What's the point of being vegetarian?

Great Debates
121

Have you considered that her saying “I don’t eat animals” to you is just a simplification because they don’t want to have to enumerate all their eating patterns for the thousandth time to yet another person that thinks they have the right to judge what someone else is eating? That actually their food choices are by definition consistent with their morality, since they have taken a conscious choice to not eat certain foods and yet to allow others? This person has taken a practically awkward decision to avoid mammal flesh. Are you really so narrowly focussed that you can’t conceive of the possibility that they may have considered not eating fish too but decided that it was OK?

It really is just being facaetious for you to insist on a such a narrow definition of vegetarianism that must apply to everyone that has a problem with eating any kind of meat. Why is it so hard for you to wrap your oh-so-difficult understanding around the concept that they don’t want to eat mammal flesh but don’t mind eating poultry or fish? Are the semantics inherent in the word “animal” really that much of a stumbling block to you? Will you continue to mock this poor woman until she finally relinquishes to your incredible powers of logic and starts saying “I don’t eat mammals” instead?

Let’s have a nice break-down of your original post, shall we?

This is where you set out your stall. Goddamn it, these people are offending your sense of pedantry!

Yes, yes it is. So? And for the record, don’t forget to include offal too, and skin and bone and everything else that is part of an animal. But why are you so hung up on the words “animal” and “meat”? What the hell difference does it matter what you call something?

But look! This is just a set up for your incontrovertable logic…

Boo hiss, look how we establish the bad guy. Of course, given my experience that nine times out of ten it is the non-vegetarian that brings the subject up, chances are not good that it is her that is the vocal one…

And bam! We’re in for the kill! Well done you! You got her in a logical bind!

Only thing is, we only have your word for how this conversation went. But even given such a biased start, let me point something out. You asked her about her food. She gave you a brush-off. It wasn’t meant to be a complete exposition of her ethical system. It was because **she wasn’t interested in answering any more damn questions about her eating choices. ** You aren’t interested in why she would see things that way, you’re just interested in some cheap points scoring. As tends to be the case in these exchanges.

Why? Why does the vegetarian constantly have to be defending themselves against people demanding to know why they are buying a tuna sub at lunch? What fucking business is it of yours or anyone else’s? And the fact that it was you that asked the question makes me seriously doubt that it is her that is the vocal one. I’ll bet dollars to doughnuts that it is you (or someone like you) that is the one to bring up her food decisions each and every time. I’ll take this bet for two reasons:

  1. She wasn’t even willing to really discuss her beliefs with you even when asked directly. Do you really think that she is so fucking stupid that she doesn’t know that a fish is an animal? Or do you think that she just couldn’t be bothered to explain it?

  2. I see this whole shitmatch time and time again. This very thread is proof of it. We’ve had a succession of non-vegetarians popping in to give their ha’pennyworth about why this or that aspect of vegetarianism is inconsistent or pointless. Why is it your concern? Why do you pester these poor vegetarians? They’re not harming you. They just made a tough choice and want to stick to it.

So next time you hear that “vocal” vegetarian discuss their food, I suggest you really stop and ask yourself how the conversation started. Was it out of the blue or are they only defending their fucking ethical beliefs against yet another bout of obnoxious questioning?

I’m out of here now. I won’t be back for a week by which time all these vegetarian threads will be dead. So I can only make a simple plea: please cut vegetarians a little slack. They do not owe you or anyone else an explanation. They don’t care if you understand or follow suit. They just want to eat in peace. Leave them alone to fucking well enjoy their sandwich.

Thankyou.

pan

122

Y-babe snuck in there whilst I was replying.

Y-babe, I’m surprised at you given your previous posts and your feelings on this subject. Consider:

  1. Pesco-vegetarians just want to be left in the same peace that you want to be left in. They don’t want to have to be constantly defending themselves. The general public think they understand what a vegetarian is. So they call themselves vegetarian in the hope that people will just go away.

