What's the point of being vegetarian?

[yosemite]

You know, I looked at Moosewood’s site and—maybe I wasn’t looking hard enough—but I didn’t find anything that indicated that they self-idenitified as “vegetarian.” From their “About Us” page:

With our emphasis on healthful natural foods cuisine, Moosewood Restaurant has operated successfully for thirty years and has been acclaimed as a driving force in the world of creative vegetarian cooking.

Does that mean that they are “vegetarian,” or only that they are known for “creative vegetarian cooking”? Is the word “vegetarian” in any of their book titles? I can’t find any, but I haven’t looked all that closely.

I am curious because one of the book reviews I linked to in a previous post had someone ask the same question. I am beginning to wonder if Moosewood is cleverly avoiding making the claim—coming close to it, but not claiming it. If they did, they’d probably get the same scathing reviews as the Gary Null book did.

:shrug: I don’t know—if you want to eat fish and call yourself vegetarian, you can do that. I can call myself Princess Diana if I want to do that too.

It doesn’t mean that many of us will believe or acknowledge fish-eating as vegetarian. Because a lot of us won’t—the big veggie mag, Vegetarian Times sure won’t—neither will a lot of other folks either.

[overlyverbose]

@yosemite

You know, I looked at Moosewood’s site and—maybe I wasn’t looking hard enough—but I didn’t find anything that indicated that they self-idenitified as “vegetarian.” From their “About Us” page:
Does that mean that they are “vegetarian,” or only that they are known for “creative vegetarian cooking”? Is the word “vegetarian” in any of their book titles? I can’t find any, but I haven’t looked all that closely.

I am curious because one of the book reviews I linked to in a previous post had someone ask the same question. I am beginning to wonder if Moosewood is cleverly avoiding making the claim—coming close to it, but not claiming it. If they did, they’d probably get the same scathing reviews as the Gary Null book did.

Here’s a snippet from their site:

“Often, when people decide to become vegetarians or make a commitment to a more healthful diet, they ask “But now, what do I eat?” Through our personal backgrounds, travels, and research, we have explored ethnic recipes and ingredients from around the world. We offer a cuisine that is familiar yet eclectic, and add our own influence by making many traditional dishes more healthful and interesting.”

It sounds as though they are trying to be a “guiding” force to vegetarians and people who just want to focus on eating whole foods. I think that you may have nailed it - they appear to be skirting the issue. They haven’t all-out claimed that they’re a vegetarian restaurant, but come awfully close sometimes. Perhaps they tried to promote themselves as a vegetarian restaurant in the past but got the more militant crowd of vegetarians mad at them? Just kidding. ;j

(I love that smilie)

[yosemite]

@overlyverbose

It sounds as though they are trying to be a “guiding” force to vegetarians and people who just want to focus on eating whole foods.

I think that’s what they’re trying to do too.

Perhaps they tried to promote themselves as a vegetarian restaurant in the past but got the more militant crowd of vegetarians mad at them? Just kidding. ;j

It’s okay.

Eh…I don’t consider myself “militant,” in that I am against people eating fish or chicken or pork or whatever. But I can get anal about definitions, especially when I start getting chewed out by misinformed people who tell me that I can eat fish or chicken after all.

I don’t like the blurring of definitions. I don’t like it when people’s only reason for calling themselves something is because they want to, and you’d damned well better not contradict them. They feel they are something (even if a big portion of the “vegetarian community” does not), and God Forbid you tell them otherwise. (I’m not saying that anyone here has been quite so adamant.)

Hey, if we’re going to go that route, then anyone can call themselves vegetarian. Fish and chicken? Fine. Don’t want to contradict you. Fish and chicken and pork? Oh well, it is the “Other White Meat,” isn’t it? Want to eat veggie half the time, but you’ve just gotta have that Big Mac several times a month? Oh well, we don’t want to hurt your feelings—define yourself as anything you want.

I mean, people can do this and I can’t stop them. But I don’t have to agree with them, or tell them that I believe that they are what they “proclaim” to be. Because I don’t. I’m not knocking them, but I simply don’t believe that it fits the definition. The definition as generally agreed upon by the majority of mainstream vegetarians (in the US, anyway). A small minority of restaurants or cookbooks won’t change that, and people saying, “But I am!”—when they are most decidedly behaving like they are not—won’t change that.

