I’m a level five vegan. I don’t eat anything with a shadow.
if meat was banned… kitty would start looking tasty.
I would vote HELL no. Give me my T-bone, ratbastids!
Gimme ham, gimme bacon, gimme tuna on rye.
salty pork, tasty ribs, succulent shepherd’s pie.
thin sliced tongue, pickled feet, deep-fried froggy legs.
german sausage, mcBurgers, gimme steaks, grits n eggs!
mmmmmmm MEAT.
Venoma puts down the pom-poms
(didn’t work with liquor, won’t work with meat 
)
Crafter Man, I’m vegetarian. No way would I support a ban on meat. But then I wouldn’t even try to convince omnivores to alter their diet.
The vegetarians I know of that might be deluded enough to advocate such lunacy would be the PETA folks. Oh, and Hitler.
I would vote no, I’m a vegan and that’s my choice. If someone eats meat, that’s their choice. Any law such as that goes against everything this country stands for. I do feel however, that if everyone was forced to slaughter and prepare their own meat, this country would have a hell of a lot more vegetarians in it.
And for the record IF YOU EAT CHICKEN YOU ARE NOT A VEGETARIAN, “i’m a vegetarian but I eat chicken.” or the good ol’ “I’m mostly vegetarian” or my favorite “I only eat meat sometimes” god that drives me crazy. If you only eat meat once in awhile then you are NOT a vegetarian. If it was alive, and could walk around (or swim)and eat on it’s own then dammit, it’s an animal and you are NOT a vegetarian if you eat it.
So the next time one of you meat eaters are tempted to say to a vegetarian “but you eat chicken and fish right?” save your breath. We don’t. The real ones don’t anyway.
Well, you’re right about that. It’s hard enough to find a place to park my car in this neighborhood.
Perhaps. As someone who has “slaughtered” and “prepared” his own meat, I think it tastes better that way.
Vegetables are what food eats
I agree, except that I’m this way (I eat everything except mammals - nice and convoluted, eh?) and I usually find it much easier, when asked, to claim vegetarianism rather than try to explain my preferences.
Easy way: “No meat in that breakfast burrito, please, I’m vegetarian.”
Hard way: “No meat in that breakfast burrito, please, I don’t eat mammals. No, that’s not ‘red meat’ - I don’t eat cows, pigs, llamas, muskrats, buffalo (except the wings) or people.” Argument ensues…
It helps that I’m in Northern California, where vegetarianism is considered normal.
Glad to hear it.
For the record, I have absolutely no problem w/ vegetarians who have no problem with me eating meat. As eluded to in my question, they only vegetarians I despise are the ones who want to take away my right to eat meat. An you’re right; it’s more of the PETA/ALF folks who are of that ilk.
ALF scares me-they want to eliminate people having PETS for crissakes!
Isn’t someone who only eats certain kinds of meat considered semi-vegetarian?
Or can’t we just say that to end all arguments?
No, that starts arguments In the vegetarian “community” there are two accepted types: Vegans, who eat no animal products at all (“animal products” including all dairy, eggs, and usually honey), and ovo-lacto vegetarians, who eat no animal products that require the death of the animal to produce (meat, lard or tallow, gelatin, etc.) but who will eat eggs, dairy, and honey. There are some who eat dairy but not eggs, or eggs but not dairy, and some who will only eat free-range eggs or milk, but they’re generally lumped into the ovo-lacto category. Occasionally the term “pesco-vegetarian” is thrown around (a vegetarian that eats fish), however this term is guaranteed to start a shitblizzard on any vegetarian board. (If you think the vegetarian/non-vegetarian debates get nasty here, you should see some of THOSE fights. Yowza.)
It does make things a bit harder for vegans and ovo-lacto vegetarians when someone who does eat some meat refers to themselves as vegetarian, because it is sometimes then assumed that all vegetarians will eat fish, or chicken, or whatever. A vegetarian is someone who eats no meat, period.