  2. It’s generally harmless. Follow me here. They don’t insist that they must have fish for every meal. Mostly they eat a fully vegetarian diet. For all practical purposes that a third party may need, they can be considered a vegetarian. So you need to consider why the third party is asking. If it is for sandwiches for a meeting at work or a friend is putting on a dinner party or there is a formal meal with a check box, they will simply tick “vegetarian” and be happy to take the vegetarian option.

Consitent with this point is the fact that if they don’t make it clear that they are “vegetarian” there is every chance of them receiving unwanted meat at some point in the future. Best just to say what everybody understands.

Not that there is no reason for 99% of those asking the question ever to need to know that they eat fish as well.

  1. … which means that the only time the paths cross is when busy-bodies see them eating fish and demand an explanation that they have no right to be given. You should know how annoying this is. So they say, “oh I eat fish” and leave it at that.

If you want a real reason (and there may be many), try this: most fish is caught fresh from the ocean or sea. It is not farmed. For a vegetarian that has a problem with the way in which meat is reared, fish does not therefore present a problem. I would suggest that this is a large proportion of vegetarians. Such a pesco-vegetarian will almost certainly avoid farmed salmon and trout, which is a clue you may look out for.

As for vegetarian books: why would a pesco-vegetarian need them to include fish? I can assure you that there are plenty of very food fish recipe books. Quite right for them to be seperate.

God help the day when someone assumes that a vegetarian eats fish, of course. I understand that this is a danger with loose definitions. But in all true honesty, I really think that is the fault of the one doing the assuming, not with the pesco-vegetarian that just wants to go ahead not eating what they don’t want to eat in peace.

pan

123

kabbes, we’ve had this discussion before, and please believe me, I don’t want any ill feelings.

I just think that too much is being made of this. It’s a* definition* of a diet. That’s what it is.

I am not a vegan. I am ovo-lacto. If I started calling myself a vegan, and telling people that vegans can eat cheese, I’m muddying up the definition. And my vegan friends are going to be upset when other people start offering them cheese, with the rationale, “Well yosemite is vegan, and she says it’s okay to eat cheese.” Because that’s not what I am. I’m not ashamed of what I am, and I don’t think that vegans are “better” than me (some of them may think so, but I don’t agree ;)). I don’t think I’m “better” than those who eat fish or chicken. But our diets are not the same, any more than my diet is the same as a vegan’s.

I’ve been offered fish and chicken, and even been scolded for not eating it, because someone else “claimed” to be an ovo-lacto vegetarian and yet ate chicken or fish and claimed it fit the definition of vegetarianism to do so. They’ve muddied up the definition and made things more difficult for me.

Look, I don’t have a problem with pesco-veggies or whatever saying they are veggie just to shut people up, and just so they can be offered a non-mammal dish without having to explain it all. I’ve finally gotten that concept through my skull. But I don’t understand how people can, for instance, say that fish are not an animal. Because that’s bizarre.

It’s true, we shouldn’t be pestering each other about why we eat what, but I think in Crazy Cat Lady’s case, this woman made a big deal about being vegetarian—wearing it on her sleeve, so to speak—and then made the massively ignorant statement about fish not being animals. I’m sorry, but that’s just about enough to make anyone’s jaw drop open with astonishment. Instead, this woman (who’d made such a big vocal deal about her vegetarianism), could have simply said that she was a “pesco-vegetarian” or some variation of vegetarianism that ate fish. Then it would have been all well and good. But saying that fish weren’t animals? Boggles the mind.

124

I’ll repeat: who said that this pesco-vegetarian was so vocal? Only CrazyCatLady. Well I’m sorry, but for reasons I hope that I’ve made plain, I don’t believe her. It seems to me that we have yet another example of a non-vegetarian acting as food police to vegetarians.

You have to go through it all. You know how annoying it is. Why do you think that it will be different for the pesco-vegetarians. Do you know CCL personally? If not, why assume that she is any different to those hoardes of non-veggies that you have had to deal with in the past?

