Food critic William Sitwell has resigned aseditor of Waitrose’s in-house magazine following a row over his astonishinglyhostile response to a freelance journalist who proposed a series of articles onveganism.

食物評論家威廉·西特韋爾已經(jīng)辭去了維特羅斯內(nèi)部雜志主編的職位，他陷入了對一個自由撰稿記者的敵意反應(yīng)引發(fā)的罵戰(zhàn)，后者針對素食主義投稿了一系列文章。


A statement from the food retailer saidthat John Brown Media – which produces the Waitrose & Partners FoodMagazine – had announced Sitwell would step down as editor of Waitrose &Partners Food magazine with immediate effect. The statement added:

這家食品零售商的一份聲明稱，發(fā)行《維特羅斯及合伙人食品雜志》的約翰布朗媒體已經(jīng)宣布西特韋爾將不再擔(dān)任《維特羅斯及合伙人食品雜志》主編的職務(wù)，即刻生效。這份聲明還說：

In the light of William’s recent emailremarks, we’ve told John Brown Media that we believe this is the right andproper move - we will be working with them to appoint a new editor for themagazine. We have had a relationship with William for almost 20 years and aregrateful for his contribution to our business over that time.

鑒于威廉最近電子郵件中的評論，我們已經(jīng)告知約翰布朗媒體，我們相信這是正確且適當(dāng)?shù)呐e措，我們將會和他們共同協(xié)作，給雜志委派一位新主編。我們與威廉保有合作關(guān)系差不多20年了，對于他在這段時間內(nèi)對我們生意的貢獻我們表示感謝。

The row erupted after freelance journalistSelene Nelson pitched a series on “plant-based recipes” to the magazine, giventhe rise in popularity of vegan products in recent years. Waitrose, like manyUK supermarkets, has recently expanded its vegan product range and, asSitwell’s own article in The Times in January 2018 noted – in less thanwelcoming terms – the number of vegan cookbooks available has also grownconsiderably.

由于近年來素食產(chǎn)品越發(fā)流行，自由撰稿記者賽琳娜·尼爾森向這份雜志投了一系列關(guān)于“植物性食譜”的稿子，之后爭吵就爆發(fā)了。就像很多英國超市一樣，維特羅斯近年來擴大了其素食產(chǎn)品的范圍，如同西特韋爾自己于2018年1月（以不那么討喜的措辭）發(fā)表在《泰晤士報》的文章里注意到的那樣，觸手可及的素食烹調(diào)書數(shù)量的增長也很是可觀。

So Nelson’s proposal seemed pitch-perfect.Sitwell’s response, however, was decidedly off-key:

所以尼爾森的投稿似乎是非常應(yīng)景的。然而，西特韋爾作出的堅決回應(yīng)卻并不和諧：

How about a series on killing vegans, oneby one. Ways to trap them? How to interrogate them properly? Expose theirhypocrisy? Force-feed them meat? Make them eat steak and drink red wine?

一個接著一個連串地殺掉純素食主義者如何？用各種方法給他們下套如何？如何恰當(dāng)?shù)刭|(zhì)問他們？暴露他們的偽善？強制喂他們吃肉？逼他們吃牛排飲紅酒？

As veganism is ever more routinelyencountered in daily life, hackneyed media stereotypes of vegans no longerresonate as they once did. Anti-vegan media hostility isn’t anything new.Sociological research published in 2011 documented how UK newspapers discreditveganism through ridicule, with vegans variously stereotyped as angry,militant, self-denying, sentimental, faddy, or joyless. As more people tryveganism, meet vegans and encounter vegan-friendly products and practices indaily life, the more tone deaf these stereotypes sound.

