The worst example I saw was some black woman from somewhere other than Africa, but not the US, won a race, and some US media outlet described her as “the first African-American of any nationality” to win the race.
Two of you guys had some good information on why Catholics consider fish something other than meat. Thanks.
I don’t care what you think meat “refers to” in casual speech. Do you yourself argue that fish is NOT meat? If so, you’re one of the idiots I’m speaking against. If you know and accept that fish is meat then you’re not. So, is a vegetarian told you that he does not eat meat of any kind - while he’s gnawing on a fish pattie, what would your reaction be? Meat or not?
Then he’d be a “pescatarian” to me (although that’s not a common word, IME), or a vegetarian who also eats fish. I personally do not use “meat” in this manner because of the confusion it causes. My reaction would be: "OK, I see how that can be considered ‘not meat,’ but it’s also not really ‘vegetarian.’ " When somebody says they are “vegetarian,” my default assumption is not dead animal flesh of any kind, but there are so many different flavors of vegetarian that I specifically ask. Some self-labeled “vegetarians” I know eat fish. I personally don’t call that “vegetarian,” but what do I care?
Also, I don’t think it’s just the Catholics that consider “meat” and “fish” separate. Doesn’t Judaism treat them differently? Like the prohibition against meat and dairy doesn’t apply to, say, lox and cream cheese. Or does it? So far as I can tell from Googling, they are considered separate.
The prohibition has nothing to do with the definition of “meat.” It originates in prohibiting the boiling of a kid in the milk of its own mother. Fish aren’t mammals so they don’t have mothers’ milk.
Well, I understand the origin of the prohibition, but there are, apparently, some forms of Judaism that extend it to fish and dairy (although that appears to be for health reasons.) Plus there are those that don’t eat “meat” and “fish” together, apparently, treating them as separate categories. Like here, for instance.
Still, my point is that “meat” and “fish” are used to signify two, non-overlapping categories of dead animal flesh.
Plus isn’t fowl considered “meat” for the purposes of the “don’t mix meat and milk” prohibition? Fowl don’t produce milk, either.
This comment regards the information only, not the poster:
Wow, that takes it from misleading to just plain stupid. Who the hell is boiling any meats in any milk? And why? And what if I were to boil beef in goat’s milk? The goat who sources the milk isn’t the cow’s mother.
The dietary “laws” that religions come up with are beyond stupid. And they expect to be taken seriously on the more important issues? Wow.
What if it’s synecdoche or metonymy?
I braise pork in milk from time to time. It is delicious. Here’s a recipe. Try it one day.
So, wait, this thread really is about religion and not language, eh?
We don’t care one way or another whether or not you take us seriously. You are utterly irrelevant to us.
Declarations of irrelevance are not the best way to oppose antisemitism. Arousing hostility is counter-productive. The majority has the power to enact legislation, and it isn’t always respectful. Consciousness raising proceeds from engagement, not from withdrawal. That leads to ghettos and worse.
There was a letter-writing campaign, not too long ago, in which it was requested that a Jewish prison inmate (in the U.S.) be allowed Kosher meals. The prison warden was not sympathetic. Numerous non-Jewish liberals participated in the campaign.
We are not “irrelevant.”
You never had stroganoff? Or, given that fish count, chowder?
You have to understand my perspective. Being Israeli means I can safely ignore antisemites who aren’t actively shooting at me.
Fair enough. And this is one of the greatest values of the Jewish homeland. (You won’t find many people who are more pro-Israel than I am!)
Yeah, because that always works. :rolleyes:
Declaring others to be irrelevant (ie, being stupidly dismissive of others) tends to make them see you as at best, irrelevant to them, or worse, as an enemy.
But why should I care what he thinks about my religious customs? They’re *my *religious customs, not his. I’m not asking him to convert, and I’m not trying to convince him that they’re correct. They’re just this thing I do.
The only thing I can do in the face of an attack like his is shrug, and say “whatever”. Which is what I did.
I guess I’m too concerned about the power of evil to do real harm. When someone says my beliefs are “beyond stupid” and declares that they make my opinions on other issues no longer worth taking seriously…I take that seriously. It’s worse than irrelevant: it’s open enmity. Evil needs to be opposed.
At our level, of course, we can’t do a lot more than denounce it. “What a fucking evil thing to say.”
And also
Why should I care if they see me as an enemy? After all, they’re irrelevant.
There are seven billion people in the world. I don’t need all of them to like me.
I’m going to bring this up next time someone claims they don’t eat meat/flesh.
“Well then, I guess you don’t eat any fruit either!”
“how do you figure?”
“Because, inside the peel is the flesh or the meat of the fruit! Ha ha!!!”