And of course, this is the point in the discussion that I point out that you don’t need to call yourself vegan because everybody knows what a vegetarian is. If noone knew what a vegetarian was, I’d bet anything that you’d call yourself vegan and just accept that meals prepared for you would exclude eggs and milk. You wouldn’t try to force a long-winded, little-known and odd-sounding term such as “ovo-lacto-vegan” on a populace that just. don’t. care. about such things and, as you know only too well, are only looking for a chance to ridicule you for what you eat.

pan

125

I’ll repeat: who said that this pesco-vegetarian was so vocal? Only CrazyCatLady. Well I’m sorry, but for reasons I hope that I’ve made plain, I don’t believe her. It seems to me that we have yet another example of a non-vegetarian acting as food police to vegetarians.

You have to go through it all. You know how annoying it is. Why do you think that it will be different for the pesco-vegetarians? Do you know CCL personally? If not, why assume that she is any different to those hoardes of non-veggies that you have had to deal with in the past?

And of course, this is the point in the discussion that I point out that you don’t need to call yourself vegan because everybody knows what a vegetarian is. If noone knew what a vegetarian was, I’d bet anything that you’d call yourself vegan and just accept that meals prepared for you would exclude eggs and milk. You wouldn’t try to force a long-winded, little-known and odd-sounding term such as “ovo-lacto-vegan” on a populace that just. don’t. care. about such things and, as you know only too well, are only looking for a chance to ridicule you for what you eat.

pan

126

Ack, kabbes, we’re posting over each other’s heads!

Actually, if my memory serves me right, we’ve had this discussion before, and my position has remained constant throughout the years.

Because there are all sorts of vegetarian cookbooks, and it seems very odd that in all this time, not one of these cookbooks includes fish. Same with the restaurants and the prepared foods. It also would seem odd that a big magazine like Vegetarian Times would not include fish or chicken in the recipes. Because if it’s vegetarian, why not include the recipe? Why ever not?

True enough.

That’s my big concern.

True enough. People are pests, especially when it comes to anything doing with the eating (or not eating) of meat.

I do think that tacking “pesco” onto the term will help with the blurring of definitions. I know that many vegetarians don’t consider pesco “true” vegetarianism, and I understand that reasoning. But who cares at this point. Call it “psuedo” or “pesco” vegetarianism, or whatever. As long as their is some distinction made between the diets, it becomes a little less cloudy for everyone else, and that’s got to be a good thing.

Oh, in preview, I see we have a new post! :slight_smile:

I believe her. I trust her—she doesn’t strike me as an asshole in this. Come on. You and I both know that some vegetarians can be big pains in the ass. :wink:

Besides, this woman said that fish weren’t animals, and I don’t believe that Crazy Cat Lady is making that up. It’s too bizarre to make up. So, the woman is a moron.

I wouldn’t call myself vegan. I might say, “Fine fine, close enough,” if they were being really clueless, but I WOULD NOT EAT CHEESE AND ALLOW OTHERS TO THINK THAT WAS VEGAN. No way, no how. I mean, I can’t control what impression they might get, but I’d at least try. I would not deliberately say something totally incorrect and wrong, like, “Yes, vegans eat cheese,” (which is the equivalent of what this twit-woman did when she claimed that fish weren’t animals).

Besides, I’ve already stated in a previous post that I fully understand why people who eat fish claim to be plain vegetarian for a night, just to avoid being served beef. I totally understand, it’s okay with me.

127

I’ve really been enjoying reading this thread. I just had to throw my two cents in here. There are several vegetarian books (or books that claim to be vegetarian) that include fish recipes. One prime example would be the Moosewood Restaurant Low-Fat Favorites. Another is Gary Null’s International Vegetarian Favorites. There are a few other mainstream cookbooks that include fish as vegetarian, but I can’t think of 'em right now.

But, for what it’s worth, I agree with you about the poultry-fish vegetarian thing. I’ve always thought that poultry and fish, because they are essentially animal muscle, are meat, and not necessarily consistent with a vegetarian diet that claims to be “completely meatless.” I have no problem with people saying they’re vegetarian but eat fish or chicken, it just seems odd to me, especially when someone, like that lady at work you described, said they’re not “real” animals.

