oh, come on.
Re: Catholic prohibition of meat on Friday, I thought The Pope retracted that. I thought he said it was OK now to eat meat on Fridays. Please, someone, tell me I’m not making this up!
I was gonna guess “warm blood” was the key. Birds is warm blooded. Didn’t know that till I was 20!
sorry.
My ex-girlfriend used to eat only vegatables, but did start eating fish for the very reason you gave–she needed a protein source and was suffering dizzy spells until she added fish to her diet.
JZ
If you eat any kind of animal, whether it’s cow, pig, fish, siberian tiger, or spiders you are not a vegetarian. Anyone who does an describes themselves a vegetarian is incorrect.
There is no room for confusion here. It is not a grey area. Either what’s on your plate used to have a face and walked around, or it didn’t.
Or swam. ;j
Huh. Thanks for muddying a perfectly clear point! 
Some animals don’t have a face either.
Up until the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s, Roman Catholics were supposed to abstain from meat every Friday and during the forty days of Lent. (Those forty days do not include Sundays, incidentally.) The Council changed the rule to include only Fridays during Lent plus Ash Wednesday, though RCs are still encouraged to make some sacrifice on Fridays. Some Catholics still don’t eat meat on Fridays, but that’s their choice.
At one time Catholics were also supposed to avoid milk and milk products on days of abstinence. Also sex, believe it or not. The general idea was to avoid luxury and pleasure. Fish was for many Europeans a staple, a poor man’s food, not a luxury like meat or butter.
My wife was a vegetarian for health reasons for a couple of years. But she also travels a lot for business and had great difficulty finding proper low-fat vegetarian meals in strange cities, especially when she was with a group who decided on the restaurant for her. (Most restaurants’ idea of vegetarian is a glob of cheese with some stuff swimming in it.) Even business meals during the day at home or at work became a problem.
She finally decided to add fish back into her diet on this occasional basis.
It’s a health decision. She doesn’t go around calling herself a vegetarian or a pescetarian or anything at all. She just tries to eat a healthy low-fat diet.
I’m one of the ones who eats fish but not beef, pork, chicken, etc. Juan2003 is correct…this dietary choice is called being a pescetarian. So many times, I’ve told friends, family, and colleagues that I’m a pescetarian and each time I’ve told them, I’m met with this odd quizzical look. It’s almost like the word pescetarian is not a socially accepted term and people find it easier just to lump us in with the vegetarians. Every time the issue of dining comes up I’m still called (by them) a vegetarian.
I somehow feel it’s a disservice to vegetarians if people call me a vegetarian when I’m not. I feel like they’re giving me more credit than I deserve. Although I do value the life of an animal, I’m a pescetarian only for nutritional purposes. I just like my seafood too dag’on much to be a vegetarian. Sorry little sea creatures…
The International Vegetarian Union has accurate defintions for all of the different types of veggie eaters.
To answer the OP, by definition vegetarians do not eat fish. People who eat only fruit, vegetables, and fish are called pescetarian.
Pesce means fish in Italian to elude any mystery on the term.
My search method for this was to type vegetarian +ovo-lacto +definition into Google.
A friend of mine is a vegetarian, but eats fish. She calls herself a vegequarian. Think about it…
:dubious:
I’ll be damned. A General Answer to a vegetarian thread in General Questions! Thanks, Sternvogel.
but aren’t they killing the fruit cells?
Also, buddists are allowed to eat meat, but not recommended
http://www.lakehouse.lk/budusarana/2003/06/29/Budu11.pdf
My wife is a vegearian but eats fish, and also ‘vegetarian pork’ pies bacon sandwiches and beef fat - still a’vegetarian’ though?
There was a thread on this subject in MPSIMS recently, and it didn’t have so much of this “everbody who doesn’t eat what I eat isn’t a vegetarian” stuff.
