Flesh?
Not bad.
Okay, but if you eat it, flesh is rather… meaty. No?
It can also be fatty. Basically not bones or viscera. And it highly depends what animal it comes from, how “meaty” it is. Especially for fish. “Flaky” is much more common than “meaty”, IMO.
Yeah, I kinda moved the goalposts there, didn’t I?
You’ve defeated my example, but in my heart I still think fish is meat. I’m going to plead the 1st Amendment!
You and most of the people who voted, so you’re not alone.
But, again, if I’m asked to prepare dinner for someone who “doesn’t eat meat”, I’m not going to serve up fish as the main course, because I can imagine the response.
No,* fish*. Birds, Fish (everything that lives in the sea) and Animals (who live on land).
For many faiths and beliefs the whole “animal or vegetable” division is not correct.
(Nor is it today for modern science, but yes, fish are animals under modern scientific classification )
Yes, “fish” is ambiguous. It’s not a safe choice if your dinner guest requests “not meat”, nor is it safe if they request “meat”.
The Anglo-Catholic in me says that seafood and fish are not meat, that’s why we eat them during Lent! But that’s also the part that tells me the Eucharistic chalice contains the Blood of Christ. Of course fish is meat. It’s the flesh of an animal you eat.
In normal English usage, “meat” does not include fish, shellfish, or (usually) poultry. It only includes mammalian flesh. This is easily confirmed by looking at virtually any restaurant menu.
Scientifically, of course, mammalian meat is the same kind of tissue as that of birds or fish. But few people apply that definition in common usage.
This is the same type of question as to whether a tomato is a fruit or a vegetable. In common usage it is a vegetable, even if technically it is a fruit.
I am astonished that so many people in this poll chose the option contrary to the common English meaning of the word. (However, the poll is phrased confusingly, giving two non-exclusive options. Fish is meat, technically; but it is not considered meat in most contexts.)
Because this is a site to fight ignorance. Are you suggesting that ignorance should be spread?
Certainly wrong as regards poultry. The hot dogs I buy are made from “meat”, which is defined as an unspecified mixture of beef, pork, and chicken.
And given that so many people in this poll chose the “yes” option, perhaps it’s time to reconsider what the common English meaning is?
For what it’s worth, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a menu that both has a section for “meat”, and which excludes fish from that section. I’ve seen menus that have separate listings for beef, pork, chicken, and seafood, and I’ve seen menus that have a separate section for “vegetarian” (which does not include fish) and everything else lumped in together without any particular section head, but I can’t think of any examples of the usage you describe.
The common meaning of the word is not wrong, nor ignorant.
Yes, “meat” can be used as a generic term. Sometimes it encompasses poultry. Sometimes it can be used to refer to things like lobster meat, or crab meat, or nut meats. That doesn’t mean that “meat,” in isolation, isn’t generally understood to mean mammalian meat.
Are you seriously suggesting that the people posting on this board are representative of the population in general? :dubious:
I think that the results of the poll indicate that most people were overthinking their answer.
Very common in Panama at least.
The section for meat may not be labeled “meat” on the menu, but there is frequently as section that includes beef and pork together, a separate one for poultry, and another for seafood.
OK, so if that section isn’t labeled “meat”, then why conclude that that’s what “meat” means? Maybe it just means that fish and poultry aren’t “red meat”, say.
As for menus in Panama, maybe that is the common usage in Panama. I’ve never seen any indication that it is here in the US, though.
I just looked at a bunch of restaurant menus.
Most were no help either way – breaking it down by “entree” and “appetizer”, or offering a “from the grill” section that includes fish, or offering a “seafood” section but pointedly not labeling the beef section as “meat” – but the only one I saw that still does the “meat” heading included tuna steak.
Grocery store meat department.
It may include poultry, but I’ve never seen a “Meat” section in a grocery store that included fish. (One image there does include a section labeled “Meat and Poultry,” another “Meat and Fish.”)
I checked some too, and I’ll concede that restaurant menus in the US tend to break things down more finely than just “meat.” However, a section in the grocery store labeled “Meat” will contain beef, pork, and lamb. It usually will also contain poultry, although this could get a separate section. It will not generally contain fish or seafood.
Note that I’m not saying that any particular meaning is wrong. Different meanings are used in different contexts.
Meat can mean:
Mammal flesh
Mammal flesh and organs
Mammal and bird flesh
Mammal and bird flesh and organs
Any animal flesh or organs
Animal flesh or organs or other rich food like nutmeats or the meat of a coconut
Figuratively, food in general
IMO the first two, or sometimes the first four meanings are what are most commonly meant in American English. That doesn’t mean the other meanings are not used or wrong in other contexts.
Here’s one I posted from page one of this thread that has separate sections for “seafood” and “meats.”