Hey, did anyone know that this is vegan awareness month? Just thought I’d throw that out there 
I asked you, “where is the mention of meat”? Like, in the words, meat? And the correct answer is - the word meat is not mentioned.
You are making an assumption. And you are also basing your whole premise one a one sentence entry in a dictionary. Sorry, that will not suffice. Vegetarianism is a bit more complex than one sentence. I don’t believe we should all be held to that one sentence (which, I might add, does not even say that vegetarians can eat meat! You just want to assume that it does.)
Do you think all things in this world should be defined to the one sparce sentence used to describe them in a dictionary? And do you think it is really appropriate to make assumptions (read between the lines) about a dictionary entry, and expect the rest of us (like Vegetarian Times, etc.) to respect that mere one sentence entry? Like it’s the final word of authority? When we actually know a little more about the issue?
“Go after them”? In what way? What is so wrong about asking someone not to spread misinformation? We are not asking them to stop eating anything. And we don’t want them to feel bad (well, I speak for myself here) for eating whatever they choose. It’s just about them spreading incorrect information, that’s all.
Do you really think everyone who assumes that veggies can eat chicken and fish get this information from a dictionary? Really? Or do you think that they get if from people who go around eating poultry and fish, and yet claim that they are veggie? Let me tell you, I have never had anyone say to me, “But I believe that the dictionary definition implies…” No. I have never heard that. What I have heard, without exception, is “Well, I know someone who is a vegetarian, and they eat fish!” Why the hell else do you think we have our knickers in a bunch about the misinformation people spread? Because people are the source of the bad information, not the dictionaries.
Cite please? 
We have had many thread debating how certain ‘perceptions’ are indeed not reality. (i.e. “Fat people are lazy”, and on and on. That’s certainly a perception many people have. Is it reality?)
Yes, and I am dealing with it, by informing people. I’m not going to just throw up my hands and say “Well, some people might interpret the dictionary’s definition to mean that maybe, kinda, sorta veggies can eat fish or chicken, so lah-de-dah, I guess I’ll just give up then!” Since when does any specialized group just “give up” when they are convinced that there is a commonly held misconception out there?
If you eat some kinds of meat, but not others, just say you’re a picky eater. It’s easier.
Oh Guin, Guin. Do you really want to start an argument with me?
Why doesn’t a vegetarian just say they are a picky eater? Please give me one reason why the situation is any different.
pan
Kabbes,
It’s different because vegetarianism is a SPECIFIC DIET. Being a picky eater is not. This ENTIRE arguement is over the fact that people are misinforming people about what is included IN the diet (in general) which is no meat,not whether or not the diet exists. That’s not too difficult a concept to grasp.
Why don’t vegetarians just say they’re picky eaters? I’m sorry, but that is the dumbest argument i’ve heard in a long time. You’re reaching now.
Actually, I think kabbes has a good point now. If someone who’s given up red meat is “picky” then so is a vegetarian.
Of course, if not many people share your particular kind of diet it will be hard to describe it. An easily recognisable term is probably not going to be coined just for you and, say, the three other people in the world who eat cod but not salmon, prawns but not shrimp, pork but not lamb, etc. If you have an extremely personalised diet and you are asked to specify what kind of meal you want for dinner, there’s nothing wrong with choosing the one which suits you best (this, I believe, is kabbes’ main point of contention). But you should recognise that you don’t conform to the specific diet, as lezler indicated.
I never said that there was anything wrong with a picky eater checking the vegetarian box on a R.S.V.P card…
My problem is with people who walk around boasting that they’re vegetarians when they don’t stick to a vegetarian diet, and are vocal about it. THAT IS ALL.
And yes, people that don’t eat red meat are clumped into the “picky eater” catagory. People who consume no meat are clumped into the “vegetarian” catagory. People who consume no animal products are clumped into the “vegan” catagory. That is the difference.
They are pretty damn general catagories.
As soon as there is a specific and well known name for a diet for people that don’t eat red meat, they can call themselves by that name. But there is not (that I know of) and that is why vegetarians should not have to refer to ourselves as picky eaters and meat eaters do.
“Boasting” of being a vegetarian? What in the hell is there to boast of? Someone who doesn’t eat ANY meat can, apparently, boast but someone who doesn’t eat SOME meat is just “picky”?