[overlyverbose]

For what it’s worth, no one on this board seems like a militant vegetarian. Hope I didn’t offend anyone over that comment - it may have been a poorly placed joke. :wally

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@yosemite

:shrug: I don’t know—if you want to eat fish and call yourself vegetarian, you can do that. I can call myself Princess Diana if I want to do that too.

It doesn’t mean that many of us will believe or acknowledge fish-eating as vegetarian. Because a lot of us won’t—the big veggie mag, Vegetarian Times sure won’t—neither will a lot of other folks either.

You know what the difference is between the Pope and Vegetarian Times? The Pope gets to define what constitutes Catholicism. Vegetarian Times has no such authority. I have one of their cookbooks, and I find them to be a bunch of supercilious annoying twerps who don’t know how to cook worth a damn. Maybe they’ve changed since then; that cookbook is using up shelf space now, though.

Yes, many non-fish-eating vegetarians object to the term. Many fish-eating vegetarians don’t object to the term. If it comes to a vote, let me know, and I’ll show up and vote; until then, language will work as it always works, and people will use the words that best communicate.

I find that calling myself vegetarian, with occasional clarification, is most helpful. I only refer to myself as vegetarian in threads like this, or when someone else will be preparing meals for me; there’s no single recognized word for my diet, and so I go for the more restrictive word in order to avoid being fed warmblooded creatures.

If you eat milk or eggs, you’ve got no more etymological right to the word than anyone else, incidentally.

Daniel

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

Incidentally, it looks like my usage isn’t just regional:

Analysis of diet diaries kept by 11,000 people found that almost six in 10 so-called vegetarians ate red meat, poultry or fish during the two-week period of the study.

Only 42 per cent really were vegetarian, with 51 per cent eating fish and one in five owning up to eating poultry, according to data from the TNS Family Food Panel survey.

I disagree with their phrasing --“Only 42 per cent really were vegetarian”
is an incorrect conclusion to draw from this data. The correct conclusion is that the word’s meaning is migrating, with the majority of people who self-identify as vegetarian using it to refer to a diet that includes fish.

Daniel

[yosemite]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

Yes, many non-fish-eating vegetarians object to the term.

Yes.

Many fish-eating vegetarians don’t object to the term.

And the non-fish-eating vegetarians will say, “Of course they don’t object. They eat fish. They also aren’t vegetarians.”

If it comes to a vote, let me know, and I’ll show up and vote; until then, language will work as it always works, and people will use the words that best communicate.

And “alot” is a word, because a lot of people spell it that way. So it’s a correct word, right?

I go for the more restrictive word in order to avoid being fed warmblooded creatures.

I can understand and sympathize with that, as I have stated before.

If you eat milk or eggs, you’ve got no more etymological right to the word than anyone else, incidentally.

Wait a minute. Are dairy products the muscle of an animal? Are dairy products the meat or flesh of an animal? No? Then ovo-lacto vegetarians aren’t actually eating animals, are they? But people who eat fish—they’re eating a dead animal, aren’t they? Perhaps you don’t believe so, but I think that most people can see that there is a distinction there. You know, the difference between eating the flesh of dead animals, and not eating the flesh of dead animals.

I disagree with their phrasing --“Only 42 per cent really were vegetarian”

Funny, I agree with their phrasing. The quotes around “vegetarian” was also telling, and also adding “so-called.” Just because some people wish to delude themselves that they are something, it doesn’t mean that they really are.

The correct conclusion is that the word’s meaning is migrating

Or, the correct conclusion is that more people are deluding themselves, or wish to attach themselves to a certain diet without having to suffer the inconvenience of . . . you know . . . actually having to follow that diet.

with the majority of people who self-identify as vegetarian using it to refer to a diet that includes fish.

Of course! And “alot” is a word, because many people spell it that way. And “noone” is a word too. It’s all so much clearer to me now!

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@yosemite

And “alot” is a word, because a lot of people spell it that way. So it’s a correct word, right?

You’ve obviously never encountered me in a grammar thread. To answer your question briefly: it is incoherent to consider a word correct or incorrect. To answer it in more detail, search the pit for my username and the word “prescriptivist.”

Wait a minute. Are dairy products the muscle of an animal? Are dairy products the meat or flesh of an animal?

No, they’re not. Now you answer me this: are they vegetables? If not, then where do you get off calling yourself a vegetarian?

Point is, you’re the one in the minority here; the majority of people who call themselves vegetarians disagree with you. On what basis do you insist your word usage is superior?