The problem, as discussed in that thread is basically this: there’s no universally accepted definition of “vegetarian.” And there’s nobody with the authority to make one, I might add. Who are the International Vegetarians Union? I haven’t eaten meat in about 2 1/2 years, and they’ve never contacted me. I’ve never spoken to my local rep., I don’t even know what local union I’m part of. Am I a scab? Why did vegetarians feel the need to unionize? Is there a chance we’ll need to go on strike?
Likewise, there’s no universally accepted definition of “meat.” Like it or not, “it had a face” or “it cared for its young” aren’t scientific criteria. This is a matter of opinion. These are both issues that seem clear-cut, but only if you’ve already made up your mind on the subject.
bromells, I get asked why I eat like I do a lot. People want to know. So if a vegetarian volunteers an explanation of their dietary habits, it’s just as likely force of routine. Yes, there are obnoxious people who proselytize, but you’re overgeneralizing pointlessly.
Speaking of which, among other non-meateaters: what’s with the “Veggier Than Thou” stuff? Yikes.
Right! Or swan, or crawled.
No fish, no lobster, no bugs either.
People who “call themselves vegetarians” but who eat fish, shrimp, milk, eggs, jello, insects, etc give others who are true vegetarians a bad rap.
Leaving aside debate over definitions of terms, I think the best way to answer the question of “Why do some people who don’t eat beef, pork and chicken then eat fish?” is to instead ask the question “Why do some people not eat beef, pork and chicken?”
There are lots of reasons for not eating beef pork and chicken – ethically one doesn’t want to kill other animals, one doesn’t want to see other animals confined in factory farm cages, one doesn’t want the environmental problems from factory farms, personal health reasons, personal economic reasons, religious proscriptions, and possibly many more as well as various combinations of these. Any or all of these reasons could, depending on one’s own personal values and interpretations, lead a person to avoid eating beef pork and chicken while still eating fish.
<pit-like observations about why this bothers other people deleted>
Its quite simple - they’re not furry mammals that can be easily anthropomorphisized. They are more distant to the emotions than Daisy the cow or Oscar the badger. Since they also are conviently quite nutritious you can imagine why someone on a veg-for-compassion diet would consider them fair game.
Following up on Sternvogel’s helpful post…
Most replies to this thread seem to have assumed that abstinence from meat is always motivated by the same ethical concerns that guide contemporary vegetarians: that is, that one should abstain from eating meat because it comes from a sentient creature whose life deserves respect.
By this token, a true vegetarian should abstain from eating fish as well as from eating land animals and fowl. Certainly, an ethical vegetarian who eats fish is being somewhat ethically inconsistent.
However, the ethical dimension of vegetarianism really has nothing to do with religious abstinence practices, which are really what the OP is asking about. Catholics, for example, do not abstain from eating meat on Fridays (during Lent, anyway) because of some temporary ethical concern for animals. They do so in order to deprive oneself of a (traditionally) luxurious privilege (beef, pork, and other land animal meats being associated with joyful feasting in past eras).
A lot of the confusion has stemmed from the word “meat.” Today, the term is often extended to any animal, including fish. However, as James Atkin points out, the term is often used interchangeably with the word “flesh,” which by definition excludes “fish meat.” When one talks about abstaining from “meat” for religious reasons, one is usually talking about abstaining from animal “flesh.”
Nowadays, flesh meat isn’t quite the luxury it used to be (considering that you can get a hamburger at McDonald’s for $0.49), and, if you’ve ever been to a seafood restaurant, you’ll know that fish is often more expensive. One could even say that fish has become more of a luxury than other “flesh” meats.
But traditions die hard, you know.
Marley23 its quite the amazing feat you can write messages on this board at all. I can hardly imagine Webster writing and asking your approval for all the words you just used in your post.
When looking for the definition of an action you must look the the authority of that action. In this case it is the IVU.
The IVU was established in 1908 and has members from every continent. They are the largest organization of vegetarians in the world.
All that aside, there are millions of vegetarians worldwide, I’m scant to believe that no one ever thought up to come with definitions.
But hey, in the long run, you are whatever you call yourself right? Thats right! All I am asking is that before you denounce my evidence, my cite, that you produce your own cite for the information you provided.
Thanks! :dubious: