I don't like to spend large amounts of time cooking. That's why when I make something that is not quick, I generally make enough to have leftovers. Soups are especially good for this, because they are easy to make in large quantities and easy to get lots of nutrition into.
Yea, but you do spend time making things that are not quick. That's the point...this is a luxury many families today don't have. When both parents are working 3 jobs between them, there is no "when I make something not quick".
Can you offer a source on this? I don't doubt that people gravitate toward faster, lower-effort options, but I'm skeptical of the notion that those decisions are purely rational and that more nutritional knowledge and cooking skills wouldn't allow them to be better off cooking more at home.
This is well studied.
I contend that vegetarian dishes can taste very good, but really, giving kids mostly fast food fare leads to nutritional problems that need to be overcome even if one is not considering going vegetarian.
Absolutely, vegetarian can taste good, but usually the choice is picking any one of tasty, fast, and cheap.
And of course the industrial food choice option leads to bad health...you pay less now and more later. But this is no different than the calculus that poor people face everyday, just like payday loans for instance. Why should food be any different?
This may seem crass, so you can call me any names you like, but people having children they can't afford is its own issue, and solving it will probably require better sex education, better access to birth control, and changing the belief that having kids is "just what you do" when you get older. That is to say, I don't think it's fair to disparage vegetarianism because of this socioeconomic issue.
To be clear I wasn't calling you names, I was just saying this view that is often voiced by pro-vegetarian people is elitist. I'm not placing a value judgment when I say this, I don't mean it to be disparaging...I'm just stating it as simple fact backed by all the research.
I also believe that families shouldn't have kids they can't afford. However, given that they do, the natural extension of your own viewpoint is to stop promoting expensive vegetarianism until this problem is addressed ... unless you have a better answer than "I don't like the reality of the situation."
Also, consider that it's not always the case that people have children they can't afford...but having children is a long-term commitment. You have kids for 18 (these days 20+) years. Do you mean to say that no one should have kids unless they have enough security to cover that entire time? I think very few people would qualify, and the only young people would all end up being from rich families.
Not only is it fair to disparage vegetarianism's unwillingness to confront this issue, it's necessary. When you make the argument that people should all avoid cheap factory farmed meat, there is a human cost to that. Every time you raise the price of meat—even for a good cause—there are poor families that will be affected. This doesn't happen in a vacuum, so human and animal welfare are in direct opposition here.
When I listen to vegetarians promote their lifestyle, or the more extreme vegans, raw foodists, gluten-free people, etc, etc, I always have to shake my head and wonder if anyone representing this view has ever run a soup kitchen or a food pantry. Seriously, go volunteer and see if you can convince the director that it will be cheaper, the food will be tastier, and people will be healthier if only they'd convert the operation to a completely vegan menu.
This is what many vegetarians don't want to confront: This lifestyle is an option for you because you probably lead a privileged life, but for those that don't have those same advantages, it's just not feasible.