Daniel

[yosemite]

I come bearing cites. (And of course I realize that it will be possible to find cites claiming that vegetarians eat fish, but I believe that the cites claiming otherwise are going to be more than plentiful).

Google’s listing of definitions (No definitions here include the eating of fish, at least not that I can see.)

World IQ definition:

“The following is not generally considered vegetarianism:
…
* Some people choose to avoid certain types of meat for many of the same reasons that others choose vegetarianism – health, ethical beliefs, and so forth. For example, some people will not eat “red meat” (mammal meat – beef, lamb, pork, etc.) while still consuming poultry and seafood. This is not considered true vegetarianism, but has recently been referred to in the media as semi-vegetarianism or Pesco/Pollo vegetarianism. Despite the fact that it is not considered vegetarianism by anyone familiar with vegetarian nutrition, some less informed non-vegetarians quite persistently assume vegetarianism to be Pesco/Pollo vegetarianism. Thus, vegetarians might be thought to tolerate chicken meat (or “at least” fish). The fact that some Pesco/Pollo vegetarians refer to themselves as vegetarians, period, doesn’t help the confusion.”

International Vegetarian Union:

Pseudo-Vegetarian: Claims to be vegetarian, but isn’t. Often used by VEGETARIANS to describe SEMI-VEGETARIANs, and PESCETARIANs.

Pescetarian: Similar to VEGETARIAN, but also consumes fish. (often is a person avoiding factory-farming techniques…) See also PSEUDO-VEGETARIAN.

Vegetarian Network Victoria:

Pesco-vegetarians eat fish, and pollo-vegetarians eat chicken, but other meats are avoided. These diets are not, strictly speaking, vegetarian. To avoid confusion about the term ‘vegetarian’, perhaps the correct classification should be ‘pesco’ and ‘pollo’ omnivores.

You’ll also notice in the Google definition cite that when referring to animals, “vegetarian” means an animal who only eats plant matter. Certainly not one that eats fish or chicken. I presume that some of these “vegetarian” animals consumed the milk of their mothers, however? (I am just assuming.)

[yosemite]

Daniel: I’d be happy to call myself “ovo-lacto” vegetarian, as I believe (to avoid confusion), it would be appropriate for fish-eaters to call themselves “pesco” vegetarians.

But I think my cites indicate that I am not in the minority as far as what this definition means. These cites were easy to find, were listed first with Google, and so far I haven’t found anything indicating that vegetarians do eat fish. Of course I realize that such cites can be dredged up. The question is, are they going to be from simularly reputable cites (vegetarian organizations, etc.)? Perhaps some will, but I’m betting that more far cites will contradict the notion that vegetarians eat fish.

[yosemite]

Err… that should be “far more cites” . . .

Oh, and by the way, almost all of these cites include the ovo-lacto diet as being part of the vegetarian diet. It isn’t always considered a “strict” vegetarian diet, but I don’t think that most ovo-lactos claim to be “strict” vegetarians.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@yosemite

But I think my cites indicate that I am not in the minority as far as what this definition means. These cites were easy to find, were listed first with Google, and so far I haven’t found anything indicating that vegetarians do eat fish. Of course I realize that such cites can be dredged up. The question is, are they going to be from simularly reputable cites (vegetarian organizations, etc.)? Perhaps some will, but I’m betting that more far cites will contradict the notion that vegetarians eat fish.

I’m not disputing that people who organize around the concept of being vegetarian tend to exclude fish-eaters from the term. I am disputing two things:

1. Etymologically speaking, those who eat eggs and milk can lay no more claim to the word than those who eat fish. Change the term to nonfleshitarians, and I’ll gladly give it up, with the minor stipulation that folks who eat rennet and gelatin also give it up.
2. As the word is used by the public (not by professional organizations), the word includes those who eat fish. An honest-to-gosh poll does actually trump Google results, inasmuch as it describes people, not websites or organizations.

Because of my linguistic proclivities, I am inclined to care a lot more about how words are used than about how organizations say the words should be used. What the Vegetarian Times says the word means is not nearly as significant to me as what self-identified vegetarians say the word means.

Similarly, I don’t care about how the 700 Club defines Christianity. If I find out that a majority of self-identified Christians (for example) don’t believe in Jesus’s resurrection, then I’ll find any definition of Christian that requires a belief in Jesus’s resurrection to be a poor definition.

