That’s pretty much it, although I dispute the “strictly accurate” bit: the word is only not “strictly accurate” in the sense that different people mean different things by it. In such cases, it’s generally a good idea, I think, to go with how the majority uses the word, so that you’ll communicate efectively with the most people. In this case, it seems that the majority of folks consider vegetarianism to include fish but to exclude poultry. That’s how I’ll continue to use the word; I humbly suggest that folks like yosemite start using the hrase “lacto-ovo-vegetarian” if they want to communicate clearly.
You’re right about the idiots, though. Just as it’s never a good idea to make a joke about someone’s name (“Smokes-too-much – huh – I’d never thought of that!”), it’s rarely a good idea to try to outwit someone about their diet. Unless you’re a freakin supergenius, any quip you make is going to be one they’ve already heard from a hundred yahoos just like you, and any witty argument you can raise is guaranteed to be an agonizing cliche to them by the time it occurs to you. Being witty is good, but, y’know, it requires being witty.
Well, you called yourself “half vegetarian” in a previous post here. Does that not describe your diet? Or, what about “semi-vegetarian”? I think that’s pretty straightfoward. Certainly better than allowing people to think that you are something that you are not.
Yes, you are certainly right about that. I believe that is why some people are more apt to want to believe that vegetarianism includes fish and chicken, or at least fish. “Oh my gosh,” they’ll say, “Surely you must eat some sort of animal flesh–surely!” They find it so foreign to think that no, vegetarians really don’t eat animal flesh, so they just “reinvent” what the word means. Not because it’s accurate, and not because it’s really anything to them one way or the other. But because their own limited imaginations make the whole concept so difficult to grasp.
There are also those types that want to be attached to vegetarianism, because it has a positive connotation to them. They want to be considered vegetarian, but–wait a minute–it means giving up foods that they don’t want to give up. Well, rather than just admit that they aren’t really meant to be vegetarian (not everyone is–no shame in that), they just proclaim that they are anyway, which is absolutely absurd. But that seems to be what’s happening, more and more, and we’re just supposed to go along with it, I guess. Well, I won’t.
Oh, but wait. It won’t stay like that for very long, don’t you see? We’ve already got quite a few people who consider themselves vegetarian, even though they eat chicken, and sometimes eat red meat (just once in a while, certainly that doesn’t count, does it?). Let’s face it–if we’re going to go with the opinons of a bunch of ignorant or deluded people, then vegetarianism means whatever the person wants it to mean. The cites you gave already indicated this. People who admit that they sometimes eat meat, but somehow, they still are vegetarians, aren’t they?
So really, vegetarianism just means that you might want to “cut back” on red meat once in a while. Or maybe it doesn’t even mean that. Maybe it just means that you think about cutting back. After all–don’t want to be too restrictive with its definition. And, please–whatever you do–don’t consult dictionaries, encyclopedias, nutrition or dietary sources, because we all know that their input on the definition is meaningless. Let’s just go with what the (oftentimes) semi-apathetic, ignorant or deluded individual feels they are. Which means that vegetarianism can be just about anything at all.
Hey. When polled, a lot of stupid people will claim that they’re smart. Must mean that smart=stupid, right? Let’s redefine that while we’re at it. :rolleyes:
And will you continue to use it to describe people who eat chicken, and who “sometimes” eat red meat? Don’t want to leave them out. After all, they feel that they are vegetarians too. So they must be!
I have sometimes wondered if other people really believe I’m going to smack myself on the head, say “Of course! The other white meat!” and then dig in to a big ol’ pork chop. I mean, I know what pork is. I’ve seen it before, and I ate it as a kid. If I’ve since decided not to eat it, I’m unlikely to suddenly change my mind because of some supposedly witty remark.
It describes my diet pretty well, but I eat poultry too. (I can recommend this label to anyone with a similar diet – it seems much easier for others to understand than the red vs. white meat distinction.) I think it’s pushing things pretty far to call my diet a vegetarian one although, as I said, I’ve sometimes claimed to be a vegetarian because it was the only way to be sure I’d get food I could eat. But I think those who eat no meat but fish are in a different position if only because of the widespread historic belief that fish is in a different category from other meats.