I prefer to think of myself as a “carno-vegetarian”.
I know quite a few carno-vegetarians. They’re all fundamentalist Christians, and always cite Isiah 40:6
Oh here we go. As usual, there are a whole horde of vegetarians who think that everybody’s food choice is their own business except when it comes to vegetarians who also eat fish and/or chicken.
Talk about a fucking double standard.
So someone eats no meat except for fish. So they call themselves a vegetarian because it is very important to them that they don’t get fed other meat and nobody knows what a “pescinarian” is. And they are happy for people to think that they don’t eat fish, because that way they guarantee not being served a steak. What the fuck does it matter to you, hypocrite fucks? Leave the poor souls in peace, shitheads.
Oh boo hoo, you occasionally get asked if you eat chicken. I’m weeping for you here. Ever hear of the word “no”?
People’s food choice is complicated. You should know that better than anyone. And trying to survive in a world that is hostile to those who don’t eat meat is tricky enough without having to give a fucking dissertation to all your associates every time you go into a restaurant. So they say that they are vegetarian. I say again - so fucking what?.
I really hate hypocrites.
pan
If you eat fish and/or poultry, you’re not a vegetarian. There is nothing “hypocritical” about this statement. The likelihood of being served a surpise steak that you didn’t order or ask for is pretty low. Having to explain what vegetarians do and do not eat in excruciating detail happens quite frequently. Misunderstanding what “vegetarian” means leads to awkward situations like going to someone’s house for dinner and being unable to eat what they’ve prepared for you because it contains fish or chicken broth.
I really hate people who have nothing better to do than pick a fight.
Oh fuck off. I didn’t pick this fight. I wasn’t the one getting all holier-than-thou on pescinarian ass.
If you want to act like an arsehole, then expect to be called one.
Try this: your work is arranging its Christmas dinner. There is a box to tick for vegetarian. You are a pescinarian. Now, do you tick that box or do you try to argue the toss?
You’ve been invited around for dinner. It’s someone you’re not bosom buddies with - an old friend of your SO, for example. Do you just say you’re a vegetarian or do you try to explain all the details and risk them getting it wrong?
Bear in mind in both these cases that the downside of saying you’re a “vegetarian” is that you don’t get fish. Boo hoo. Whereas the downside risk of explaining yourself is that you get misunderstood and are served food that you cannot eat.
And most important of all: anyone who has made a food choice gets questioned about it. People are curious. But as all you vegetarians must know, it becomes exceedingly tedious to be constantly explaining your personal choices again and again and again and again and again and again and…
So a pescenarian finally gives in to the tedium and, if asked, just says “vegetarian”. Sue them.
Anyone who casts aspersions on what anybody else eats, the way they present that choice or looks down on them for it is a FUCKWITTED ARSEHOLE. And that includes vegetarians who like to bleat on about evil fish-eating vegetarians. Just get the FUCK over it and move on with your life, penis-brain.
pan
Kabbes, I thought we already resolved this, in a rather civil way, so I don’t understand your increased ire over this issue.
For myself, I don’t “look down” or otherwise have any problem with someone who eats fish or chicken. I think they are doing something great - good for them! Fantastic! But when they (for their own ease) claim to be a “regular” vegetarian, they do make it increasingly difficult for the rest of us veggies.
If it were a simple matter of me saying “no” when someone offers me fish or chicken, it wouldn’t matter so much. But as many of of veggies will testify, we get arguments. We get confusion, and difficulties. We get, “But my friend Wendy is a vegetarian, and she eats chicken! So I prepared you this special chicken dish. And you’re now telling me you won’t eat it?” It’s not hard to imagine the scenarios. And they can be unpleasant.
So, what is so difficult about a person who limits their meat intake to fish and/or chicken to saying they are “mostly vegetarian”, “almost vegetarian”, “psuedo-vegetarian”, or something like that? Won’t that get their point across about as effectively, without blurring the definition of vegetarianism quite so much? Why should the rest of us have to accept the consequences because some people want to spread an innacuracy, to make things easier for themselves? They need to be mindful that they are also making it more difficult for the rest of us. And I repeat, they are making it more difficult for the rest of us.