由于在日常生活中接觸到純素食主義成了更尋常的事了，媒體對純素食主義者老生常談的成見不再能像從前那樣得到共鳴了。反純素食主義媒體的惡意完全不是什么新鮮事了。2011年發(fā)表的社會學(xué)研究，記錄了英國報紙是如何通過譏諷敗壞素食主義名聲的，以花樣編排把素食主義者涂抹成狂躁、好斗、自我否定、多愁善感、好趕時髦、或是沉悶無趣。隨著越多的人去嘗試純素食，碰到純素食者，乃至接觸純素食產(chǎn)品并在日常生活中實踐，這些成見聽上去越是索然無味。

Sitwell’s vitriol contrasts markedly withthe polite restraint of Nelson’s rejoinder, in which she ironically expressedinterest “in exploring why just the mention of veganism seems to make somepeople so hostile”. The exchange is arguably emblematic of the contemporaryplague of entitled anger that toxifies public discourse whenever entitlement ischallenged, however politely.

西特韋爾的尖刻與尼爾森禮貌克制的反駁形成了鮮明的對比，在反駁中她諷刺地表達了對于“探究為什么僅僅是提及純素食主義就會讓某些人如此心懷敵意”的興趣。這場交手可以認(rèn)為是現(xiàn)下“慷慨一怒”時代病的象征，每當(dāng)資格和權(quán)利受到挑戰(zhàn)（不管方式上多么禮貌），這種憤怒就會毒化公共話語。

One aspect of threatened entitlement in anon-vegan society is the presumed right to consume the bodies of other animals.In that context, research has suggested that vegans prompt defensiveness amongnon-vegans by implying a failure to act on a moral issue. Unresolved guiltplays out along a continuum ranging from framing one’s non-vegan practices as“moderate” (“I don’t eat much meat”) to anger and hostility towards vegans(rhetorically shooting the messenger, the way Sitwell appears to have done).The range, style and tone of these defensive responses are wearyingly familiarto vegans.

在一個非純素食者社會中，被威脅權(quán)利中的一個方面就是推定的、吃掉其他動物身體的權(quán)利。在那種語境中，研究已經(jīng)表明：素食主義者通過暗示出非素食主義者無力遵照某個道德議題行事，會在他們中間激起防衛(wèi)心理。不得疏解的負(fù)罪感在連續(xù)而統(tǒng)一的區(qū)間內(nèi)發(fā)作，范圍從把非素食主義者的做法偽飾為“適度的”（“我沒有吃很多肉”），到針對素食主義者的憤怒和敵意（似乎就是西特韋爾已經(jīng)干過的以文辭射殺信使的方式）。這些防御反應(yīng)的范圍、類型和語氣是素食主義者熟悉到很厭煩的。

Food practices are socially powerfulmarkers of social and cultural identity, making actual or implied criticism ofthem personally and hurtfully felt. Meat-eating in particular has been closelyimplicated in the? construction ofmasculine identity. Challenging the dominance of non-vegan practices threatensthose social and cultural identities that are most closely dependent upon them.

飲食實踐在社會上是社會和文化認(rèn)同的有力標(biāo)志，對他們個人作出真切的或是暗示性的批判，他們便會感覺到受傷。尤其是吃肉，一直都和男性身份認(rèn)同的構(gòu)建有著緊密聯(lián)系。挑戰(zhàn)非素食主義實踐的統(tǒng)治地位，會威脅到那些其社會和文化認(rèn)同最緊密依賴它們的人群。

Poor taste

很差的品位

Criticism of Sitwell’s email led to thewheeling out of a stereotype of vegan humourlessness. We have written elsewhereabout how humour is used in popular culture to retrench oppressive powerrelations. Framing the expression of oppressive power relations as “humour”attempts to insulate it against critique, but we should remain alert to thepotency and power dynamics of such “jokes”.

對西特韋爾電郵的批判導(dǎo)致了純素食者沒有幽默感成見的形成。我們已在別處著述過，幽默是如何在流行文化中被用于減消壓迫性權(quán)力關(guān)系的。把壓迫性權(quán)力關(guān)系涂抹成“幽默”來表達，企圖把它同批判隔絕開來，但對于此類“笑話”的效能和權(quán)力動態(tài)，我們應(yīng)該保持警惕。? ?

