That’s precisely the fallacy of which Humpty Dumpty was guilty. A word DOES have to correspond to the object(s) to which it is assigned.
That’s an irrelevant example. In such a discussion, it’s the nature of a photon which is being contested… not its definition.
Is someone who eats mushrooms a vegetarian? What a a baby being breast-fed?
Excepting very rare situations, the only situation in which the issue of whether one is a vegetarian is at all relevant is when someone else is planning a meal. Someone who eats fish but not beef would presumably assign precedence to avoiding beef over getting fish, and would therefore describe themselves as vegetarian if they do wish to describe their diet in detail. And someone planning a meal, in hearing that someone is a vegetarian, should not, absent any other information, assume that that person would be okay with fish. So really, what the word “vegetarian” means is “has certain dietary restriction, and one should either inquire further or simply provide a purely plant based meal”. This is the meaning that it has in our society, and saying that it “should” mean something else misses the point. If a person is offended at an “incorrect” use of the word, that would raise questions in my mind as to their reasons. It implies that they think that “vegetarian” is a special title, to be given out to a select few, that they are not eating meat not for personal reasons, but so they can boast about being vegetarian.
Futile Gesture
That’s a quite different situation, as Buddhists are not a subset of Satanists. A better analogy would be “I’m Christian, but I call myself a Catholic, even though I don’t follow everything the Pope says”.
TheRyan, that was excellently described. Our word vegetarian implies only a preference for food that is grown, not raised. It is, as you note, often in context of a group meal or when one surrenders one’s meal decisions to another human being. Vegetarian is a great shorthand for saying, Yes, there are some things I will not eat; and if you are a good host you will inquire what these are so you would not prepare them for me.
Moreover, if one claims to be a vegetarian for this purpose and one is presented with vegetables, there is no problem, regardless how the eater herself defines it. She can allow herself to eat fish, perhaps, or eggs, or milk, or nuts or beans; but calling oneself something more restrictive than necessary will not yield the wrong meal result.
It would akin to calling yourself a diabetic, even though you occasionally treat yourself to a chocolate-chip cookie, or saying you have a seafood allergy when you’re only allergic to shellfish. It would be like saying you have a lactose intolerance so you could yourself decide how much lactose you are allowed to have, or a peanut allergy that’s only mild.
I’m not sure what the problem is here, really. The speaker is choosing to label themselves with a word more restrictive than necessary so there’s no confusion later. What’s the alternative: carry a list of approved foods?
FISH
And that restriction would be: does not eat meat. It’s very, very simple. Why dilute and confuse a perfectly good definition just to satisfy others? If you eat fish then there is a perfectly good definition for that, why hijack another?
And just about any authority that you could cite says that a vegetarian does not eat meat. So where exactly is this society that defines it differently?
And you can turn your think right around and suspect that those who insist on claiming they are vegeterian when, by the definition of the word, they are not, want to be in ‘a special few’ and ‘boast about being vegetarian’. Being vegetarian does make you part of a ‘special few’. Whether you agree with them or not, it makes you in a minority. And not eating meat is the complete essense of being vegetarian. Why should that stance be degraded by those who like the word, but can’t be bothered with the ‘details’?
If you’re permitted to be a vegetarian and eat meat, then I guess you can be a pacifist who shoots people. A charity volunteer who doesn’t commit any of your time to charity. A conservationist who conserves nothing. Why should these people have all those definitions to themselves when all they actually do is meet them? I give occasionally to charity, that makes me a charity volunteer I guess, 'cos I’m allowed to redefine words as long as we’re not going into ‘details’. It also makes me look better, but that’s purely co-incidental.
Fish explains that calling a non-vegetarian vegetarian is a safe option. The non-vegetarian isn’t going to end up with anything they can’t eat. It’s not a problem for the non-vegetarian. Well bully for them.
The problem is, of course, ends up on the real vegetarian’s plate. But apparently we’re not concerned about them. If enough non-vegetarians go around calling themselves such then the definition does get confused in many people’s minds. It’s these people that end up (and it does already happen) being served fish as a ‘vegetarian’ dish. So in order to suit the “non-vegetarian vegetarian” we’ve screwed up the meal for the actual vegetarian.
Is it any wonder then that vegetarians get annoyed, when their word is being stolen from them? Should vegetarian’s be made to call themselves ‘vegetarians who don’t eat meat’. Or is that an oxymoron too far??
I am not a vegetarian. I do not claim to be a vegetarian. I simply despair of those who do when they are plainly not.
No, a better analogy would be “I call myself Catholic, even though I don’t follow anything the Pope says.” Which is obviously ridiculous.
Not eating meat is not just part of being a vegetarian, it is all there is to being a vegetarian.