I would be interested in seeing a poll of the population as a whole, and what the word means to them. If you can show me that the population as a whole uses the word “vegetarian” to refer to people who eat rennet, eggs, milk, and gelatin, but not fish, then I’ll partially concede the point. But for now, the only group of people who uses the word “vegetarian” with that definition seems to be the people that fall under that definition. I’ve got no inclination to let my word usage be restricted by a subgroup’s effort to narrow the language.

Daniel

[CrazyCatLady]

@Krokodil

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.

Harris Teeter must have a different organization in DC than here in North Carolina, then. The HT up the road has a big neon sign that says MEAT right over the poultry.

Or maybe we’re using different definitions to talk about the same thing. I hate when that happens; it always gets so frickin’ confusing and people wind up talking at each other instead of to each other. In the HT I go to occasionally, the dairy section curls around the corner between the left wall and the back wall, then there’s a door leading back to the employee lounge, coolers, bathrooms, etc., then the red meat, the poultry, then the meat counter, then the seafood, then the packaged lunch meats and cold cuts and bacon. The deli, where they slice your ham and cheese and serve up hot dishes and whatnot, is at the front of the store, with the bakery items.

I have always considered (and thought everyone considered, to be honest) the entirety of the back wall, from the hamburger to the hot dogs, to be the meat department. The lunch meat, poultry, red meat, and seafood are in seperate cold cases, to be sure, because it won’t all fit in one case and they’ve got to organize things somehow. It’s all the meat department, though. Saying that fish and chicken are in a different part of the store seems to me like saying cheese isn’t in the dairy section because it’s down the wall a little from the milk, just past the yogurt. I just don’t quite grasp the distinction.

[yosemite]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

I’ve got no inclination to let my word usage be restricted by a subgroup’s effort to narrow the language.

And I’ve got no inclination to let people’s ignorance and willfull delusion dilute the language. People can do what they want, but that doesn’t mean that the rest of us have to accept it, or think, “Well, just because you’ve been told wrong, or because you’re deluding yourself, I guess you’re right now.” No. It doesn’t have to work that way.

So what if a bunch of people are saying to themselves, “Being vegetarian is too hard, so I’ll stop doing it, but I’ll still call myself one anyway”? So what if other (disinterested, non-vegetarians) hear these people proclaim that they are still vegetarians, and so get a skewed idea of what it means? That doesn’t change the definition.

This is a cite-driven board. This is also a board dedicated to fighting ignorance. Just because people are ignorant (or deluded), it does not make them right. There are plenty of cites—reputable cites—backing up what I’ve been saying. I did look for a cite indicating that the definition includes fish (and I am sure there is one out there), but I didn’t find one and got tired of looking after a while. The sites supporting the notion the fish is most definitely NOT part of the vegetarian diet (while ovo-lacto is) are plentiful. We’re drowning in cites backing this up, including ones from encyclopedia or dictionary-type sites (not just vegetarian sites).

Here’s a quote from the Wikipedia which explains why the blurring of the word is a problem:

The resulting erosion of the terminology can be pernicious, however, as any true vegetarian who has been expected to eat a dish because it “only contains a little meat” (or “is just fish”) can readily attest.

So, y’know, you can call yourself whatever you like, and I can’t stop you. But the definition you are using is not correct, and no amount of “But a lot of other people feel [delude themselves/are ignorant] it too!” doesn’t make it right.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@yosemite

And I’ve got no inclination to let people’s ignorance and willfull delusion dilute the language. People can do what they want, but that doesn’t mean that the rest of us have to accept it, or think, “Well, just because you’ve been told wrong, or because you’re deluding yourself, I guess you’re right now.” No. It doesn’t have to work that way.

Exactly. You’ve got the argument down pat; you’re just reachign the wrong conclusion from it.

So what if a bunch of people are saying to themselves, “Being vegetarian is too hard, so I’ll stop doing it, but I’ll still call myself one anyway”? So what if other (disinterested, non-vegetarians) hear these people proclaim that they are still vegetarians, and so get a skewed idea of what it means? That doesn’t change the definition.

Sure, it doesn’t. Just because you call your milk-drinking self vegetarian doesn’t mean that you are. I assume that’s what you’re talking about in your little judgmental screed, right? Because that’s not actually the thought process that fish-eating vegetarians use, and you yourself have admitted as much elsewhere in the thread.

