It's meat. Get over it.

So what’s up with people who insist that certain meats are not meat? Religion and meat markets, I suppose, are to blame. But how and why would that idea ever get started to begin with? Why would meat markets/supermarkets have signs saying “meat/poultry”, suggesting that the two are somehow not the same? All it does is fuel the incorrect notion that they are different.

There are people who swear that chicken is poultry, not meat. Um, idiot: poultry IS meat. And you have the Catholics who want to pretend that fish isn’t meat. “I don’t eat meat on Fridays. But I chow the hell out of some fish”, they’ll claim. Again, idiot, fish IS meat.

Ok, let’s see: The muscle of cow is meat. The muscle of pig is meat. The muscle of deer is meat. The muscle of goat is meat. The muscle of lamb is meat. The muscle of elk is meat. The muscle of snake is meat. The muscle of alligator is meat. The muscle of crab is meat. The muscle of lobster is meat. And so on, ad nauseum … But scales and feathers somehow exclude the muscle of fish, chicken and turkey from being meat? What are these idiots smoking (and why aren’t they sharing)?

If it’s the muscle of an animal it’s meat. That’s what meat IS? :rolleyes:

For the life of me I don’t understand how some people can be so dumb.

I give it a 3/10, but only for originality of concept, not execution.

What’s so dumb? One of the definitions of meat is flesh of a mammal, as opposed to fish, fowl, amphibians, reptiles, etc. It depends on what definition you’re using. If somebody tells me they’re a vegetarian, I assume they don’t eat any living creature, and quite possibly products of living creatures. If somebody tells me “they don’t eat meat,” I generally assume poultry falls under this (otherwise, they’d say “I don’t eat red meat,” usually), but I’d ask for clarification on the fish issue (as why didn’t they just say they’re vegetarian)?

That’s not good. I’ll try harder next time! :stuck_out_tongue:

I’m using the definition that’s inclusive of all meat, obviously. Such as this excerpt from Wikipedia: “Meat is animal flesh that is eaten as food.[1]:1 Humans are omnivorous, and have hunted and killed animals for meat since prehistoric times. The advent of civilization allowed the domestication of animals such as chickens, sheep, pigs and cattle, and eventually their use in meat production on an industrial scale.” Meat - Wikipedia

Yes, I realize that sometimes the term “meat” is used in a more restrictive sense, which excludes fish and poultry. But that doesn’t exclude those things from being meats in reality. So when people swear that the fish they’re eating is not meat they’re wrong.

Meh. Even the USDA calls it “meat, fish, poultry” on their food pyramid.

Look, I understand what you’re saying, and I agree that any living animal flesh is meat in the broad sense, but that’s not how a lot of people talk. When I ask somebody about food preferences, I keep “meat” and “fish” in separate categories, because that’s just how people talk and understand the words. If I tell somebody I’m going to bring out a big plate of meat, and come out with a tray of fish, I gather that the vast majority of English speakers will be surprised. To me, it’s like arguing that tomato is a fruit rather than a vegetable. Yeah, technically it’s a fruit. So are peppers. So are cucumbers. But if I bring you a “fruit” basket of tomatoes, peppers, and cukes, you might be understandably perplexed.

Meat has more than one definition. And I gather that a lot of people, like me, who will agree that fish is technically “meat,” still use the words exclusively in casual speech.

Are nutmeats meat also?


And what’s the deal with sweetbreads? Sweetbreads come from an animal, and sweetmeats come from a pastry?

And why do we drive on a parkway and park in a driveway?

Oh, and don’t even get me started on peanuts!!!

I think someone has been watching too much Seinfeld. You know, the early episodes that all started with a monolog by Jerry.

It is not a matter of “dumb,” it is a matter of ignorance. Yours, in this case.

For example, you are clearly unaware that meat has had various meanings throughout the life of the English language. You obviously failed to notice that “minced meat pie” has no animal products within it, at all, (with the possible exception of some rendered fat). The meaning of meat has had numerous meanings over the years and the one on which you are currently fixating is neither the broadest nor most comprehensive meaning assigned to that word.

Similarly, the various dietary rules, (Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, Jewish, etc.), all use different definitions of what sort of animal flesh is prohibited during various days of abstinence. The definition that the Catholic Church uses most nearly conforms to “warm blooded animals,” so Friday prohibitions refer to cattle, pork, rabbit, poultry of various sorts, and do not include fish, eggs, or turtles. That the word used to identify the “in” and “out” animals is rendered in English as “meat” is the result of the vagaries of the English language, not the confusion on the part of the religions that have defined their rules.

I am not sure why you placed this mini-rant in Great Debates. It belongs in The BBQ Pit, (or, more appropriately, in the ashtray with a book of matches), but I will leave it here long enough for you to go open a dictionary and educate yourself regarding your confusion.

I didn’t realize that minced meat pie didn’t contain any animal products at all.

Thanks Tom.

Ignorance fought.

Mammalian meat (pork and beef) has a different nutritional profile than poultry and fish.

It did originally, minced heart I believe.

Modern mincemeat pies are made from fruit and nuts and stuff, but make no mistake, the pie did once contain meat.

“Fish” doesn’t have one, monolithic nutritional profile. Salmon, for instance, has a totally different profile than something like orange roughy.

OP: You’d better steer (heh, heh) clear of South Korea then! For some odd reason, there’s a prevalent idea there that ham is not meat. And, no, I’m not kidding (heh, heh).

And different cars have different engines. They’re still all cars. Or, animals.

No, I actually mentioned a few posts back that I understand the existence of different uses of the word. I’m referring to people who don’t comprehend that those meats are, in fact (the literal sense), meats. Not all snack cakes are Little Debbie Devil Cremes. But all Little Debbie Devil Cremes are snack cakes.

By not including ALL meats on their thumbs up list they aren’t saying that those things are therefor NOT meats. If I say I love pizza, but in reality, love only certain pizzas, I’m not declaring that the particular pizzas I dislike are somehow not considered pizza. Nor would I ever argue that Mario’s Brick Fired Pizzeria and Authentic Pizza Emporium didn’t make and sell pizzas based on my intentional avoidance of consuming their product. You know, their non-pizzas.

Well, that’s where my ignorance begins. I’m new here and may well have posting in the wrong section. Sorry about that.

No, not in the literal sense of animal flesh.

That’s simply classifying sub categories by nutritional attributes and a little different than where I’m coming from.

There are good examples there with the fruits. Again, though, that’s the colloquial sense. Those same people (assuming they know basic biology) would still agree, if asked directly, that peppers and cucumbers are fruits. Particularly when explained what it is that makes fruits fruit (generally, that they contain seeds) But then again, the distinction between fruits and vegetables isn’t as clear cut as meat and non-meat. The meat distinction - I would think - should be more intuitive.

Again though, not explicitly including isn’t the same thing as excluding.

Ninja-ed. Drat.

Not a problem. Off to the Ash Tray you go.

Nobody tell this guy about head cheese.

So what are balut?