JUICE anyone?

Thanks for waiting “skanger” (my god, why call yourself that anyway?!)

My RE-discovery two weeks ago is an amazing restaurant. “JUICE” on Georges Street. Two doors down THE GEORGE, this vegetarian restaurant really rocks and puts new meaning to “lean cuisine”

Dieting women, neo-hippies, and body image conscious teens have recently been swept by the VEGETARIAN CRAZE…People think that just because they cut out meat out of their diet, they will lose weight. Honestly, it’s not gonna happen because most “converted” vegetarians just end up being walking pasta bowls.

Anyway, I digress.

The reason why I write about JUICE, is because my room-mate is a vegetarian. Strictly for moral reasons, she started going veggie at a young age. She will NOT buy fur, touch meat, etc etc..As for me, I had a medical reason for going veggie (I will divulge that in the near future)

The thing bout JUICE is that it is GOOD, WHOLESOME, food. Lots of vegetarian places have indian food, or roasted vegetables, but they often end up being bland, loaded with carbs, and not-too filling.

In sweeps Juice with their coconut-peanut sauces, amazing filo pastries, and TO DIE FOR plates of dips and hummus.

Although the service isnt amazing their, the atmosphere is casual enough to go with a friend, and intimate enough for a couple. And you know what? You dont even have to be vegetarian to go there! it will satisfy anyone’s craving for food. Unless you are gung-ho steak and potatoes eater, this place is definitely an awesome place to chow down at.

Their lunch deals are great too! Even for a student like myself, although it may be on the high-priced side, it is definitely WAY more food, and much more satisfying than a sandwich-on-the-go.

Give the place a try! http://www.juicerestaurant.ie/menus/brunch.html

6 Comments so far

  1. iblees (unregistered) on February 16th, 2007 @ 12:42 pm

    I never got the logic of vegetarians, I understand the folks who are vegetarians due to certain medical conditions; humans are omnivores by nature (and due to their physiological adaptations), how come some treat it as a moral choice when it’s a clearly matter of anthropological spectrum where we belong?

    From wikipedia,
    “As with all omnivorous species they are capable of sustaining themselves with diets of just meat or vegetables but both must be carefully managed to avoid health problems (notably anemia with vegetarians and heart disease with those who eat diets made up mostly of meat). The digestive system and dentition of Homo sapiens serve as a prime example of omnivorous adaptations.”

    I’m totally against hunting of endangered species, hunting for pleasure, hunting for non-consumption uses or hunting for business… but not to eat meat, just because of so-called moral issues which are result of some propaganda, I don’t think so.

    I once asked a vegetarian friend of mine, what about carnivore plants, how come you don’t eat meat but some “plants” do? Way of the nature…

  2. flotsam (unregistered) on February 17th, 2007 @ 3:57 pm

    “humans are omnivores” – Yep, absolutely. So what did humans eat during the thousands of years before they learnt how to hunt? Because of their physiology humans have a choice over what they eat which the majority of other living organisms don’t have. If you want to live on a meat-diet so be it, if you prefer to live on a more leafy diet that’s your choice – whatever steams your dumpling. No need to get uptight over someone else’s decision because you don’t understand.

    “so-called moral issues” – I’m neither condemning nor defending vegetarians and I don’t really want to state the obvious but some people see it as wrong to kill and eat other animals, just as some believe it is wrong to kill and eat other people. Other people are a little more relaxed about such matters and are quite happy to eat animals provided they didn’t suffer unnecessarily during life or at the end. They would each tell you they were basing their habits on morally sound views. Some will eat animals without giving a thought to their welfare while they were alive. Is that a moral issue?

    “some propaganda” – what are you referring to? Please explain.

  3. iblees (unregistered) on February 19th, 2007 @ 9:59 am

    Someone with ‘little’ knowledge about human history can tell early eating habits and survival techniques.

    “Hunting has an extremely long history and may well predate the rise of species Homo sapiens. While our earliest primate ancestors were probably insectivores there is evidence that we have used larger animals for subsistence for up to 1.8 million years and that hunting may have been one of the multiple environmental factors leading to replacement of holocene megafauna by smaller herbivores.”

    Mr. Flotsam, the point is not to argue what is right or what is wrong, as we’re not judging it, what i said was if one want to live in/according to the nature, then follow the rules of nature. it’s simple science, if i want to be in a frame of reference i’ve to observe the rules of that environment.

  4. flotsam (unregistered) on February 19th, 2007 @ 11:05 pm

    First you say you are not judging what is right or wrong but in the same sentence you state we must follow the rules of nature. Rules mean that some things are right and some things are wrong – yes? Why are you contradicting yourself?
    “the point is not to argue what is right or what is wrong, as we’re not judging it” – if you’re not arguing what is right or right and not judging, what are you doing? Please read your posts carefully and don’t contradict them. If you want to disagree with a view, so be it, that’s your choice.
    Humans have probably been eating animals for 1.8 million years, plus or minus a couple of weeks, I don’t dispute that, and for 2.7 million years before that our ancestors probably ate insects, leaves, berries and roots. Again no dispute. So our ancestors were herbivorous and insectivorous [not carnivorous] in habit. They would still have the potential to eat meat but the choice wouldn’t be there as they would have been no better at hunting than present day apes. Today, because of the nature of our physiology and the technology we’ve acquired, we have a choice, we can either eat meat or not as we choose. However, the view you put forward is a little more limited in that we have no choice, i.e. there is one question and one answer and anything else is wrong.

  5. iblees (unregistered) on February 20th, 2007 @ 9:56 am

    Few facts from history and quoting science indeed makes my view very limited.

    Let me clear couple of things before i “judge”.
    – This is NOT the case of holier-than-thou.
    – This is NOT my personal blog.

    Regarding “contradicting” myself, when i said “rules”, i meant “rules of science” not the rules of society. i (hopelessly) assumed there that people can distinguish between laws of science/nature and laws of morality/society.

    An object in the nature “following” the laws of that environment e.g., breathing. May be some people confuse the idea of having different choices with myth of free will, but that, IMHO, not going to change the course of nature.

  6. Lilijana (unregistered) on February 20th, 2007 @ 1:53 pm

    Guys! It’s just a short piece about eating at a good restaurant!! :) Not about the ethics of vegetarianism.

    Let people eat what they want to eat!

    It makes em happy!!

Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.