This is a cite-driven board. This is also a board dedicated to fighting ignorance. Just because people are ignorant (or deluded), it does not make them right. There are plenty of cites—reputable cites—backing up what I’ve been saying. I did look for a cite indicating that the definition includes fish (and I am sure there is one out there), but I didn’t find one and got tired of looking after a while. The sites supporting the notion the fish is most definitely NOT part of the vegetarian diet (while ovo-lacto is) are plentiful. We’re drowning in cites backing this up, including ones from encyclopedia or dictionary-type sites (not just vegetarian sites).

Tell me how you think language is discovered. Does God periodically come down from the heavens and write dictionaries? Do archeologists dig up words alongside the bones of the archeopteryx? Do mathematicians derive words based on universal principles?

Or do words derive their meaning from how they are used?

If the latter, where do you get off saying that a minority of self-identified vegetarians get more say in what the word means than the majority of self-identified vegetarians get?

You’re not making any sense at all, yosemite.

Daniel

[yosemite]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

Exactly. You’ve got the argument down pat; you’re just reachign the wrong conclusion from it.

No, not at all. You’re saying that ignorance and misinformation should win, and I’m saying that no, we don’t have to accept that. I mean, you can, and I can’t stop you, but you can’t stop many of us from not accepting it, and you can’t stop veggies from writing scathing reviews for “veggie” cookbooks that have fish in them or otherwise expressing their displeasure at the ignorance being spread, and you can’t stop us from most definitely not considering you a vegetarian.

Anyway, tell me—what is the point of having dictionaries or encyclopedias? What is the point to referring to them at all? Why do Dopers even bother bringing up cites on this board, if all that is going to happen is that someone’s going to say, “Well, a lot of ignorant people got that piece of information or that definition wrong, so I guess that all the cites proving contrary can’t trump peoples’ ignorance.”

What is the point of even having any cites at all, if all that happens is that they get dismissed because “A lot of people feel that this thing is something else, therefore, their feelings—no matter how deluded—trump all else, cites be damned.” I think I’ll remind you of this thread the next time you ask for a cite, or refer to a cite. Because obviously, cites are meaningless and should be ignored if enough people are determined to be ignorant and wrong about the subject being discussed, or don’t think too deeply about the subject and come to quick (but incorrect) conclusions, right?

If the latter, where do you get off saying that a minority of self-identified vegetarians get more say in what the word means than the majority of self-identified vegetarians get?

What are you talking about? The cites I gave included dictionaries and online encylopedias, not just a few fringe groups of vegetarians. Hey, even Time Magazine discusses it briefly. You make it sound like a few random crackpots are trying to define the word for everyone else, but that’s not what it seems like at all.

And while we’re on the subject of online cites, why is it that I can’t find any sites made by fish-eating vegetarians, giving their so-called “corrected” definition? Oh, I’m sure such sites exist, but why are they so difficult to find? The web is open to all—including, I should think, those many fish-eating vegetarians. So why are they not starting organizations, creating websites full of fish recipes, and so forth? Why is their presence on the web so . . . minimal? Once again, I’m sure such sites exist, but so far I’ve not run across anything substantial for “pesco” vegetarians. Curious. I tried to find a cite that said that vegetarians ate fish, but I couldn’t find it. At least not through the most typically used keywords on Google: “definition vegetarian” and “definition vegetarianism.” Of course I know something’s got to be somewhere, but it’s hard to find. And there’s a reason for that, I think.

We’re at an impasse here and I don’t think there’s really any reason to continue. I’ve got a mountain of cites on my side, and you’ve got—what? Ignorant people—many whom don’t really give a damn about vegetarianism, but, when asked, will assume that it means that veggies can sometimes eat meat? And some people who haven’t thought about it too deeply, and/or only a vague grasp on what vegetarianism means, but will casually assume that they are vegetarian because they “cut back” on red meats? Okay fine. I can’t change your mind, and you certainly won’t change mine.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@yosemite

No, not at all. You’re saying that ignorance and misinformation should win, and I’m saying that no, we don’t have to accept that.

Gee, if only that’s what I were saying.

What I’m saying is that words mean what the speaker and the audience mutually understand them to mean. There’s no such thing as a “correct” definition of a word; saying there is betrays ignorance about the fundamentals of human speech. That’s the ignorance and misinformatin that I don’t want to win; ignorance about linguistic patterns is what I’m refusing to accept.

