Don’t worry Y-babe - I know you mean no harm. But there still seems to be a whole cohort of vegetarians out there for whom the fact that some people eat no meat except fish is causing endless personal anxiety and woe.
You can stick to your classification of vegetarians as those who eat no meat. I assure you that pescinarians will be FINE with that. The issue only tends to arise when there is some kind of form that needs responding to with the question “Are you vegetarian?” At this point they can choose to respond:
[li]Yes[/li][li]No[/li][li]Yes, except that I eat fish. And prawns. But not lobster or crab. Oh - I eat mussels. What? You don’t like my food choice? Well what business is it of yours? And now you want a debate about it? Well you can… etc etc ad nauseum ad infinitum.[/li]
Well, by ticking “Yes” they miss ONE night of possible fish. Boo hoo. They’ll cope. If there was a box for “pescinarian”, they’d tick it with pleasure - although even then they might have to further subclassify (crab? prawns?)
So go out and make sure all your friends know that a vegetarian meal means NO MEAT. What the fuck are they second-guessing for anyway? They must KNOW that there are at least SOME vegetarians who don’t eat chicken! They couldn’t even check? If I were you, it wouldn’t be the poor ol’ pescinarians that I would be gunning for.
Hmm. Y-babe keeps submitting posts whilst I’m writing mine. This is very annoying. Please stop it
See - I think we are in agreement; that’s why I said that I know that you mean no harm.
Please realise that there is a parallel here:
[li]YOU quite rightly protest that the vast, overwhelming majority of vegetarians just want to be left to eat their veggies in peace and that militant veggies are the small minority that give the rest a bad name.[/li]
[li]The vast, overwhelming majority of pescinarians just want to be left in peace to eat vegetables most of the time - and in particular in public gatherings when asked “Are you a vegetarian?” They will also eat fish on their own terms. By far and away, most do NOT go round saying that “vegetarians eat fish”. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that of the many, MANY pescinarians I’ve known, not one of them has ever claimed that “vegetarians eat fish”. But they will all say that they are vegetarian when asked for an easy life.[/li]
Now you always respond to anti-vegetarian threads. Why? Because you feel that people have an impression of vegetarians as people that try to force their vegetarianism on others. Obviously, this is not true. Well please understand that I feel a similar compulsion to respond when vegetarians start in on pescinarians that tick the vegetarian box. It just isn’t fair to vilify them for something that isn’t their fault.
I’ll clarify again - I have no problem with fish and chicken eaters claiming to be veggie in restaurants or certain other situations, just so they can be assured of not getting fed any red meat. However, it does concern me when a fish or chicken eater will claim to be veggie around friends and associates, who may later see them eat fish/chicken. Because this misinformation will spread, and will end up affecting the rest of us veggies down the road.
I know it’s a big hassle to have to explain our diets. I don’t wish to make it difficult for anyone else. But I also don’t want them to make it more difficult for me.
I personally like the “semi” or “psuedo” vegetarian title. To me, that means that a person isn’t 100% veggie, but adheres to much of the diet. I confess I am ambivalent about the term “pescatarian”. But at least “pescatarian” is a different term used describe people who eat fish. And that does distance them a little bit from the term “vegetarian”, (which is a good thing, in my mind).
I think we are in agreement then. I have a problem with fish/chicken eaters who want to be called vegetarian, and will even argue with me about it. I’ve encountered them more than a few times. It seems like either they don’t really know what vegetarianism is, or, they want to have the “cool” mantle of vegetarianism, but they don’t want to give up Kentucky Fried Chicken. I don’t care if they eat Kentucky Friend Chicken, but I do have a problem with them insisting that vegetarians can eat it!
So yeah. I have zero problem with someone who claims to be veggie, just so they can eat a meatless meal. As long as they never leave people with the incorrect impression that veggies can eat fish/chicken (which is my only issue) why should I care?
I still want to submit this because it contains some salient points and I don’t have time for a rewrite (hey - it’s lunchtime and I have football to be playing!) I would like to soften it though - please take the message without feeling that I hold you personally, yosemitebabe, to any position of impropriety.
OK, scratch the “psuedo”, if you wish! And I understand you hold no ill-will towards me, and I feel the same way towards you!