Sitwell’s own initial apology denied theethical basis of veganism itself: “I love and respect people of all appetites,be they vegan, vegetarian or meat eaters – which I show week in week outthrough my writing, editing and broadcasting.” Veganism here is reduced to ataste preference, or consumer disposition – just one dietary option amongseveral – rather than an ethical imperative directed towards eliminating thehuman exploitation of other animals.

西特韋爾最初作出的道歉否認(rèn)了素食主義本身的倫理基礎(chǔ)：“我熱愛并尊重飲食嗜好各異的人們，無論是純素食者、素食者還是食肉者，這一點在我周復(fù)一周的寫作、編輯和廣播中都有所體現(xiàn)?！痹谶@里素食主義被降格為一種口味偏好，或是一種消費者的傾向，即只是若干種飲食選項之中的一種，而非發(fā)自倫理，直指消滅人類對其他動物剝削的一種定向需要。

In his initial response, Sitwell says hisprevious “good behaviour” is evidence that this recent episode is notrepresentative of his attitude and he apologises for offence taken by others,rather than his offensive action. But in doing this, he refuses to takeresponsibility for his own behaviour. Moreover, it provides a textbook exampleof a victim-blaming non-apology, in this case by using yet another anti-veganstereotype – over-sensitivity: “I apologise profusely to anyone who has beenoffended or upset by this.” Vegans (the unspecified “anyone”) are implicitlyprimed to take offence, while Sitwell’s own actions are rhetorically positionedas intrinsically innocent (as “innocent” as a “joke”).

在他最初的回應(yīng)中，西特韋爾說他先前的“良好品行”是最近這段插曲不能代表他態(tài)度的證據(jù)，而且他是為其他人的動氣而道歉，而不是為其自身的行為。但在做這件事情的時候，他拒絕為他自己的行為負(fù)責(zé)。此外，這也提供了一個教科書式的去指責(zé)受害者的非道歉行為的案例，在本案例中是通過利用另一個反素食主義的成見，即過度敏感：“我毫無保留地為任何因此而生氣或心煩的人道歉”。純素食者（即未明確指明的“任何人”）被暗示為一點就炸，而西特韋爾自身的行為被巧言歸置于本質(zhì)上的無辜（和一個“笑話”一樣“無辜”）。

The joke has cost Sitwell his editing job.But his outburst has at least opened up the opportunity for some more honestdiscussion about why veganism, like many other progressive social movements,stimulates such aggressive responses.

這個笑話已經(jīng)讓西特韋爾付出了主編工作的代價。但他的爆發(fā)至少已經(jīng)為一些更真誠的討論創(chuàng)造出了機會，即為什么素食主義，如其他進很多步性的社會運動那樣，會激起這種攻擊性反應(yīng)。

（評論區(qū)）

1、Nobody really fearsvegans but they do loathe them in the same way that many people loathe thosethat evangelise any kind of cheap and shoddy religion – because that’s whatveganism is; a cheap and shoddy religion for modern elites who are nowstruggling to display their moral superiority in any other way.

沒人真的在怕純素食者，但人們確實嫌棄他們，就和很多人嫌棄那些瞎傳一些廉價又粗制濫造的宗教的人一樣，因為這就是素食主義的實質(zhì)，一種廉價的粗制濫造的宗教，是為那些竭盡所能、抓住任何方式來展示他們道德優(yōu)越感的現(xiàn)代精英們準(zhǔn)備的。

Their main problem is that they can nolonger use sexual restraint to display their moral and ethical pre-eminence inthe ways in which they once did; anyone can f*** anyone now and the moreexotic, promiscuous and incontinent one’s sexual behaviour is, the freer andmore liberated one tends to be seen. Consequently, the sublimated religiousurge towards the expression of personal sanctity and purity – particularlyamongst those who feel they’re superior to almost every other class of humanbeing - must be expressed somehow. Consequently, the puritanical, virtuesignalling, anorexic whole- food posturing of vegans is the self-flagellationdu jour for those with more time, money and privilege than is good for them.