Why such hostility, Futile Gesture? We aren’t talking about an ideal gas. We’re talking about human beings who try to perform the most basic, messy, organic, varying and inconsistent of human functions together: eating food. If you are an eater who does not like mushrooms (as I do not) then I will specifically make this known to the hostess. If you do not like clams or oysters or scallops (as I do not) then you would find yourself compelled to say so. If you have chosen not to eat most kinds of meat, you can safely call yourself a vegetarian and politely request that a certain kind of dish, namely one containing meat, not be put before you – perhaps you are too polite to impose your dietary list upon your hostess. If your needs are highly restrictive, and you are arrogant enough to presume upon your hostess, you may be highly specific in your dietary requests. You are not asked to confine yourself to a single word to establish your food preferences, or to set your food preferences to conform to any one word, with the possible exception being the selection of the airline menu checkbox when you reserve your ticket. What’s the problem?
I say that the increasing vagueness of vegetarian is a good thing. As the word becomes distorted and hazy, people will find words that do suit them, and make those words known; they have already begun to do so. People hearing the word will know to inquire about specifics and personal desires, as it should be, rather than accept the dogma of the dictionary. “Certainly, you do not eat meat: but what do you like?” I would ask my guests.
Simply because the word has Latin or Greek roots does not mean it can be nailed into a box and pricegunned. The OP is why do vegetarians eat fish? and your answer is to say incontrovertibly that they are not vegetarians, you would never call them vegetarians, that word is reserved for other people, and you despair for the misguided unwashed who pervert a perfectly good word. My answer is to ask instead, why do people who eat fish call themselves vegetarians? and my answer is quite clear.
FISH
Okay. I generally don’t eat meat.
But a couple times a year, I’ll go out to sushi.
Furthermore, I won’t eat meat stock (unless I have some reeeaaaallllly tempting pho) and do not order soup in restraunts because I know it is likely meat based, but I will eat gelatin, unless it is a big chunk of jello, which oogs me out. I try not to worry about lard in Mexican food, but I never order refried beans beacuse I know those have lard in them. I don’t worry about animal-derived flavorings and colorings, but anything with “beef powder” or the like in it gets the boot. I try not to worry about my food being cooked on the same grill as meat, but if I’m at a BBQ or something I’ll wrap my veggie burger in foil. I worry more about what goes on in my home (I’d never dream of cooking rice in chicken stock) than I do in restraunts where I probably don’t want to know whats going on.
Every vegetarian in the world has their own sets of allowance. Very few people manage to eat no animal derived products. That would involve eating no packaged food or restraunt food ever.
Now, I’m going to a nice dinner party. Chances are that they will not serve sushi and it will not be one of those two days a year that the idea of eating it doesn’t make me want to throw up. If they served me fish, I would not eat it.
Do I really need to tell my host every little in and out of my diet, or can we all just agree that it is appropriate to tell my host that I am vegetarian?
What use does a word have other than to communicate with(satisfy) others? If you are referring to “Pescetarian” as the perfectly good definition, it is hardly that. I would think most people, if you told them you are a Pescetarian, would ask what that means (or else say "Really? I’m a Methodist), and you would have to explain it to them, meaning that it would have been easier to have just said “I don’t eat any meat other than fish” to begin with.
Is this going to be a “No true Scotsman” thing where any cite of vegetarians eating fish will be “not a true authority”? You say yourself that people consider fish to be a vegetarian meal.
Except that there is another obvious motivation: they don’t want to get bogged down in a semantic discussion every time someone asks about their eating habits.
How is the stance being degraded?
Yes, you can. A pacifist is someone who opposes violence. But there may be situations in which violence is the best solution.
Those aren’t valid analogies, because a Pescetarian is meeting some of the definition of vegetarian.
So Pescetarians should inconvenience themselves to accomodate other people’s cogntive difficulties?
[quote]
Is it any wonder then that vegetarians get annoyed, when their word is being stolen from them? [/quoite]
How is it “their” word?
I believe the word you’re looking for is “redundancy”. And there are many options: “strict vegetarian”, “absolute vegetarian”, or even “I only eat plants (and perhaps fungus)”.
Futile Gesture
No, because vegetarians avoid all meat, and Pescetarians avoid some meat. It is therefore not accurate to say that they are doing nothing vegeatrian-like.
But not eating land animals is just part of being a vegetarian.
I’m a vegetarian and I really don’t eat meat. But I wouldn’t refer to myself as a “strict vegetarian” because there’s already a word for that, namely, “vegan”. They eat no gelatin, etc. Maybe you infrequent meat-eaters could call yourselves backsliding vegetarians?
I think that some of the irritation on the part of the omnivores over the meaning of vegetarianism is that quite often, accommodating vegetarians requires more work, whether it’s choosing a restaurant, or hosting a dinner party. Then, to have a self-proclaimed vegetarian go off and eat meat (in whatever form) makes it look like they are just trying to be difficult, or special, or contrary. Even worse, in a party situation, it can be seen as an insult to a host’s initial offerings.