But…but…but…it’s meat! You have to eat meat! It’s so good! Here, how about this, it hasn’t got much meat in it…
You–you–you mean to tell me that words function only when the speaker and audience understand them to have the same meaning? You mean to tell me that language changes over time? You mean to tell me that there’s no such thing as a “correct” definition for a word?
Be still my beating heart!
yosemite, that’s exactly what I’m saying. You’re the one putting the words “ignorant” and “deluded” in there, but whatever you mean by those words, it’s certainly not what most people mean by them. Ignorance and delusion have nothing to do with it, except inasmuch as you just do not understand the fundamentals of human language use.
I understand that people can be wrong, even if they think they are being right, and that in a lot of cases, their own delusion, ignorance, laziness or vanity can be an incentive for self-delusion.
Time Magazine was nicer about it than I would be, when they wrote this:
Tell me, are these people who were polled right? Or is Time Magazine getting it right when they report that these people don’t know what the broadest definition of the word “vegetarian” is?
Is it possible for someone (or a lot of someones) to have a “wrong” definition, or are we, as a population, obligated to stick our finger in the wind every day, see what the stupid and ignorant think, and change the definitons of everything based on the mistaken notions of the lowest common denominator?
Let’s see—a lot of people believe that New Mexico isn’t part of the United States, but is instead part of Mexico. Well, that settles it. Because a lot of people (wrongfully) believe it, let’s start changing all the maps.
As I mentioned before, a lot of stupid people think that they are smart. Well, that must mean that stupid = smart, doesn’t it? If that is all it takes for something that is wrong, has been wrong, is documented to be incorrect, to suddenly be “right”—just because a lot of ignorant yahoos “wish” it to be that way, well, then, I guess that’s what it means.
And I guess it means that vegetarians are anything that a person wishes it to be—vegetarians now can eat chicken, fish, “a little” red meat—whatever they want. Right? You want to claim that vegetarians can eat fish, but not chicken. But obviously you are wrong. It can mean so much more than that. It means that you can eat whatever you want, but as long as you feel you are vegetarian, you are. That’s the only criterion.
So let’s not even discuss what vegetarianism is, or who is or is not a vegetarian. Because obviously, IT CAN BE ANYTHING. Everyone or anyone can be a vegetarian, merely by saying that they are. That’s all that it takes.
Everything we humans do destroys other life. Veges proclaim their goodness in not eating meat, whilst driving about in motorcars and being all-round consumers just as much as meat-eaters. It is falsness, just like socialism and all the other do-gooder things. It is a fashion, an affectation, pretending to be good, but still an evil. I have known very many ‘vegetarians’. If anything, they are even more false than non-vegeterians, thus more evil. Generally speaking of course, for not all vegetarians are equal.
Having said that, I like my vegetables. Boil lots of different veges in water (incuding onion and garlic). Timings up to you, however you prefer. Don’t throw away juice - it is nectar.
Of course, people eat too much meat. Moderation and common-sence!
Point is, don’t do stupid things, like paint or sand-blast the outside of your house, thus killing countless little creatures, for the sake of status. Or going mad with your lawn-mowers and strimmers and death-sprays, or any other countless things that kill all the little creatures, just because others do this. Oh I could preach for ages in this vein!
The tinyist little fly is more precious than all the jewels in the world. I eat meat!
The answer is simple: “Vegetarian” is an old Indian word meaning “Bad Hunter”. Vegetarians are descended from bad hunters all around the world who try to justify thier killing-impairment by claiming that a vegetarian diet saves all the lil’ aminals. People have been eating meat since the beginning of time. I see no reason why we should stop now. Just shut up and be an omnivore like the rest of us.
Time is getting it wrong. Words aren’t handed down by God; they derive their definitions from how folks use them. If most folks use the word “vegetarian” in a way that it includes those who eat some form of meat, then that’s what the word means to most folks.
This isn’t some radical anti-vegetarian theory; this is basic linguistics.
First off, could you possibly get more insulting? Not everyone who disagrees with you is stupid or ignorant; indeed, I think that the ignorance is entirely on your side in this one. You are ignorant of how language works.