他們主要的問題是：他們沒法再像過去那樣用性克制來顯擺他們超群的倫理道德了，如今任何人都可以上任何人了，而且一個人的性行為越是奇異、混亂、無節(jié)制，這個人看上去就越有自由和解放的傾向。因此，為表達個體神圣和純潔的經(jīng)過升華的宗教沖動必須以某種方式表達出來，在自認(rèn)為比所有其他人類階層更優(yōu)越的群體中尤其如此。因此，純素食者那清教徒式的、標(biāo)志著美德的、厭食癥范兒的追求天然健康食物的姿態(tài)，對于那些擁有更多時間、金錢和特權(quán)的人來說，是種當(dāng)下流行的自我鞭撻，而不是真的對他們有益。? ? ? ?
?
2、I suspected thatcalling veganism a stupid middle class hobby would carry the same blasphemy lawpenalty on here as calling into question liberal climate change orthodoxy orthe widespread practise of murdering the unborn. Maybe the moderators fellasleep? Anyway, I’m off for a bacon sandwich. Catch you later.

我懷疑，在這里把素食主義稱為一種愚蠢的中產(chǎn)階級愛好會被處以瀆神的刑罰，就像對自由主義者關(guān)于氣候變化的正統(tǒng)說法，或是殺死未出生嬰兒的通行做法表示異議一樣。也許仲裁人都睡著了？不管怎樣，我都要去吃培根三明治了?；仡^再來看。

3、There is a sense inwhich veganism (along with a number of other moral positions) is becoming amarker of social status.

有一種觀點認(rèn)為：素食主義者（連同很多其他的道德立場）正在變成一種社會地位的標(biāo)簽。

And of course no one likes being moralisedat, especially if it comes packaged with a sense of social superiority, and ispractised by the more privileged members of society - or those who seek toidentify with them.

而且顯然沒人喜歡說教，尤其是當(dāng)它夾帶一種社會優(yōu)越感并且社會中更有特權(quán)的階層或是那些東施效顰之徒在實踐它的情況下。

4、I have met theoccasional cranky vegan, the sort who seek to guilt trip, but they are far fromtypical unless you seek them out on line. Why would anyone do that, Gert?

我時不時碰到過一些脾氣很臭的純素食者，追求內(nèi)疚感之旅的那種，但他們沒有什么代表性，除非你在網(wǎng)上把他們搜出來。不過為啥會有人去干這種事呢？

Most vegans and vegetarians are live andlet live people. I respect their concern for animals while I continue to eatmeat occasionally.? And there is noescaping:

大部分純素食者和素食者是與己方便也與人方便的人。我尊重他們對動物的關(guān)切，與此同時我繼續(xù)時不時吃點肉。而沒法逃避的是：

1) That among the factors contributing tothe destruction of forests at a time when we need them to absorb CO2 is thedemand for beef and produce to fatten livestock
2) Cattle are a major source of methane, agas that is worse for global warming than CO2.

1）當(dāng)我們需要森林吸收二氧化碳時，導(dǎo)致森林毀滅的因素之一便是對牛肉和用來養(yǎng)肥家畜的農(nóng)產(chǎn)品的需求

2）牛只是甲烷的重要來源，在導(dǎo)致全球變暖方面，它比二氧化碳更糟糕。

5、Veganisim has becomethe moral vanity of a cultural elite who seek to demonstrate that their? wealth and overconsumption of resources isnot an environmental problem. By framing the problem of environmental damage asan individual choice, their denying their collective responsibility for contributing to the tragedy of the commons. Rejecting meat? won’t keep coal in the ground, it alsowon’t? do anything about the poverty thatforces people? to damage the environment.It will leave? you dependent onmanufactured fortified food

素食主義已然變成了一個文化精英的道德虛榮心，他們想要證明的是他們的財富以及對資源的過度消耗，而不再是一個環(huán)境問題。通過把損害環(huán)境的問題操弄成一種個人選擇，他們也就否認(rèn)了自己促成共業(yè)所背負(fù)的共同責(zé)任。拒絕肉食并不能把煤炭扣留在地上，對于驅(qū)使人們?nèi)p害環(huán)境的貧窮也是無所作為。這會讓你依賴加工出來的強化食品。

6、Everyone makespersonal choices about what they eat - sometimes economic, sometimeshealth-related, sometimes religious, sometimes for a principle. Why pick on oneof these groups or, indeed, on any of them? And where does all the vitriol comefrom? It doesn’t seem to be based on any evidence.