I think the thing is, we all have to explain ourselves. None of us is exempt from having to explain and justify our diet. It is no easier for a ovo-lacto or a vegan than it is for a person who only eats fish. In fact, I daresay that in some cases, people might look with a slightly more favorable eye upon someone who eats fish, because at least they eat “a little” bit of meat. (But YMMV on that one.)
And as far as people leaping to conclusions: I think it is natural that if a person claims to be veggie, and yet is seen eating fish or chicken, this will merely reinforce the misinformation that has already been spread. I don’t think this is too much of a leap. And I don’t necessarily think that only a lesser class of people will assume that vegetarians eat fish or chicken because of what they observe. Most people don’t know much about vegetarians (at least here in the USA) or vegetarianism. It’s not something they are exposed to frequently, they don’t encounter it every day. And, they don’t really care much about it, either way. It’s not a big part of their lives. So they won’t spend much effort trying to discern the “true” definition. They will just make casual observations, and assume certain things. It’s human nature. So, it’s up to us (veggies - the people that are most affected) to try to clear things up for them.
I do wholeheartedly agree, though. Anyone who creates a whole menu for someone who claims to be vegetarian, without asking for more specifics on their diet is a dolt.
I also will emphasize - I don’t wish to be a huge pain in the ass about it. I don’t wish to argue with someone who knows that veggies don’t eat fish, but still claims to be one in certain situations, for the sake of ease. I don’t give a damn what their personal reasons are for eating, or not eating whatever. No arguments from me about that. I just don’t want the definition of vegetarianism blurred more than it already is. Because if it gets more blurred, situations like what pennylane has encountered will flourish. And I don’t want that. But I’ll try to be as civil as possible about it, certainly!
The fact that vegetarians, or at least the ones here, use the term vegan and vegetarian to distinguish between them makes the point that the definitions are really subject to the reader or the person making the claim. How can someone who calls themself a vegetarian drink milk or eat eggs? Those are animal by products.
I can call myself a vegetarian just because I happen to eat a salad once a day. If I were a vegan, I’d be pissed at vegetarians for trying to make a claim to something that isn’t 100% committed.
Or is it because it’s seen as a status symbol and you don’t want someone creeping on your territory?
A disagreement about who gets to call themselves vegetarian is not a criticism of anyone’s dietary habits. It is a simple matter of semantics. Here are some useful definitions from dictionary.com:
veg·e·tar·i·an (vj-târ-n)
n.
One who practices vegetarianism.
A herbivore.
veg·e·tar·i·an·ism (vj-târ–nzm)
n.
The practice of subsisting on a diet composed primarily or wholly of vegetables, grains, fruits, nuts, and seeds, with or without eggs and dairy products.
veg·an (vgn, vjn)
n.
A vegetarian who eats plant products only, especially one who uses no products derived from animals, as fur or leather.
So a person who eats eggs and dairy products, but no meat, is a vegetarian, whether vegans like it or not. And someone who eats fish or chicken is not a vegetarian. If they want to say that they are, for convenience when ordering food or whatever, that’s fine. But if asked to elaborate, they should specify, at the very least, that they are not strict vegetarians.
Why do you care either way? We have explained, there are vegans, and ovo-lacto vegetarians. These are specific terms, to describe specific diets. There are specific terms used to describe many specific things. What’s so wrong with that?
And I can put on a tiara and call myself a beauty queen. But no one else will believe it, and will consider me deluded for claiming such a thing. If I’m not a beauty queen, I’m not. And no amount of me “considering” myself one, or “claiming” to be one will change that.
No, more like, if you were vegan, you’d be pissed if ovo-lactos claiming they were vegan (which most would not do). Why? Because it is not accurate. It is not the truth. Vegans do not eat dairy products. Hence, someone who does eat dairy products is not vegan. Easy enough to comprehend, I should think.
Have you read any of the previous posts? I mean, I thought we have already gone over it quite thoroughly. We don’t want more incidents like what pennyland described happening. We don’t want to be given a sandwich with chicken in it, when we asked for a vegetarain dish. We don’t want arguments, and scenes. We don’t want any more confusion than already exists.
Key in on the word primarily. That means mostly, not exclusively or only. So the door is opened for chicken fish, or even a burger every once in a while.
Definition #2 says a vegetarian is one who practices vegetarianism, therefore a vegetarian can eat chicken and or fish and no violation occurrs. Maybe the problem is with those who insist on a strict definition.
