Imprint Office Debates: Veganism/Vegetarianism


On St. Patrick’s Day this year, while most UW students were out painting the streets of Waterloo green, Imprint editors and contributors were at a more exclusive and elite, upper echelon event — a pizza party social at the Imprint office. 

As I went to grab my pepperoni pizza, I saw some vegetarian pizzas and instinctively remarked “Ew!” (like any normal person would).

This prompted some editors to start discussing the ‘merits’ and demerits of veganism and vegetarianism. I shared my first (and only) argument that I would never turn vegan because I like having friends. This was countered by the vegans and vegetarians in the room who claimed they have friends. Other vegans, I’m guessing… though I’m surprised even they can tolerate each other. Apparently they have some meat eating friends as well (umm… I’ll come up with something. Give me time).

They continued talking about health issues, animal rights and the environment or something like that. I can’t be entirely sure — they weren’t making a lot of sense and to be fair I wasn’t really listening either. 

The conclusion of this debate was (at least as far as I recall) that the only way anyone should ever turn vegan or even consider it is if their doctor advises them to stop having a social life, but other than that I’m sure cholesterol problems and heart attacks are not too far away — if the world doesn’t end because of climate change first, that is.

P.S. If Nancy Meyers is somehow reading this — firstly, why? Secondly, this is satire and I think vegetarians can be awesome and also be the best filmmakers in the world! ~ Sincerely, your biggest fan.


The writer of this piece has since changed his views on veganism and vegetarianism. This is totally because he has since become a more open-minded person who has learnt to respect the fact that people can have different dietary choices. This has nothing to do with the fact that Imprint’s Managing Editor (the writer’s boss) is a vegetarian. Any suggestions otherwise or implications that the writer is some kind of opportunistic sycophant have no basis in reality and should be ignored.