關(guān)于吃什么，每個人都會作出個人的選擇，有時出于經(jīng)濟考慮，有時關(guān)乎健康，有時因為宗教，有時是為了某種原則。說真的，為什么要去刁難這些群體中的某一個，或者任何一個呢？所有這些尖酸刻薄都是從哪兒冒出來的？似乎這并不是基于任何證據(jù)。

Mr Sitwell’s comments were definitely notfunny but rather were extremely odd. I assume that the Waitrose Food magazineis aimed at Waitrose shoppers and Mr Sitwell’s apparent refusal to cater forthe tastes of a substantial proportion of these may have had something to dowith his dismissal.

西特韋爾先生的評論絕對不好笑，反而是極端的怪異。我猜維特羅斯食品雜志針對的是顧客，而西特韋爾先生顯而易見的拒絕迎合這些顧客中相當(dāng)一部分人的口味，也許和他被解雇有關(guān)。

If he had the foresight to be a member ofthe NUJ, they may be able to negotiate his exit from the job more favourablybut it would seem that he more or less resigned with his bons mots.
如果他有先見之明，去成為（英國）全國記者協(xié)會的成員，他們可能還會更友好地協(xié)商他的退職，但是看起來，他被解職或多或少是因為他的珠璣妙語。

7、Of course vegans are‘nice’ people; I never said they weren’t. Indeed, I’d argue that veganism isthe very apogee of late-capitalist, neurotic, bourgeois niceness. Although,I’ve noticed, it does tend to morph into passive aggressive truculence and thenoutright hostility as soon as one questions the dogmatic orthodoxies of the veganreligion.

純素食者當(dāng)然是“好相處”的人；我從沒說過他們不是。我真的主張素食主義正是晚期資本主義、神經(jīng)質(zhì)、布爾喬亞式美好的最高峰。然而我已經(jīng)注意到的是，一旦有人質(zhì)疑純素食宗教教條主義的正統(tǒng)觀念，它確實容易演變成被動攻擊型的好斗乃至直截了當(dāng)?shù)臄骋狻?br/>
The idea that a vanishingly tiny minorityof wealthy, self-righteous westerners are going to have any impact on theplanetary ecosystem, and the sustainability of the food chain, by only eatingplants is preposterous. Infact the word ‘preposterous’ doesn’t quite captureit.

認(rèn)為只有難以察覺的極少數(shù)富裕、自詡正義的西方人會對地球的生態(tài)系統(tǒng)以及食物鏈的可持續(xù)性產(chǎn)生任何影響的想法是荒謬的。事實上，“荒謬”這個詞都無法完全概括。

As I said, veganism is a psychological posture,a neurotic defence mechanism if you like, to assuage the guilt of refusing torelinquish privilege; the privilege afforded to those living in the verysocieties that are largely responsible for the environmental problems we nowface. As I said before, veganism also provides a means for the socialexpression of sanctity and purity now that sexual continence can no longerfunction in that way.

如我所說，素食主義是一種心理上的姿態(tài)，如果你喜歡的話也可以說成是一種神經(jīng)質(zhì)的防衛(wèi)機制，為的是減輕拒絕放棄特權(quán)帶來的罪惡感；那些生活在這個社會中的人有能力負(fù)擔(dān)得起的特權(quán)，很大程度上要為我們?nèi)缃衩鎸Φ沫h(huán)境問題負(fù)責(zé)。就像我從前說過的，素食主義也為面向社會表現(xiàn)神圣和純潔提供了一種方法，既然節(jié)欲不再能以過去的那種方式起作用。

In short, if folks want to eat plants, tothe exclusion of any other food group, they can knock themselves out as far asI’m concerned. But, let’s be clear, they do it for a range of personalpsychological reasons not because it’s going to make one jot of difference tothe world we actually live in.