You see Y-babe? You see pennylane? This is why I react so quickly to vegetarians picking on almost-vegetarians. Because so often there is a smug attitude associated with it.
I am proud of the fact that I will eat any meal placed in front of me - no matter how apparently gross many people find it. I declare you ALL to be picky eaters. Won’t eat snails? Picky eater. Won’t eat a sheep’s heart? Picky eater. Won’t eat pickled maggots? Picky eater. Happy now?
Condescension will get you precisely nowhere.
(Happy now Guin?)
pan
Well, for my part, I quite readily admit that I’m a picky eater.
Well, I’m given to understand that there are supposedly eight categories of vegetarianism; vegan being one and lacto-ova-vegetarian (like me) being another. I really can’t remember the others at the moment. Wouldn’t you say that “non-vegetarian” would be pretty much the “eat everything on your plate, even if it’s still moving” general segment of the American public?
Read more carefully Kabbes, I never said I condone or agree with “boasting” about vegetarianism, to each their own there, I am just saying that the “boasting” vegetarians I have observed quite often say that they eat fish and chicken thereby (and boast about that) making life more difficult for the rest of us. If a vegetarian wants to boast, fine, if a meat eater wants to boast, fine, boast to your hearts content, just make sure you’re boasting correct information.
Oops, sorry, wrong thread. Apologies to all.
At the risk of starting this up again…
There’s a world of difference between “vegetarian” and “picky eater”. Often there is a compelling ethical, moral, or religious reason behind making the choice to be vegetarian. (Not always. Yes, some are vegetarian purely for health reasons, and I’ve even known of a few that just didn’t like the taste of meat. Vegetarians are not one monolithic entity.) Picky eaters just don’t like certain foods.
FTR, I am both. 
Yes, I’m a vegetarian, but that doesn’t mean I like all vegetables. I despise brussels sprouts and cabbage, for example, and I also have food allergies. Mr. Gemini eats meat, but won’t touch tomato products or anything with vinegar in it. Makes for big fun at mealtime Chez Gemini, let me tell you.
I was simply asking, because some people will eat no red meat, but will eat poultry. Or someone who eats fish, only.
Can I just ask one last thing?
What did vegetarian Catholics eat on Fridays during Lent?
d&r
KIDDING!!! I’M KIDDING!!! Hey-put down the baseball bat…what are you doing…MOOOOOMMMMEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
This conversation is reminding me of Hermann Hesse’s great short story, Dr. Knoegle’s End. (1910) Dr. Knoegle is retired schoolteacher who adopts a vegetarian diet after experiencing some poor health.
The story relates Dr. Knoegle’s experiences when he joins a commune of European vegetarians in Asia Minor. It could have been written yesterday.
[sub](It’s included in The Fairy Tales of Hermann Hesse.)[/sub]
VeraGemini - that is precisely my point. I’m glad someone finally got it, even if it wasn’t actually in response to what I was saying.
For those of you wondering why I’m so hung up on this, some background. My SO (the kabbess) is a pescinarian. My mother also used to be one, until anaemia forced her to reconsider.
They both had and have complex sociological, philosophical and personal reasons for their choices. But for both of them, these reasons allow them to eat fish (my mother) and seafood (the kabbess). The idea - even the merest hint - that they may have become vegetarian to boast about being vegetarian is so far beyond insulting that I almost feel it necessary to send the Sopranos round.
Picky eaters, Guin and lezlers? You utter bastards. The kabbess loves red meat. It drives her bonkers not to eat a roast dinner when I get one at the pub. It always has done, ever since she made her choice at age 13.
I just can’t imagine anything more condescending than to call her a “picky eater”. She’s an ethical person who has made a tough choice in a hostile world.
Incidentally - in India there are many tribes that drink cow urine. In Siberia they make a pungent brew out of fermented bear’s milk. These are both at least lacto-vegetarian acceptable. Will you eat them?
Hell - will you eat all normal vegetarian meals? If not, you’re the fucking “picky eater”.
Now fuck off.
pan
I’ll type real slow now for you so you can understand…
It doesn’t specifically mention meat but it infers that meat is acceptable with this sentence “primarily or wholly of vegetables, grains, fruits, nuts, and seeds, with or without eggs and dairy products.” You see, that means that it is a diet that is either mostly (to what degree is debatable) veggies, grains, fruits, nuts, seeds, and maybe dairy products(the word primarily does this) or wholly veggies, grains, fruits, nuts, seeds, and maybe diary products (the word wholly does this). If you don’t know, the word “Or” means it can be one or the other.