I bet there’s a thread or argument going on right now somewher by vegetarians who eat fish/chicken complaining that they get confused ‘with those fanatics who don’t eat anything from an animal’.
Yes, Oblong, the key word is primarily. Not once a day, not every once in a while. I call myself vegetarian, but someone who routinely eats fish or chicken should not.
I’ve never known a pescinarian that eats fish more than about once a week.
Hmm. I’ve always thought that pescinarians aren’t vegetarians and that saying they are is purely a convenience thing. But lo and behold, pennylane’s dictionary definition says that they are!
It’s not relevant anyway. I still say that for the main they will cheerfully admit to not being a real vegetarian if pushed, but just adopt the label out of convenience.
Y-babe - interesting about the whole “not that common in the US” thing. Here in the UK, vegetarianism is ubiquitous. Tons of my friends and family are veggies. All restaurants have a healthy variety of vegetarian alternatives, all clearly labeled with the Vegetarian Society’s “V” symbol. I’d find it hard to believe that there are too many people in this country that think vegetarians in general eat chicken or fish.
And yet any time we travel abroad to France, Spain etc, it’s like going back twenty years. One Spanish waiter insisted that a ham sandwich was vegetarian! I can’t even fathom his thinking processes on that one. Any true and strict vegetarian risks starvation within a week.
It’s all about education though - it used to be like that here too. But a few generations of people now have taught restaurants that if they want the custom of their party, they better have some vegetarian choices. And why not? It’s not like non-vegetarians can’t eat them too!
So perhaps (dare I say it) you actually do need to be a touch more militant - at least as far as education is concerned. Make the point of telling restaurants that they have missed a sale due to lack of veggie food. Tell your friends that regardless of what they might hear, vegetarians as a rule won’t eat fish or chicken. Go forth and spread the word
How about every other day? Once a week? Twice a month? Once a month? What is the line?
It doesn’t really matter to me. I don’t have a problem with vegetarians, vegans, pagans, or any other -ism as long as you leave me the fuck alone.
But the spirit of the OP, I agree with. They should leave you alone and let you eat what you want.
Well, of course a discussion on where the line is would be hard to resolve. But the point is - vegetarianism does not differentiate between chicken/fish and other meat. That is a personal distinction, and not one which is included in vegetarianism. If you believe that a person who eats meat only once a week is vegetarian, because his diet is primarily vegetarian, that’s fine. This is simply a loose definition of the term. But if you think chicken and fish are somehow closer to vegetables than beef or pork, that’s wrong. There is no reason to assume that a vegetarian eats chicken or fish. The correct assumption associated with the term is an avoidance of meat altogether, and that includes chicken and fish.
By the way, some dictionaries prefer the stricter definition of the word. This from Merriam-Webster on-line:
Main Entry: veg·e·tar·i·an·ism
Pronunciation: -E-&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun
Date: circa 1851
: the theory or practice of living on a diet made up of vegetables , fruits, grains, nuts, and sometimes eggs or dairy products
The two points I wanted to make are the following:
vegetarianism does not entail abstinence from eggs or dairy products
vegetarianism does not include consumption of chicken and/or fish
These are misconceptions about vegetarians. They are not “strict” or “loose” definitions of vegetarianism.
And what does the dictionary say about people who don’t really want to spend half an hour discussing their personal choices, so just say “vegetarian” because they are happy to live with a vegetarian meal for one night?
What does it say in reference to “true” vegetarians ranting on about those who dare to eat fish and call themselves vegetarian for an easy life?
What does it say about the actual things we’ve been discussing here?
Nothing? Oh? Well then maybe it’s worth abandoning the dictionary’s opinion at this juncture. Just a thought.
I think these are two seperate issues here. Someone who eats fish calling themselves vegetarian (so as to assure a meatless meal in a restaurant) is not what I’d call a huge problem. As long as they know what they are and what they are not (so as to not spread disinformation) I completely understand their motivations in wanting to have less of a hassle at the dinner table.
However, (as you have graciously conceded, kabbes ) in areas where vegetarianism is not common, it is important to keep the definitions clear. There’s enough confusion and strife as it is. I currently live in a Midwestern state that is big on meat-eating. It can be a big chore for me to try to fight against the misinformation. I am from Los Angeles, which has more vegetarians - but still - I encounter ignorance there as well.