128

[hijack]Although I’m a complete omnivore, I love the Moosewood cookbooks. They have this awesome sweet potato black bean burrito recipe that’s just to die for. Okay, I’m done.[/hijack]

129

Wow. I did not know about these books.

Well, I think it’s safe to say that they are not all that common. I’ve got a lot of veggie cookbooks, and have never run across fish or chicken in any of the recipes. And you’ve got cookbooks like these that make the distinction a little clearer. Also, you’ve got reviewers of one Moosewood book that seem to believe that Moosewood isn’t “all vegetarian.” And some Amazon reader reviews further discuss the issue of Moosewood’s supposed vegetarianism as well. Interesting! :wink:

Oh, and read some of the outraged reader reviews for Gary Null’s International Cookbook (starting a few reviews down). Obviously some controversy there, which caused the book’s rating to be pretty low.

I agree with this. It’s animal muscle attached to bone, but somehow it doesn’t count as a “real” animal? I don’t get it.

130

Well, the “fish isn’t meat!” argument probably stems from the tradition of Catholics not eating meat on Fridays, but still being allowed fish. (Yeah, it never made sense to me as a young child during Lent, either).

131

Regarding the poultry vs. mammal vs. fish thing:

If one’s diet is dictated by by ethics I have more respect for the full-blown vegan than for the vegetarian. The vegan at least lives (in so far as diet) in complete consistency with their moral views. I don’t see how a vegetarian can make the same claim.

Asuming I grant that animals should have rights based on their ability to feel pain (which I don’t, BTW) then why don’t fish or chicken count? A line being drawn at mammals is completey arbitrary given the moral-vegetarians own views. I choose to draw the line at primates- how is that position any less teneable than their own?

I may be missing part of the argument, but from a moral perspective how can the line be drawn at cute fuzzy creatures?

(for the purposed of this post I am treating the “conserve resources” argument as separate from the animal rights arugment)

132

It looks like it was not considered meat because of traditions even more ancient that Catholicism itself:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09152a.htm

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05789c.htm

So, it looks that besides employing tradition, the church allows for exceptions to help the local industry…

You know Guin… it never made sense to me either.

133

What do you mean by “vegetarian”? An ovo-lacto vegetarian, who eats dairy but no animal flesh, or a “psuedo” or “pesco” vegetarian, who eats chicken and fish?

134

when I say vegetarian I mean someone who does not eat beef or pork. Although I think the principle applies to ovo-lacto vegetarians as well (from an animal rights perspective).

135

Have you considered that she is the one who likes to park herself on the other side other people’s meals and say, “You know, you shouldn’t eat animals”? Have you considered that my harassment of her consisted of saying, “I thought you didn’t eat animals”?

And you have reason to call me a liar why, exactly? Because I dared to ask someone a question about how they define something so I could understand them better? Because I related a relevant incident that had confused the issue even more for me? Oh, dear God, won’t someone think of the children? :rolleyes:

The bouts of obnoxious comments about how we shouldn’t be eating that turkey or those ham sandwiches were out of the blue, thanks so much for asking.

Obviously she does, since she’s the one who keeps telling people what they shouldn’t be eating.

136

And I believe we’ve already covered that most people would not consider that vegetarian. Not “pesco-vegetarian” even.

Please clarify this.

If someone eats free range eggs, and uses milk from farms that have “happy” cows, then to the best of their knowledge, the animals are not abused. To some vegetarians, this does not conflict with their ideals.

Even if they ate dairy products that came from general sources (not special “free range” farms, etc.) they still aren’t eating products that are a result of the death of the animal, and as far as they know, the cows and chickens are not abused (the farms keep on insisting this is the case, anyway). And for many vegetarians, this would be sufficient.

137

They may have made it more difficult for other “half-vegetarians” (a term I recently coined to describe myself) too. I stopped eating red meat when I was only twelve or so, and I can’t tell you how many times over the years I’ve had to explain to people that I’m not actually a vegetarian. “No, see, I still eat white meat, like chicken and fish.” “Well, my friend so-and-so eats fish, and she’s a vegetarian…”

I have occasionally called myself a vegetarian if it seemed the only way to be sure I got a meal I could actually eat, but I try to avoid this. I feel more honest just asking if there’s a vegetarian dish available rather than saying “I’m a vegetarian”, although I suspect that such distinctions are lost on most listeners. They probably assume that anyone asking for vegetarian food is a vegetarian.