I mean, you can, and I can’t stop you, but you can’t stop many of us from not accepting it, and you can’t stop veggies from writing scathing reviews for “veggie” cookbooks that have fish in them or otherwise expressing their displeasure at the ignorance being spread, and you can’t stop us from most definitely not considering you a vegetarian.

Who said I could? I can’t stop you, any more than I can stop Jerry Falwell from refusing to consider Mormons to be Christians. What I can do is respect the fact that a majority of self-identified vegetarians consider the word to include eating fish.

Anyway, tell me—what is the point of having dictionaries or encyclopedias?

At their best, they describe to us how the language is, and has been, used. At their worst, they describe this to us incorrectly. In this case, I’ve given you a cite showing how the word is being used, and you’re responding with cites showing me how many people incorrectly think the word is being used. Actual usage trumps suggested usage any old day.

And while we’re on the subject of online cites, why is it that I can’t find any sites made by fish-eating vegetarians, giving their so-called “corrected” definition?

Maybe because fish-eating vegetarians aren’t as worked up about the issue as non-fish-eating vegetarians? I gave you a cite showing you that a majority of folks who consider themselves vegetarians are fish-eaters; this is clearly a cite that a majority of vegetarians define the word to include fish-eating.

We’re at an impasse here and I don’t think there’s really any reason to continue. I’ve got a mountain of cites on my side, and you’ve got—what? Ignorant people—many whom don’t really give a damn about vegetarianism, but, when asked, will assume that it means that veggies can sometimes eat meat?

No: you’ve got dictionaries on your side, who apparently don’t realize the way the word is being used; I’ve got evidence on my side of how the word is actually being used.

And some people who haven’t thought about it too deeply, and/or only a vague grasp on what vegetarianism means, but will casually assume that they are vegetarian because they “cut back” on red meats?

What do I care about how passionate the folks using the word are? They use the word to communicate a concept, and they do it successfully. You don’t like the fact that they communicate that specific concept with that specific word. So what? As long as they’re getting their meaning across, they’ve communicated effectively; the dictionary writers are going to realize that eventually and modify their definitions accordingly. That’s how the language works, how the language changes.

There are, incidentally, a still-smaller group of vegetarians who won’t consider you a true vegetarian if you eat milk or eggs. Frankly, I think they’ve got a better case than you’ve got: at least they’ve got etymologies backing them up. All you’ve got is dictionaries that are clearly not aware of how the word is actually used, and interest groups that are unhappy with the way the word is actually used.

But yeah, maybe we’re at an impasse. I’m more concerned with linguistic integrity than I am with belittling people’s self-identification or with implying that they’re too lazy to be real vegetarians :).

Daniel

Daniel

[yosemite]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

At their best, they describe to us how the language is, and has been, used. At their worst, they describe this to us incorrectly. In this case, I’ve given you a cite showing how the word is being used, and you’re responding with cites showing me how many people incorrectly think the word is being used.

“Incorrectly”? We are at an impasse. I think the many cites (including the Time Magazine cite) indicate what the word means, and how many use it.

Maybe because fish-eating vegetarians aren’t as worked up about the issue as non-fish-eating vegetarians?

Or maybe they are so lukewarm on the subject, or close to apathetic, but when asked, will casually (but incorrectly) assume that they are vegetarian? I think this is why there are no “fish eating” vegetarian organizations that I can find (won’t say they don’t exist, of course). Because a lot of these so-called “self-identified” vegetarians are so lukewarm about the subject, they’d just as easily consider themselves non-vegetarians had they bothered to read the definition, and would just as easily be corrected (if they were corrected) and agree that they weren’t vegetarian. I suspect (of course can’t prove) that many of these so-called veggies answered the poll question with a shrug of the shoulder and “oh, I guess I’m vegetarian.”

And you want these type of people to define what it means for the rest of us—well, you can be okay with that, but I’m not. Not when it means I’m going to be scolded by misinformed people for not eating fish or chicken, and am told that I can eat meat after all.

That’s the reason why I think there are so many numbers in these polls of “self-identified” vegetarians. Because some are ignorant and/or don’t really give that much of a damn, so their conviction about their own “identity” is pretty flimsy to begin with.

Frankly, I think they’ve got a better case than you’ve got: at least they’ve got etymologies backing them up.

