager to point out each others' hypocricies really should take a harder look at the modern conveniences you enjoy and the pricetag that's attached.

are you willing to forsake your home, your clothing, and all your electronics? what about the convenience of being able to pick up your cell phone and get immediate contact with your friends, or being able to drive your car to the airport and travel thousands of miles in a matter of hours?  running water and sewer systems? modern emergency medical treatment for yourself and your family?

i didn't think so.  you wouldn't be reading this post if you made that choice.

the simple reality is that we live in the society we live in, which is flawed in many ways.  the vast majority of us do not choose to be monks and reject all of society's benefits.  more power to those who do.   the rest of us are faced with the question of where do we draw the line, and why.  there is no one right answer, approach, or ideology.

so please, put your stones down.  it's great to feel good about your own positive choices, but none of us is living such a holy and righteous life that we're entitled to criticize others' attempts at improvement. 

Sounds like you make your friend feel uncomfortable because they are not vegetarian and they don't want you feeling morally superior so trying to make you feel that you're not quite so righteous if you like, by saying that you're not a vegetarian. That's how it sounds to me anyway. You are vegetarian, as am I. 

Legally, any cosmetic can be tested on animals in any phase of its production except the very final one and still have the 'this product not tested on animals' disclaimer.  That lotion can be rubbed on bunnies sans dye, or fragrance, for example - then the final combination done and the disclaimer slapped on.  Some products have the grace to admit, 'this FINAL product not tested on animals', which acknowledges that some stages of the product were probably tested on animals.

Additionally, even if the company does zero animal testing, raw chemicals have all been tested on animals for dermal and oral toxicity as well.  That info is included on the material safety data sheet (MSDS) for shipped chemicals.  I have never seen a commercial chemical MSDS that didn't include that data.  The standard measure is the LD50 - when 50% of your testing population has died from exposure to the chemical.  Mostly, rats are used for oral toxicity and rabbits are used for dermal toxicity.  Sometimes other animals are used in addition to those.

My field primarily deals with oral, dermal, and injectible pharmaceuticals, and cosmetics.  Other fields, such as shampoos and cleansers not covered by FDA regulations, I am not as sure about.  But really avoiding animal testing on a deep level is a very difficult proposition for a consumer.