The situation can get even more complicated. My sister went through a phase where she wouldn’t eat fish or chicken, but she would eat pork or beef. Her rationale? She didn’t want to eat any “meat” which had the same name as the animal it came from. She didn’t mind eating dead animal, she just didn’t want to be reminded of it.
I would suspect that everyone who restricts their diet voluntarily has slightly different reasons for doing so, and to understand the behaviour, you need to know that particular person’s reasons.
sentient (ajd) 1. Having the faculties of sensation and perception. (From the Webster Abridged.)
All mammals - all animals, to one extent or another - are sentient, obviously, unless it is your position that the eyes, ears and noses I see on cows and pigs are just for show.
Why are they an authority- just because they say they are? Anyway, most of those comments were in jest, and I’m sorry you disabled a sense of humor in your post.
I wasn’t even responding to your post, alter ego. I was reacting to the people who said “if you do (whatever I disapprove of), you’re not a vegetarian because I say you’re not.”
Beyond the fact that I found the concept of a vegetarian’s union humorous, not a single word in my post was intended as a response to yours. Chill out. I have no problem with the explanations of different types of vegetarianism as explained by the IVU, and I find it useful, if sometimes a little complicated, to have all these different kinds of vegetarians clearly defined.
I don’t even see how your cite deals with my post anyway. I said there’s no universal consensus on what a vegetarian is or what meat is, and the IVU doesn’t refute that. The IVU has their own definitions and I don’t have any problem with them, but to me, the fact that I hadn’t even heard of them (and I know plenty of vegetarians who haven’t either) backs up the idea that they’re just a body, not THE authority on vegetarianism from whom we must take our definitions.
But I’d rather just drop it if you’re going to get so worked up over it.
I’ve been calling myself a vegetarian for years (nearly ten, now). I am about as nit-picky as they come, being careful to avoid gelatin, meat-based soup stock, minimizing contact with meat products, etc.
But where is it written that milk and eggs are verboten? Especially when there is a perfectly good word in common parlance that refers to one who abstains from these things?
In my book, a fish qualifies on just about every level as an animal. I probably wouldn’t refer to someone who ate fish as a vegetarian to a fellow lacto-ovo, but rather as a pescetarian. But I don’t rail on at these people that they are defiling the true nature of vegetarianism.
There is no war against the meat-eaters. But showing some understanding and respect to those who respect your beliefs would seem to be in order.
I am the only person that mentioned the IVU, so how were you not replying to me? I think it was clear that you were refuting what I said, but if you want to drop it thats A-ok! ;j
I don’t understand the confusion myself. What do you mean there are no clear definitions? The definitions alterego posted are very clear, and really not that hard to understand. I am a vegetarian. I eat animal products which don’t involve the death of the animal. (That makes me not a vegan.) I don’t eat dead animals, face or no face. It’s easy!
In the United States, it’s pretty incorrect to call oneself vegetarian and yet still eat fish. (I have to trot this speech out regularly…)
Think about it–are the Fish ‘n’ Chips restaurants “Vegetarian” restaurants? Is Red Lobster? Do you see a “Vegetarian” label on the tuna can? Can you think of a Vegetarian restaurant that served fish? (I’m not saying that they are not out there because I haven’t eaten at every restaurant in the US, but I’ve never heard of one.) How come the frozen fish dinners in the market are not called “vegetarian”? How come the biggest, most mainstream vegetarian publication out there, Vegetarian Times, doesn’t have any fish recipes? And while we’re at it, where are the fish recipes in the vegetarian cookbooks? (Once again, I won’t say that they don’t exist, but I’ve certainly never seen one.)
Most of the time, the “evidence” that vegetarians eat fish comes in the form of, “My best friend is a vegetarian, and she eats fish!” I cannot tell you how many times I’ve heard this used as a “proof.” But it doesn’t hold up real well (at least in the US) when none of the mainstream cues we get from all around us (packaged food, restaurants, cookbooks, Vegetarian magazines) is telling us that fish ain’t in the diet.
When asked about my eating habits, I say “I’m a vegetarian” because it’s usually well understood and has fewer syllables than “I don’t eat any kind of critters.” Seems silly to me to say, “I’m a pescetarian” and then have to explain to everyone what that means. Why not say, “I don’t eat meat, except for seafood”?