簡而言之，如果人們?yōu)榱司芙^其他任何食物群類，而想去食用植物，據(jù)我所知他們會精疲力盡的。但是讓我們說清楚，他們是出于一系列個人心理原因而去這么干的，可不是因為這會對我們真正生活的世界帶來一點點的改變。

8、I don’t thinkveganism is a sham - I think the basic moral impulse behind it is easilyunderstood - but I do fear that it is part of a new “bourgeois” morality basedon hypersensitivity to suffering which includes: trigger warnings, safe spaces,Microaggressions, political correctness, suppression of speech which might makepeople uncomfortable and the rest.

我不認(rèn)為素食主義是騙人的，我認(rèn)為其背后基本的道德沖動很容易就能理解，但我確實很害怕它會是一種新的“布爾喬亞”道德的一部分，它基于的是對苦難的過敏癥，其中包括：觸發(fā)警報、安全空間、微侵略、政治正確、壓制那些可能會讓人們不適的言論等等。

（譯注：微侵略（Microaggression）指人們透過肢體語言或肢體，排擠或貶低不同人種、性別和弱勢群體的現(xiàn)象）

Worse, those who lack this hypersensitivity(truth be told, who cannot afford to be so sensitive!) are excluded as thedeplorable poor.

更糟的是，那些沒有患上這種過敏癥的人（老實說就是那些沒有能力為如此敏感買單的群體?。┳鳛楸瘧K的窮人被排斥。

9、Fear and loathing?ROFL.
Nope. Indifference mostly.

恐懼和嫌棄？笑到打滾。
并不是。多半是不鳥他們。

10、Loathing, clearly -but fear, not proven

嫌棄是很明顯了，至于恐懼，證據(jù)不足。

11、I’m with Steve hereI really do not care too much what people choose to eat or not eat. I just wishthe wouldn’t pontificate about their choice and criticise? me for mine. I certainly do not feel ‘ffearand loathing’. That extreme language is what causes problems. What we eat isvery influenced by what is available and the years of agricultural and culturaldevelopment in the societies where we live. My personal choice is ‘something ofeverything and not too much of anything’ but then my childhood years were thepost war period and choice and amount were very limited. My other choice as anadult is to eat locally produced food and organic when possible made easier byhaving access in a local market.

我真的沒那么在乎人們選什么或不選什么來吃。我只是希望對于他們的選擇他們不要好為人師，并因為我的選擇而批判我。我當(dāng)然沒感覺到‘恐懼和嫌棄’。造成問題的是極端的話語。我們吃的東西，受可獲得的東西和我們所生活社會中多年來的農(nóng)業(yè)和文化發(fā)展的影響很大。我的個人選擇是‘什么都來一點，什么都別太多’，但我的童年歲月是在戰(zhàn)后時期，那時的選擇和數(shù)量都是非常有限的。作為一個成年人，我的另一個選擇是吃本地生產(chǎn)的食物，可能的話選擇有機的，借由本地超市事情就變得簡單了。

12、He had to go -Waitrose’s vegan lines have grown 70% in the past year.

他必須走人，去年一年維特羅斯超市的純素食貨架排已經(jīng)增長了70%。

13、We are HUMAN, theworld’s top predator. A human vegan is like a carnivore cow, it doesn’t makebiochemical or anthropological sense.

我們是人類，這個世界上的頂級掠食者。一個純素食的人類，就如同一頭食肉的奶牛。這在生物化學(xué)或人類學(xué)角度上都是講不通的。

MDs and nutritionists will also tell you itis impossible to have a balanced diet without supplementation. That in itselfis proof the vegan diet is not a healthy one, for humans. If you are a cow (whoshouldn’t be considered vegan, due to all the insects they eat while consuminggrasses), with a GI tract designed for a high fiber diet, eating veggies makessense.??

醫(yī)學(xué)博士和營養(yǎng)學(xué)家們也會告訴你，沒有補充是不可能有平衡的飲食的。這本身就證明了對于人類來說，純素食并不是一種健康的飲食。如果你是一頭奶牛（由于它們吃草的時候會吃進去各種昆蟲，也不應(yīng)該視其為純素食者），有著本就為高纖維飲食設(shè)計的消化道，吃全素才是合理的。

Form follows function, it is as simple asthat.

功能決定形態(tài)，就這么簡單。

Respect mother nature: Humans NEED to eatmeat. It isn’t a choice, it is a biological necessity.

請尊重自然母親：人類需要吃肉。這不是一種選擇，這是一種生物上的必然。

14、Top predator? Howmany animals have you killed for your food lately? (Or did you just browse theaisles of Tesco’s?)

頂級掠食者？你最近為了你的食物殺了多少動物？（還是說你只是瀏覽樂購的貨架通道？）

The age of animal agriculture is well onits way out, and not a moment too soon. We can’t call ourselves a civilisedsociety while supporting the abuse and deaths of over 56 billion animals peryear. Thankfully the world is waking up to that

畜牧業(yè)的時代即將滅亡，這一刻不會太久了。當(dāng)我們一邊支持著虐待和殺害動物達到每年560多億（只），我們是沒法稱呼自己為文明社會的。謝天謝地這個世界正在對此覺醒。

Urges are different from biological need.You can’t be vegan and be healthy at the same time. It is basic biology. After5-7 years on a vegan diet you will be depleted of many B Vitamins. This is whyso many vegans suffer from anxiety and other neurological disorders relating tobrain inflammation (high homocysteine and low B12). Later in life, as thisdepletion progresses, it can manifest as movement disorders like Parkinsons.

沖動和生理需要是不同的。你不可能成為一個純素食者的同時又保持著健康。這是基本的生物學(xué)。經(jīng)過5至7年的純素飲食后，你將會耗盡許多維生素B。這就是為什么如此多的純素食者遭受著焦慮和其他與大腦炎癥有關(guān)的腦神經(jīng)失調(diào)（高同型半胱氨酸和低B12）之苦。在之后的生活中，隨著這種損耗的不斷發(fā)展，它可能會表現(xiàn)為運動障礙，比如帕金森病。

15、But, moreimportantly, the Independent says that Vegans are younger and so have lowermortality rates. They are trumpeting “veganism is good for you” by comparingmortality rates of well-off 30-year-olds with the average omnivore population.If they are trying to sell veganism by telling lies ….

但更重要的是，《獨立報》聲稱純素食者更加年輕，所以死亡率更低。他們鼓吹著“素食主義對你有好處”，方法是比較30幾歲富裕人口的死亡率和不偏食人口的平均死亡率。如果他們是靠扯謊來嘗試推銷素食主義的話...

16、No sensible farmerabuses his/her animals.
More vegan lies

沒有任何一個明事理的農(nóng)夫會去虐待他/她的動物。
又是純素食者的謊言。

17、Even the NHS wasposting today (World Vegan Day) about how you can get all the nutrients youneed from a vegan diet. Both the American and British Dietetic Associationshave issued position statements that vegan diets are safe and healthy at allstages of life. I’ve been vegan for 11 years and my bloods are as healthy ifnot more so than they were before I was vegan. Do some vegans encounter diet relatedhealth problems? I’m sure they do, but that’s not because they’re eating avegan diet, it’s because they’re eating an unhealthy vegan diet.

甚至英國國家醫(yī)療服務(wù)系統(tǒng)今天（10月1日，世界素食日）都發(fā)了帖，講的是你如何通過純素飲食得到你需要的所有營養(yǎng)。美國和英國飲食協(xié)會都發(fā)表了立場聲明，聲稱純素飲食在生命的所有階段都是安全健康的。我作為一個純素食者已經(jīng)11年了，我的血液如果沒有比我成為純素食者之前更加健康，也至少同等的健康。一些個純素食者會碰到和飲食相關(guān)的健康問題嗎？我肯定他們會的，但這不是因為他們吃全素，而是因為他們吃全素吃得不健康。

18、The reason whyvegans have lower mortality is that they are richer (poor people cannot affordto be Vegan), and as richer people are less obese that is why they are lessobese.