The thing I have a problem with is the attitude (that Oblong seems to possess) that someone can call themselves vegetarian if they want to, if they feel they don’t eat that much meat, or whatever. Just 'cuz they wanna be a veggie, doesn’t make them one. Just 'cuz I wanna be a beauty queen, doesn’t make me one. Life’s just unfair that way, but everyone should manage to cope with the reality of it all.
Vegetarianism can’t be whatever Oblong decides it is, (for whatever reason that it matters to him - which I cannot fathom, since I don’t see how this issue affects him personally either way). It is what it is. A vegetarian does not consume animal flesh. That’s it. There doesn’t need to be any extra meaning or baggage or judgments attached to that term. “Vegetarian”. It is what it is. Someone who does not eat animal flesh. Why do people want to insist that you can sometimes, kinda, maybe, sorta eat animal flesh, and yet still be vegetarian? That’s not how the definition works.
kabbes, I thought the dictionary definitions did address two points which we have been discussing here. They didn’t address all the points, no.
I think the definition of “vegetarian” can be useful regarding your second question - involving “true” vegetarians ranting about those who eat fish. As I see it, there are three possible situations in which this could happen:
(a) A vegan criticises people who call themselves “vegetarians” while continuing to eat animal products. Vegans are only a subset of vegetarians - vegetarianism does not entail necessarily giving up eggs or dairy products. So this would be an incorrect criticism.
(b) A strict vegetarian criticises people who call themselves “vegetarians” for being lax. They may occasionally eat meat, use animal stock in soup, or frequent restaurants in which the absence of traces of meat in vegetarian dishes is not assured, and for this they are derided. In this case, I feel that the strict vegetarian is being overly-critical. Even a strict vegetarian probably cannot entirely avoid all traces of meat in what they eat. At any rate, it would be extremely difficult to do so. I think it would be rather arbitrary for the strict vegetarian to consider the more lax vegetarians hypocrites or liars just because their avoidance of meat is not as constant.
Mmmmmm smjatt smjatt, you wonderful wonderful people, you always remind me that a shitty day could be worse; all this talk of food has made me hungry…. Vegetarian, meat, really I don’t care now I just want food……
Ps. Lesath I agree, that woman is a bitch, no one should care what you eat as long as it isn’t a close relative of theirs or an important body part of their own, but you are a vegetarian so that’s not going to happen, try spitting some spinach on her shoes when ever she comes close to you, I promise she will end up avoiding you.
As for the rest, how did this rant end up where it is???
Bah to lazy to end this with any respect
The Unbeliever.
pennylane: I think you’ve pretty much nailed it for me, with one small nitpick. I don’t think that a person who knows (and concedes) that they will occasionally (perhaps very rarely) eat animal flesh is vegetarian. (Well, of course they are vegetarian during their long spurts of abstaining from meat!)
But if, for instance, they know (and everyone else around them knows) that they will eat the Thanksgiving turkey, or eat a few other meat dishes now and then - I think that can start to get confusing for everyone else. I don’t personally have a problem with a person making occasional exceptions to their no-meat diet, but if (for instance) they insist that they are vegetarian, yet are noticed making exceptions, it does blur the definition. And then the rest of us will have to deal with, “Well, my friend Wendy is a vegetarian, and she eats Thanksgiving turkey!” or, “Can’t you make this exception? My friend Wendy sometimes does!” Argggh.
I agree that it is a bit picky and harsh for strict veggies to expect all other veggies to go to great lengths never to consume any animal products. It’s almost impossible to do that. (I’ve even read a Vegetarian Times article that expressed a simular sentiment. It’s just too exhausting to be constantly on guard for every possible molecule of animal product that might be hidden anwwhere.) However, I think it still is important to educate people so that they know that vegetarians do not eat chicken broth, or lard, etc. Just because some of us probably have (in ignorance) consumed it doesn’t mean that we want to, or that we willingly put such stuff in our own recipes.
I think a major line is drawn (for most veggies) when it comes to actually consuming animal flesh in its whole form (as in chunks of meat), even on rare occasions. This is a line I daresay a lot of vegetarians do not want to cross, and they don’t want the impression to be given that even on rare occasions, vegetarians will eat actual animal flesh. That doesn’t mean that a person who does eat animal flesh occasionally is worthy of derision. But certainly the impression should not be given that vegetarians can eat meat “just this once” or “once in a great while”. (Not that I think you were implying that. )
And I understand you hold no ill-will towards me, and I feel the same way towards you!