The huge numbers of self-identifying ‘vegetarians’ that actually will eat meat in certain circumstances makes it especially hard for those veggies that avoid all forms of meat at all times, and I daresay it fuels the always annoying omnivore need to get them to ‘try some, just a little bit.’
Now, I have a silly analogy, and I’m sure that it is offensive on some level, but it makes sense to me. I apologize in advance.
It’s sort of like women that self-identify as lesbians, but seem to end up sleeping with men on a regular basis (i knew several of these in college). Call yourself whatever you want, but don’t expect me to understand it, and if you think that your actions are still tolerable under that label, don’t be surprised at the thought that there are men out there that think they can ‘convert’ other lesbians, even if they live by a more restrictive definition.
I was raised as a strict ovo-lacto vegetarian, but now I occasionally eat meat or fish (especially when not doing so would inconvenience others). I refer to myself as an “ethnic vegetarian”.
So why not say exactly that instead of using a factually incorrect term?
I don’t know. Why don’t you produce a vegetarian authority that says that and we’ll see?
And some people consider horoscopes to be true. What some people consider doesn’t make it correct.
So say “I don’t eat any meat other than fish”. Or is that too hard?
What’s hard to understand about not eating meat being degraded to ‘doesn’t eat meat except fish’?
If it’s inconvenient calling yourself what you are and not what you’re not, well then I guess that’s just life.
So vegetarians should simply ‘move over’? If I was to call myself ‘The Ryan’ would you have no problem renaming yourself ‘The Absolute Ryan’ or 'The first Ryan before the other one" or would you be just the slightest bit put out?
I can run. That’s Olympic Athlete-like. Can I now call myself an Olympian Athlete?
Waving to the crowd is just part of being President. Does everyone who waves to the crowd get to be President? Do I need to draw a Venn diagram here?
See, we can continue throwing definitions about, but the bottom line is that being partly-vegetarian doesn’t make you vegetarian.
I bought some Boca Burgers (or something comparable) with a thought-provoking slogan on the label: “Being a vegetarian 50% of the time is 50%better than never being a vegetarian.”
I stopped eating red meat for a year because I have trouble digesting it, not because I anthropomorphize animals. Some people subscribe to something called “Bug-Eye Vegetarianism,” where they define “meat” the same way most grocers do: Beef, pork and lamb. If it’s a mammal with human-type eyes, it’s meat. If it’s fish or poultry with little bug-eyes, it isn’t.
So yeah, some vegetarians eat fish. They draw the line in a different place than Vegans do, and your indignation bothers them not one bit.
I and two other friends run cooking website. Two of us are pescetarian. We’ve written about this at least twice. It all comes down to the reason WHY the person stopped eating whatever thing that person is not eating.
I don’t eat meat (but eat fish) because it is healthier. If I cared so much about animals I wouldn’t use leather shoes. Meat is not poisonous, so I avoid it whenever I can. If I happen to come accross a piece of it I won’t spit it in polite company.
People who get too hot under the collar because they think “we” are misusing the word vegetarian are giving a bit too much importance to just a word. It’s not like it’s a friggin religion, y’know?
No, but it’s a word. It means something. Something specific. Definitions matter. Re-read all of Futile Gesture’s posts. He/she is much more eloquent than I am (although aptly named.)
This may be key issue then. For many vegetarians, their eating habits are a large part of their moral framework.
… and if the question is really “Why do people who eat fish call themselves vegetarian?” then a good answer is “Because they get tired of explaining what the heck ‘pescetarian’ means.”
Saying “I’m basically vegetarian” (with or without adding “but I eat fish”) takes a lot less time than:
“I’m a pescetarian.”
“Pescetarian.”
“P -E -S -C -E -T - A -R -I -A -N. No it’s not a religion. It means I eat fish but not other meat.”
“Yeah, like vegetarian, but I eat fish.”
“What do you mean, why didn’t I say so?”
The Buddhist stricture is not to kill. This is a matter of some debate among Buddhist. Some will eat meat generally, as long as they don’t kill it personally. Some eat meat as long as it wasn’t killed speciffically for their use. And some won’t eat any meat. Depends largely on the sect and overall culture. I say this as a Buddhist of the 1st variety.
And AFAIK, vegitarian means vegetation only. My two cents.
Just to add to the confusion –
Hindu vegetarians of India would not dream of eating fish or eggs, although dairy products are a huge part of their diet.
Amongst the non-vegetarian Hindus of north India, there are occasions that call for sticking to a “vegetarian” diet. This means no animal flesh (land, sea, or air), no eggs, and also no garlic or onions.
The Jains, who are probably some of the strictest vegetarians of India, never eat onions or garlic, or any plant that grows in the soil.
Originally posted by duckofwindsor
Okay, I opened my Merriam-Webster, but I didn’t find anything beyond herbivore…which one are you using?