為什么純素食者的死亡率更低是因為他們更富有（做純素食者是窮人負(fù)擔(dān)不起的），而作為更富有的人他們沒那么肥胖，這就是他們不那么肥胖的原因。??

That you can find three men out of amillion geniuses/near-geniuses who were vegetarians and none who were vegansimplies that meat-eaters are disproportionately more intelligent than vegans.

你在一百萬個天才/準(zhǔn)天才中只能找出三個素食主義者，而且其中純素食者一個也沒有，這表明了在心智方面，食肉者比純素食者更高，且不成比例。

19、As an occasionalvegetarian, I admire the choice made by vegans. Clods like Sitwell shouldn’tlose their jobs simply because of the power of Twittermobs but they should facethe reality of what a billion more Asian consumers adopting Western-stylemeat-heavy diets means for all of us after we have eaten every animal on theplanet.

作為一個偶爾為之的素食主義者，我欽佩純素食者作出的選擇。西特韋爾這樣的棒槌們不應(yīng)該丟掉他們的工作，僅僅因為推特上那些暴民的能量，但他們應(yīng)該面對這樣一個現(xiàn)實：在我們已經(jīng)吃遍了這個星球上所有的動物后，十億多的亞洲消費者采用了西式的以肉為主食的飲食，這對我們所有人意味著什么。

20、If non-vegans feelguilty, there’s a chance that’s because vegans have made them feel as such:non-vegans least favourite thing about vegans is their proselytising andassumption that their choices and values place them on a higher moral planethan primitive carnivores (usually expressed in tones of disappointment, andthe cultish attitude that everyone is on a teleological progression toenlightenment — that is, abstention from consuming animal products). Certainlyit’s a minority’s of vegans that do so, but I guess it’s so annoying that itreally sticks in people’s minds.

如果非素食者感覺到了內(nèi)疚，那就有可能是純素食者讓他們這樣去感覺的：非素食者最不喜歡純素食者的點就是他們的傳教行為，以及假定他們的選擇和價值觀，相較于原始的食肉動物，把他們推上了道德的高地（通常是以一種失望的語氣在表達，以及狂熱的態(tài)度，儼然每個人都處在等著被啟蒙的進程中，即戒吃動物制品）。當(dāng)然了只有少部分的純素食者會這么做，但我猜這實在太煩人了，以至于這檔子破事兒真的杵在了人們的腦瓜里。

21、Veganism is a fad /a fashion like so many other food trends. Publishers and retailers leap uponthis hoping to profit. Go to any second hand bookshop and see the previous foodtrends that have withered or, to be fair, become incorporated in mainstreamfood culture. Step outside the university campuses and you will find thatveganism has not really gained traction.

同其他很多飲食趨勢一樣，素食主義是一時的狂熱/一種風(fēng)尚。出版商和零售商跳上了這艘船，希望能夠獲利。去任何一家二手書店，看看從前那些已經(jīng)涼透了的飲食趨勢，公平起見，也可以看看那些慢慢融入主流飲食文化的。走出大學(xué)校園你就會發(fā)現(xiàn)，純素食主義還沒有獲得真正的牽引力。

22、If you don’t likeliving creatures being killed, I think a better target for your wrath would bethe armed forces and weapons manufacturers/exporters, all of whom are in thebusiness of killing people. I find this far more repugnant than killing animalswhich (in the vast majority of cases) would never have come into existence ifthey were not going to be eaten.

如果你不喜歡看到活的東西被殺掉，那我認(rèn)為你那些憤怒更好的去處是武裝力量和武器制造商/出口商，他們從事的都是殺人這一行。我覺得這個要遠(yuǎn)比殺動物（在絕大多數(shù)情況下）來的讓人反感，這些動物要不是會被吃掉，從一開始就不會存在。

23、I don’t feel anyguilt about eating meat because I am a member of a group (the human race)designed to eat meat as part of our diet.

我不會因為吃肉而感覺到內(nèi)疚，是因為我是一個族群（人族）的一員，而這個族群的先天設(shè)計就是以吃肉作為我們飲食的一部分。