Hey, I’m far more on their side than on the fish-eating side. You’re right. But at least they’ve got their own term (“vegan”) which I’m not trying do dilute. They can call me “ovo-lacto” and we’re both happy.

All you’ve got is dictionaries that are clearly not aware of how the word is actually used, and interest groups that are unhappy with the way the word is actually used.

And you’ve got what appears to be a lot of ignorant people who wrongfully assume that they are vaguely attached to a term that they really don’t know much about.

But yeah, maybe we’re at an impasse. I’m more concerned with linguistic integrity than I am with belittling people’s self-identification or with implying that they’re too lazy to be real vegetarians :).

It’s not about “laziness,” it’s about wanting to be called something while not really being it. I’ve gotten that impression from some folks, and also from one of the cites you provided:

Amanda Machin, 27, a student from north London, calls herself a vegetarian even though she eats fish and has eaten meat on a couple of occasions.

“I suppose strictly I should be called a demi-vegetarian. I stopped eating red meat at 16 for political reasons. It’s very hard to be a strict vegetarian and I just think you have to do as much as you can.”

In other words, “I didn’t want to keep eating vegetarian, so I stopped. But I still want to call myself vegetarian.” Okay, at least the person quoted said that she should be called demi-vegetarian. But she still is calling herself vegetarian, even though she actually knows that she is no longer one.

Sorry, but I don’t want people like her deciding what a word means. She knows she’s using it incorrectly, but it was “too hard” to actually be a vegetarian. But hey. The next best thing is just to change the definition so you can “self-identify” with something that you’re actually not (because it’s “too hard,”) right?

We are at an impasse, indeed.

[Lamia]

@yosemite

“Incorrectly”? We are at an impasse. I think the many cites (including the Time Magazine cite) indicate what the word means, and how many use it.

Well, there’s a very long history for considering a diet that contains no meat but fish to be “meatless”. The Catholic stance on this has already been mentioned, but this idea isn’t limited to the West. Prior to the Meiji restoration, the Japanese did not eat meat for religious/cultural reasons…but seafood was always the exception.

That there is no word that specifically designates this common dietary practice is a shortcoming of the language. Telling people to make do with the awkward and confusing “pesco-vegetarian” (which isn’t even in the dictionary at present) probably isn’t going to cut it. “Vegetarian” may not be the best possible label for a diet that includes fish but excludes other animal flesh, but it’s the best one currently in common use in English even if it’s not strictly accurate.

And you want these type of people to define what it means for the rest of us—well, you can be okay with that, but I’m not. Not when it means I’m going to be scolded by misinformed people for not eating fish or chicken, and am told that I can eat meat after all.

I don’t think that’s really a semantic problem, though. I do eat fish and chicken, but I’ve still had to put up with all kinds of idiotic remarks from other people about what they thought I should and shouldn’t eat. “Pork’s white meat! It says so on the commercial!” “Well you know, that stuff they have at Taco Bell isn’t real beef.” “That’s not pork, it’s bacon!” “So if you eat white meat, does that mean if we killed a white guy you could eat him, but you wouldn’t eat a black guy?” (I wish I could say I’d only rarely been asked that last one, but I can’t.)

People are also always trying to make me eat shrimp. They’re sometimes quite aggressive about it. I have no particular reason to exclude shrimp from my diet, except for this very important one – I find them revolting. I mean they literally make me vomit. But since shrimp is a kind of seafood and seafood as a class isn’t on my blacklist, people assume I must be keen to eat the wretched things no matter how much I try to politely refuse.

The problem isn’t so much how words are used or misused, it’s that some people are idiots, and worse still they are idiots who can’t accept that others are different than them or that they don’t know more than I/you do about my/your own diet. Heck, I’ve run into similar issues as a non-drinker. Lots of people just can’t accept that “I don’t drink” really means “I don’t drink” not “I don’t drink a lot” or “I don’t drink unless you ask me again and again and again and again…” It’s not that they don’t understand my words, they’re just so unable to relate to my meaning that they can’t believe I really mean what I say.

[El_Cid_Viscoso]

One word: water.

World water supplies will not be enough for our descendants to enjoy the sort of diet the West eats now, experts say.

The World Water Week in Stockholm will be told the growth in demand for meat and dairy products is unsustainable.

Animals need much more water than grain to produce the same amount of food, and ending malnutrition and feeding even more mouths will take still more water.

Scientists say the world will have to change its consumption patterns to have any realistic hope of feeding itself…