It’s having to explain it to people who don’t understand which leads to people claiming to be vegetarian when they’re not. I’ve never been a strict vegetarian, but I don’t eat much meat because I don’t particularly like it and it’s not terribly healthy. If I’m in a nice restaurant where the meat might actually be good or if I’m at a party where meat is being served, I’ll eat it with no problems. If someone asks if I have a preference, I’ll claim to be vegetarian because I’d much rather be served a salad than a steak. This leads to some confusion in people who hear me claim to be a vegetarian but then see me eat meat at a social event. Touch luck I say, since it’s the stupidity of carnivores which makes me exaggerate my own diet in the first place. I’ve had people who thought I was a strict vegetarian serve me chicken casserole or meat lasagne thinking I wouldn’t mind if the meat wasn’t in identifiable chunks. I’ve had others think that vegetarian means I want a salad with my steak rather than instead of the steak. I even have a few acquaintances who think I must be vegetarian because I’m poor, not because I don’t like meat, so they think they’re doing me a favor by serving me a steak or prime rib. I find this amusing rather than appalling since I eat meat occasionally, but it must be horrible to be an ethical vegetarian or vegan and have to put up with this kind of willful stupidity. If more people who aren’t vegetarian understood what the word means or the potential motivations behind it, people like me wouldn’t have to lie about being vegetarian just to try to limit our meat intake and then real vegetarians wouldn’t have to get indignant at imposters.
All of this has very little to do the OP, but it may explain why some people claim to be vegetarian when they’re clearly not.
I’m a satanist, but I call myself buddhist because it saves explaining to people. That’s as good as being buddhist, isn’t it? You are what you say you are, aren’t you? And it’s not as if I sacrifice virgins every night. I don’t see any international organisation defining me as not buddhist, so who are you to say differently?
The label ‘satanist’ is too restrictive for my taste anyway and has negative connotations. Don’t label me! I reserve the right to call myself anything I want regardless of the facts.
I’m also a swimmer, by the way. I can’t actually swim, but I can splash around a bit, that’s just the same, isn’t it? It saves explaining to people.
It’s sad that some SDMBers think that everyone has the right to call himself/herself a vegetarian, on the facile grounds that there is no single authority who judges what a vegetarian is.
Surely anyone can see that such fluid thinking can only hinder communication. It may seem open-minded and democratic, but in reality, such thinking is self-refuting and self-defeating.
I don’t think this is directed at me since I didn’t make the comment about the lack of a single authority, but I’d like to clarify my position. While both your and Futile Gesture’s criticism of me is valid (with the bonus that I got both humor and enlightenment from Futile), I want to make it clear that I don’t really think I’m vegetarian. I’m under no illusion about what “vegetarian” means and when I describe myself that way I know it’s a complete lie. I have also described myself as a pacifist to someone who was recruiting me for an act of random violence. I have also described my self as a non-drinker, non-drug-taker, and a number of other extreme positions which were not accurate but which were pragmatic and useful when the person or situation did not warrant a more detailed discussion of my philosophy.
So sorry to have offended real vegetarians, but certainly you can see how exaggerations like this happen frequently in real life. This kind of ambiguity may be undesirable in a debate where precision is necessary, but it’s a common element of everyday communication.
On the other hand, JThunder, a wise man knows the difference between words and the real world, and understands that words can, at best, only approximate the complexity and variety of reality.
Therefore, insisting on, and arguing about, absolute, precise and eternal definitions of words in any but the most narrow technical fields is as pointless and futile a waste of time as trying to hold the wind in one’s hands.
Perhaps another way to put it was best said by Shakespeare “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.”
A word is just what we use to describe something, but don’t make the mistake of thinking that because we’ve put a word on the object, the object has to correspond with that word, or any word. And trying to define the word still won’t change the object.
Perhaps this is too off topic, but all too often I see message board threads that start with a question about the wonderful world that we live in, and end up being debates about word definitions. ('Is a photon a particle or wave?" is sort of the classic, though there’s at least some definable math there.)
Maybe I’m just touchy because I still don’t understand why the idea of someone avoiding eating meat causes such a strong emotional reaction in so many people.
I agree that this sort of attitude is rather unbecoming. I’m a lacto-ovo-vegetarian, and the only person’s diet that concerns me is my own. I don’t much care what other people choose to eat, and i certainly don’t preach about it.
That said, there is a logical and practical reason for maintaining the sort of distinctions that are outlines in the IVU set of definitions. If we publicize and use the word pescetarian, and distinguish it from vegetarian, and from vegan, then confusion is less likely to ensue.
For example, i’ve been to some events, like weddings and group dinners, where i made it clear that i was a vegetarian, and yet was served with a large hunk of salmon or trout. Now, maybe i should have been more specific, and said clearly that i did not eat fish, but it seems to me that this problem can be avoided if we use just a few appropriately specific terms.
Well, I can’t think of a living thing that doesn’t qualify on the first half of the definition. Most definitions of perception imply awareness, though, and this is where there is a bit of a problem proving who has it and who doesn’t (even with humans).
One doesn’t need to be discussing narrow technical fields in order to see that terms can have precise and definite meanings.
Besides, even if you grant that certain words have imprecise definitions, that’s still a far, far, far cry from saying that we should accept other people’s definitions of “vegetarianism” on the grounds that “there’s no universally accepted definition of ‘vegetarian’… [a]nd there’s nobody with the authority to make one, I might add.”