Second, you’re not obligated to do anything, languagewise. If someone tells you they’re vegetarian and then you see them eating chicken, you’re free to tell them that you don’t consider them vegetarian. Similarly, if someone tells you they’re Christian and then you see them reading the Book of Mormon, you’re free to tell them that you don’t consider them Christian. But you’re not the arbiter of definitions. Why not? Because there’s no such thing.
Again, that’s not specific to the word “vegetarian”: that’s how human language works.
Let’s see if you can figure out the difference between the boundaries of a nation-state and the definition of a word all on your own. Give it a try: this post contains enough information for you to do it.
Well, it does, with the following bit of information: the boundaries of a nation-state are established by a government, and confirmed by other nation-states; these boundaries are backed up with lethal force held by the government. There. Now you’ve got enough information to differentiate between the two.
Indeed.
You’re free to use the word “stupid” to mean “smart.” Let me know how that works out for you. Some folks awhile ago started using the word “bad” to mean “good,” and they were successful at it for awhile; as long as they were successful, “good” was an effective definition for “bad” in some contexts. That’s as close as a word gets to getting a “correct” definition.
Where did I claim that?
Once more, with feeling: anyone can use the word “vegetarian” (or the word “lilac” or the word “frichnibble”) to mean whatever they want it to mean. If they’re trying to communicate a concept through the use of the word, the sole measure of their effective language use is whether their audience understood the concept as the speaker intended.
If I use the word “vegetarian” to communicate the concept that, for example, I like to snort cocaine through a hollowed-out zucchini, and my audience understands what I meant, then I used the word successfully.
Of course, most audiences are unlikely to understand my meaning if I intend that definition. Your own cites, however, show that most audiences are likely to understand my meaning if I use the word “vegetarian” to mean “a person who makes an effort to include less, if any, meat in their diet.”
yosemite, I fear that until you step back and look a bit at how language operates, you’re not going to grasp this subject. I feel like I’m trying to explain red shift to someone who doesn’t believe that light travels from one place to another, and who therefore ridicules the concept of colors changing based on speed.
A-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! Oh, Ulrira, you crack me up! I haven’t laughed so hard since the hundredth time someone told me that PETA stood for “People Eating Tasty Animals.” You’re a comedic genius!
Do let me know when you’ve got more original material.
Of course they’re wrong. Because you want them to be wrong. I guess that’s all it takes these days to refute cite after cite after cite. “Well, they’re wrong! Next question?” Come on. :rolleyes:
So the woman from your cite, who knew that she wasn’t really vegetarian, but still wanted to call herself one, because vegetarianism was “too hard” (but God Forbid she stop calling herself one) isn’t worthy of some contempt? “It’s too hard, but I like being called one. So I’ll stop being one, but I will still call myself one.” That’s a combination of many things—deluded, vain, lazy, stupid—take your pick. That’s what people are doing these days. They don’t want to put in the effort, but they still want the label. So, poof! They’ll just “self identify” with something that they know are not.
Or, they’ll be “mistaken” about the definition, because they are so casual about it or have never investigated the subject (I think that many people fall into this category) but oh my gosh, rather than tell them that they’re wrong (which is what Time Magazine and I would rather do), let’s just revise the definition! By all means, let’s not tell them that they’ve got the definition wrong. Let’s not point to the countless dictionaries, encyclopedias, and so forth. Stop the presses! Tell all those dictionaries, encyclopedias and other cites that THEY are wrong!
That’s all you’ve done here. Said that every cite—every one of the many quite reputable cites—is wrong. “Well, they’re wrong too. That one too. That one too. That one too. Yep, and that one, and that one over there, and oh yeah, that one. They’re all wrong wrong wrong.” Good grief, this is quite something to do on a cite-driven board such as this.
But why should that stand in the way of people’s ignorance? Certainly a mountain of repuatble cites are not enough to stand in the way of ignorance. Where do you draw the line? Where is the line where definitions are allowed to be called “wrong,” instead of just “but people feel it is that way, so it must be”?
And when you use it with people who assume it means something you did not intend it to mean? You use it on this board, on this thread, and I suspect that the majority of people will assume you mean no animal flesh. This is especially true when the discussion strays to “eating animals” and “animal rights,” “animal cruelty,” and so forth. But you still want to use it, without clarifying that, oh yeah, you eat animals too. Are you using the word effectively in this context? I don’t think so.
No—the cites don’t say that. They say, “A person who does not eat meat, fish or fowl.” A few make mention of the mistaken people who think they are vegetarian, but they make a point of saying that these people are mistaken. But many just stick with “a person who does not eat meat, fish or fowl.”
Most of your post comprises inane repitition of the same irrelevant points you’ve been making all along. Hidden amongst the irrelevancies, however, there’s a kernel of relevancy:
On what basis do you have this suspicion? Give me a cite that significantly upholds this suspicion, and I’ll consider it; until then, I see that you’ve not grasped the central linguistic point, that makes your hyperbolic, hands-thrown-in-the-air sarcastic tizzy completely beside the point.
Cite that a majority of people will assume that’s what vegetarianism means?
Cites? You are asking me for cites? You’re kidding, right? Cites? We don’t need cites. We dismiss cites as “wrong” and that’s the end of it.
Look. As far as I can see, you gave me ONE site, of a poll of 11,000 people, and you’re basing all of this on this one cite. I give you cite and cite and cite, showing what the “mainstream” definition is (at least according to dictionaries, encyclopedias, news articles, etc. think it is). But of course that’s blown off. Because who cares about those cites, right?
Do you mean to tell me that if a poll tells you that 51% (that’s the barest of majorities) think that a definition means something, then you are “communicating effectively” when you use that term all the time, without any further thought? Even though perhaps 49% of the public isn’t really going to be on the same page as you are, as far as what the word means?
Let’s review what your sole site tells us:
So if I’m getting this right, 51% ate fish or other meats. Who knows how many of those in the 51% were like that young woman who knew she wasn’t really a vegetarian, but called herself one anyway. So 42% (according to your cite) were “really” vegetarians (the actual words from your cite). That’s not exactly a piddling minority, is it? In fact, if we take into account the likelihood that more than a few from the meat-eating side were like that young woman who knew what a vegetarian was (and knew that “strictly speaking,” she wasn’t one), then we may even have less than a majority of people who actually believe that “strictly speaking,” vegetarians can eat animal flesh.
And another question, in response to your comment here:
Ah, so it depends on the context, does it?
So, let me ask you this: You are amongst a group of people. Some are PETA members, others are vegans, yet others are regular readers of Vegetarian Times. IN THIS CONTEXT, do you answer “yes” or “no” when they ask you, “Are you vegetarian too?” It’s a simple question: yes or no. Are you “communicating successfully” to such people when you claim to be vegetarian? Do you think you are giving them the correct impression of what your diet really is?
And like I asked you before (but you managed to ignore the comment), do you seriously mean to tell me that when there is a discussion about vegetarianism and animal suffering, death of animals, eating of animals, where the discussion is about why vegetarians are vegetarians (hence the discussion of animal death, etc.), that a person who still eats animals is going to be able to still call themselves “vegetarian” and believe that they are “communicating successfully” when they do so? Seriously? You think this?
Do you think that there is any CONTEXT in which it might be appropriate (if your goal is to “communicate successfully,”) to say, “No, I am not a vegetarian.”, because you eat fish? Is there any such context?
And I can’t believe that we have appeared to found our stringent vegetarian. Who’d have thought it?
Embedded within your entire argument over the last page, yosemite, appears to be a central belief that vegetarians are vegetarian because they like to call themselves vegetarian. Vegetarians that eat fish can’t possibly have their own, proper reasons for eating fish but no other meat. Nooooo, they must eat fish because they are too lazy or find it too hard work to be a “proper” vegetarian. But they still want to call themselves a vegetarian because it is that fucking cool to call yourself a vegetarian.
Can you really not see how incredibly offensive that is?
Try this: some vegetarians have their own good reasons for eating fish. They make their dietary choices based on their ethical beliefs not on what they want to be called to fit in with the kool kids. If asked, they will call themself a vegetarian because, frankly, as far as the world is concerned, there are only three states: non-vegetarian and vegan at each extreme and vegetarian somewhere in the middle. They do not get some kind of middle-class buzz out of their label; they just want to create their own diet as they see fit.
For someone that has always claimed that being vegetarian is an ethical choice and not about feeling superior, I can’t believe how obnoxious you have been here yosemite. I think you owe a giant apology to all those you have tarred with your “too lazy” brush.
I answer “no,” of course. If you think this in any way contradicts my position, that’s because you’ve been too busy rolling your eyes, waving your hands in the air, and mimicking me in a silly voice to actually pay attention to what my position is.
There are certainly some so-called vegetarians who do this, but certainly, not all. However, the person quoted in LHoD’s cite definitely fell into that category, and I have explained why, several times.
No, because I’m not talking about people who choose to eat fish for their own reasons, but know what they are (“pesco” or “Semi”). I am talking about people (like the ones in that one cite) who know they are not what they claim to be, but still call themselves that, because, you know, they wanna. And because it’s easier to reinvent a word than to just admit that they don’t fit the definition.
There are excellent, admirable reasons for an individual to choose to eat fish. This individual, however, more accurately fits (according to the mountain of cites readily available on the Internet), the term “Pesco” or “Semi” vegetarian. That is all.
Look at that one cite that LHoD gave us. The journalist called these vegetarians “so-called” and put quotes around “vegetarian,” indicating that they weren’t real vegetarians. Look at the Time Magazine quote that I cited. It also clearly states that people who believe this do not understand the definition of “vegetarian.” Are you offended and insulted by these sources too (and all the other ones that reinforce the same thing)? Because they’re basically saying what I’m saying (but in a nicer way).
You weren’t paying attention. NOBODY is “too lazy” for choosing whatever diet they choose. There is no shame in choosing a diet that contains fish, and I already mentioned that. But if a person pretends that they are something that they are NOT, and say, “I know I am not this thing, but it’s easier to call myself it than to really BE it,” well, obviously they’re going to raise some eyebrows. It doesn’t have to be about fish, or beef, or even about food—it can be about anything. Like the woman in that cite, who knew that, “strictly speaking,” she wasn’t what she claimed to be. But it was “too hard” to be what she claimed to be. But she kept on claiming it anyway.
Oh, I’ve been paying attention all right, and I frankly thought you’d hem and haw a little more before admitting what I knew you believed all along. Amusing, really.
So, it’s not about “communicating effectively,” is it? Because you know that you would not, and are not, communicating with many people now (your favorite poll indicates that very likely, a large chunk of people do not consider fish eating to be part of the vegetarian diet), and you certainly would not be “communicating effectively” in a context where it would not even occur to those listening that you could call yourself veggie if you eat animal flesh. But you’re still going to do it. Of course. Because you want to—not because you will be understood. Not because clarity of language is your goal. It’s kind of like the kid who reinvents a word to mean its exact opposite might say it to a completely inappropriate crowd, knowing they won’t get it. But he wants to say it—even though he knows that odds are, he won’t be really understood. But his wants trump the notion of actually being understood. Funny. But a little pathetic.
So what if some woman in some stupid interview is an idiot? You seem to be resting a hell of a lot on that woman.
About half the vegetarians I know eat fish. Daniel and Lamia appear to be two more. None of them are claiming to be “vegetarian” because it is so kewlies to be a vegetarian. Instead, they have good reasons for not wishing to eat meat in general but being happy to eat fish specifically. Your problem with them is apparently that the world in general doesn’t care about the sliding graduation of vegetarianism and just calls them all vegetarians. Well diddums.
In general, I’d ask you this: who decided that you, the “vegetarian society” (of the US, I’d note) or Time Magazine get to define a vegetarian as “a person that eats no animal flesh”? That’s an incredibly tortuous definition, if you ask me. Far more than “a person that refuses to eat some animal products” is. Neither definition fits with the actual etymology of the word, which is “one that eats only vegetables”. But the former definition that you prefer gets into problems with by-products of the meat industry (such as milk) and borderline animals (such as eggs) that the latter doesn’t. So why are you so obsessed that only the former definition makes sense?
I don’t think this is really anything to do with definitions making sense at all. I think you’ve revealed from your posts on the past couple of pages what the real issues are:
You don’t understand why someone would want to not eat any meat except fish. (E.g. your statement that, “I’ve never understood it either” in response to CrazyCatLady’s, “If someone has a more thorough explanation of why chunks of cow flesh are meat but chunks of chicken or fish flesh aren’t meat, I’m genuinely interested in hearing it so I can understand the mindset better.”)
The popular definition of fish-eater as part of vegetarianism has affected you personally when an ignorant fool chose to ignore your personal preferences and tried to force something on you that you ethically refused to eat.
These two issues seem to have created a desire in you to declare what constitutes “vegetarianism” in a “mainstream” context. (As if anyone cares what that mainstream context is anyway. Everyone is unique. Mainstream vegetarianism certainly does include eggplant, for example, but I bet a lot of vegetarians refuse to eat it on the grounds that they simply don’t like it!)
Well it isn’t good enough. You need to accept that a lot of people – apparently more than half of those that avoid some meat for one reason or another – eat fish but no other meat. These people have their reasons, whether or not you think those reasons are good enough. The occassional idiot aside, these reasons are generally consistent and ethical. Rather than slamming them for using a word that you feel a proprietary right to, I suggest you get alongside them in countering the prejudice that they have to face as a vegetarian just as much as you.
And other people I’ve met. And other attitudes I’ve detected.
Lamia calls herself a “half vegetarian.”
Plenty don’t. And plenty take pains (like Lamia does), to say that they are “semi” or “half” or whatever vegetarian. Hence, no confusion in communicating what their diet is.
Grand. Spiffy. Admirable. Never said it wasn’t. A perfectly fine diet for a “demi” or “semi” or “psuedo” vegetarian.
Who decided that they didn’t have any weight in the matter? There are a lot of sources, a lot of people—hell, probably near 50% of the people in Daniel’s poll who don’t think that vegetarians eat fish. Why does their view on it not count for something?
It’s not all relying on what you think, however.
Wrong. I don’t understand why someone would call themselves vegetarian, and claim that they don’t eat meat, when they still eat animal flesh (aka meat).
I understand perfectly why people eat meat of all kinds. A lot of people I know still eat it. I don’t condemn them. I never have. A friend of mine is on a very strict diet and is only allowed to eat fish (cholesterol problems). I’ve always told him how much I admire his diet, and how he eats far better than I do, overall.
Read this quote again and let it sink in. MEAT, according to many of us, is animal flesh. Animal flesh. On the bone. It is confusing to me (and to Crazy Cat Lady and many others, I’ll warrant) how someone can say they don’t eat meat but still eat fish meat, or chicken meat, or whatever. Eat meat, or don’t. But don’t pretend that the flesh of a fish is so radically different than the flesh off of a cow. They’re all dead animals and shockingly enough, many vegetarians don’t eat dead animals. Any of 'em.
Yes, and the Wikipedia cite (among others) covered that issue. It’s annoying.
A lot of people do. A lot of people on this board quote cites from the Internet (just like I have done), indicating what the “mainstream” context is for many things.
That’s fine! So they are “pesco” vegetarians or “semi” vegetarians!
Their reasons for eating fish are none of my business, and their reasons are fine. Just call themselves “pesco,” or “semi” to avoid confusion, and we’re all cool. Don’t care, don’t care, don’t CARE that they eat fish. They are no better nor worse than me for eating fish. The fish-eating friend I mentioned before is better than me, however, because he eats far more sensibly than I do.
For a semi or psuedo or pesco, sure.
They’re messing things up for me when they further the confusion.
Would I expect a vegan to “get alongside” me if I was trying my darndest to tell everyone that vegans can eat eggs or dairy products, simply because I wanted to call myself vegan while still eating dairy? Nope.
No. Spot-on, so it seems.
You preach about “communicating effectively,” and yet you won’t practice what you preach. Here are some of your previous quotes:
You’ve admitted that you would still call yourself vegetarian, even when your “audience” would not assume that to mean eating dead animals too. You’ve admitted that there is NO “context” in which you would not call yourself vegetarian. So much for communicating effectively with your audience.
Gee. I guess that’s what I get for answering after not getting any sleep. :wally
I apologize for this, Daniel. I thought you meant that you would claim to be vegetarian, even in that context. Sheesh. Reading through bleary eyes, I guess.
Well, that definitely changes the context of my rant. At least you admit this much.
And frankly, it’s not a problem that most of us non-animal-flesh-eating types have to face, is it? Because we don’t have to give qualifiers, or choose when to say “yes” or “no” when being asked whether we’re vegetarian.