If this has made things more difficult for you real vegetarians out there I’m sorry. But if it makes you feel any better I think we half-vegetarians may have to put up with even more stupid questions than real vegetarians do. We get all the idiocy directed at real vegetarians, an extra helping of accusations of moral hypocracy, and then the endless questions about precisely what kinds of meat we will and won’t eat and why. If I ever meet the people responsible for the “Pork: The Other White Meat” campaign, I am going to smack them so hard!

As for the fabled obnoxious vegetarians everyone seems to have stories about, I can honestly say I have never encountered such a person. They must exist, but I think they are quite rare. What is far more common is the moron who can’t leave other people alone about their dietary choices. I’m sure plenty of vegetarians have snapped at people who bothered them once too often, and I don’t blame them one bit. As a teenager I sometimes invented truly ridiculous responses to the same old questions (“I can’t eat beef because it’s sacred to the Hindus”) just because I was tired of giving the same explanations again and again. But for the most part, I think the “obnoxious vegetarian” is something that certain nasty non-vegetarians have invented to give them an excuse for bullying.

138

Oh, to clarify, I don’t mean for my last paragraph above to be directed at CrazyCatLady. I just realized it might seem that way, but it was intended as a general response to the oft-expressed attitude (in this thread and elsewhere) that vegetarians as a group are obnoxious and deserve all the contempt one can heap upon them. There are of course obnoxious people in the world, and it’s perfectly understandable to be annoyed by them as individuals – which seems to be the case with CCL and her coworker.

139

I live in the DC area. The grocery chains that sell seafood–and usually poultry–in a different part of the store than “meat” (i.e. beef, pork, lab) include Giant, Safeway, Harris Teeter and Shoppers Food Warehouse. At every grocery store I’ve visited recently, all three are sold along the back wall–Meat to the far right, poultry in the middle, seafood to the far left, Deli against the left wall. I think Whole Foods makes the distinction as well, but I don’t go there very often. Butcher shops usually sell chicken, but seldom fish.

If you’re active in the Animal Rights movement, yeah, there’s no serious distinction between fish, chicken, cows and humans. I’ve never been active in the Animal Rights movement. I stopped eating meat (Beef, pork, lamb, and with rare lapses, chicken) for one year to see if it would make me healthier, and it did a little bit. But I’ve never anthropomorphised animals or pretended that they were “sentient.”

I have never called myself a vegetarian without qualifying it with the exceptions I make that Vegans wouldn’t. I was raised Catholic, and the “Lenten diet” is a popular alternative to eating meat and poultry. “Animal Rights” is a bit like the Virgin Birth–you believe in it wholeheartedly, or not at all. And you do so in spite of the lack of hard data on the subject.

Vegans no more own the term “Vegtarian” than Wahabbis own the word “Muslim.” And it’s no surprise to me that, like the Wahabbis, they feel differently about this than I do.

140

Sundays at Moosewood was my first thought, too: it’s the main vegetarian cookbook I use, and it’s chockablock with fish recipes. I used to work at a vegetarian bakery in Durham, NC, that served tuna salad, but no other meat. Maybe it’s a regional thing, but many people I know consider themselves vegetarian and eat fish; the word’s definition is in flux.

Yes, being vegetarian does reduce suffering. Arguably it’d reduce suffering more to eat a diet consisting primarily of hunted meat. No, I don’t preach about it.

Yes, I do eat fish and shellfish and other cold-blooded creatures, for two reasons: first, they tend not to be farmed, and therefore there’s less suffering in their lives; second, most cold-blooded animals have less capability to feel pain, to formulate beliefs and desires, to have an identity that lasts over time, and to exhibit preferences than do most warm-blooded animals. I take note of some exceptions, such as octopodes, and exclude them from my diet as well.

Daniel