Besides, what is the point of vegetarianism anyway, if it can mean whatever each individual “decides” it means? Is vegetarianism something specific, or is it just anything each person wants it to be? The whole point of adhering to a specific diet or discipline becomes pointless, if anyone can just say “Well, I consider myself xxx, therefore I am.” Why shouldn’t people be confused, when vegetarianism can mean…whatever? And how will spreading an untruth help this confusion?
Oh - and if your friends gives you chicken or fish after you’ve told them that you are a vegetarian, then that is your friend’s problem. Not the fish-eater that gave in for the sake of an easy life and just replies “yes” when asked if they are a vegetarian.
Because that’s what it comes down to, in 99.99% of the cases. Being asked “Are you a vegetarian” and choosing to respond:
[li]“Yes”[/li][li]“No”; or[/li][li]“Actually, I don’t eat animal products but I will eat fish. And prawns, but not lobster. What’s that? WHY do I eat those things but not others? Well I think that’s none of your business. Oh? You don’t like my choices? Well, you can go…” etc etc ad nauseum ad infinitum.[/li]
Just make sure that your friends understand that being a vegetarian means NO MEAT. I assure you that the pescinarians will not object.
And as for the hypocrisy - well complaining that people give you a hard time for choosing to be a vegetarian and then giving others a hard time for what THEY eat is the very essence of hypocrisy, you hypocrite.
So bite me. If your philosophy allows it.
pan
kabbes, I call myself “vegetarian” even though I eat fish, because I live somewhere where vegetarianism is really, really uncommon and it is almost impossible to maintain a vegetarian diet (barring becoming a hermit). So I insist on calling myself “vegetarian” even though I very occasionally force myself to eat fish when absolutely no other option is available and I don’t want to offend by refusing to eat altogether. However, I have to say that this is an inaccurate term. A “vegetarian” is not someone who eats chicken or fish. If this misconception continues, vegetarians everywhere will find themselves in the same situation I am in - with no true vegetarian options.
I was in a train once travelling from France to Italy. The journey took about eight hours so I decided to get a snack halfway through. I saw that there was a vegetarian option available on the menu. When I asked for it, I was presented with a suspicious-looking sandwich. I asked what was in it, and I was told, “Just vegetables.” Upon further inquiry, these vegetables were found to be “just lettuce and chicken”.
I don’t like the fact that dishes containing chicken or fish are considered “vegetarian”. Yes, I can just say “no”, as I did in this case (I had some Pringles and peanuts instead). But I find that many people think a chicken or fish option will suffice for vegetarians. If it is fish, then I will reluctantly accept it, because I’ve learnt that it is asking too much to expect a real vegetarian option to be available. Fish is not a “real” vegetarian option.
kabbes, I think pennylane is illustrating an exellent example of why blurring the definition of vegetarianism affects all vegetarians.
I will clarify here - if a fish or chicken eater claims to be vegetarian (like pennylane does) so they can be assured of getting a completely meat-free meal in a restaurant, (or wherever) well, that’s completely understandable. I have zero problem with that.
In pennylane’s case, she wants a completely meat-free meal, so that’s what she asks for. If, however, pennylane were to go around saying (as she eats fish) “Yes, I am a vegetarian. Yes, vegetarians definitely can eat fish”, well, I would have a problem with that. Because it’s not true. But I wouldn’t have a problem with her eating fish. I wouldn’t try to talk her out of eating fish. I don’t give a damn either way. I just wouldn’t want her to tell other people that vegetarians eat fish. Because as she so clearly points out, the more people that believe that, the more times we’re going to go to restaurants and diners, and find fish and chicken in our “vegetarian” dishes. There will be more confusion, more difficulties. And I reserve the right to protest that, and try to speak up, and correct the misinformation. Because it affects me.