The only group of food not mentioned among that list is meat (poultry, red, pork). If it meant to say meat wasn’t allowed it would have read “wholly of vegetables, grains, fruits, nuts, and seeds, with or without eggs and dairy products.” To give you an analogy, the words “seperation of church and state” do not appear in the constitution. Yet, the Supreme Court of the US has said that the concept can be derived from the words that do appear. Very similarly, the words ‘meat, poultry, or pork’ do not appear in that definition but the words that are used infer, by default, that these meats can be eaten.
If you want to be educated, then yes. The dictionary doesn’t make the rules, the dictionary reflects what society is thinking. Obviously there’s a bunch of people who think that vegetarians who eat some meat can be called vegetarians or else the definition wouldn’t be there. If I didn’t read the definition on this thread, I would have assumed it never existed. But it’s there for a reason so that perception is valid.
It’s not incorrect. You don’t agree with it but that doesn’t mean it’s incorrect. Veggie Times or other groups or people are not the final authority any more than the dictionary is. Unless there’s a membership somewhere to be had, it’s open.
Cite for what? Common sense? The internet or SDMB is not the end all for knowledge. In marketing and public relations, it doesn’t matter what the ‘facts’ may be. All that matters is perception. If you sell cars and the perception is that the car is crap, then you have to base your marketing on dealing with that. Knowing in the back of your mind that it’s not true will not sell more cars. It’s the reality you have to deal with if you want to succeed. Either change the perception or fix the reality.
That relates to this debate in this sense. There is no official vegetarian club, ID Card, or bracelet. It’s like political party affiliation. There is no set standard for being called a Republican. There’s a broad set of ideas that most Republicans follow but they are not exclusive. You can be a pro choice, pro affirmative action, pro labor person and still be a Republican. That’s what this is about. Veggie-ism is not a church with a doctrine that you must accept to join. You are trying to change people’s idea on what a vegetarian is. It’s been proven through these many examples that it’s a common understanding that some people eat meat and still call themselves vegetarian. That is neither right nor wrong. That is the reality you have to deal with if you want to change the perception. The way to do that is to be nice about it.
Oblong, I don’t really understand what you’re arguing here.
The dictionary.com definition proves a point which I was trying to make, which is that vegetarianism does not distinguish between chicken/fish and other types of meat. Are we agreed on this point?
You also use this definition to prove that vegetarianism can include some amount of meat. But you agree it is impossible to determine what this amount is. So according to your definition, someone who eats steak every day, but eats a salad every day too, can truthfully call himself vegetarian. In this case, vegetarianism has no meaning. The only people who could not call themselves vegetarians would be carnivores - people who actually eat nothing but meat. Is this what you are saying?
Not at all. All I’m saying is that the definition is flexible to include those who eat meat sometimes. Yosemitbabe doesn’t agree with that definition, and that’s fine. I didn’t create it, or even bring it up. But that definition exists and has merit. There’s a reason they put that defined it that way. It’s not a question of how I define someone, it’s how they choose to be defined. If someone wants to be called a vegetarian and still eats meat, then that is supported. If other vegetarians have a problem with that definition, then it’s their problem, not anyone elses. They don’t have a claim on the word.
But what does “vegetarian” mean in that case?
If you’re trying to say that vegetarians don’t have to be extremely strict about what they eat, then in that case I agree with you. In my opinion, this is what the phrase “primarily or wholly” indicates in the definition. I don’t think it’s reasonable to assume that all vegetarians will be equally firm about avoiding animal products. For example, some will eat couscous or vegetable soup knowing that animal stock could have been used in the making. I wouldn’t say that these people were lying for calling themselves vegetarian. But if they eat exactly the same diet as non-vegetarians, while still somehow being vegetarian, the word really doesn’t have any meaning, does it?
Oblong, just another trivial question here, if you don’t mind. Supposing, instead of the dictionary.com definition, only the Merriam-Webster definition had been posted? That one doesn’t leave any room for meat. Would you have searched for one that did? Or would this argument never have taken place?