"Do you eat meat?" "No, but I eat fish/chicken."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I normally assume vegetarian means no chicken, and probably no fish, but I've met a number of folks who are vegetarian for ethical reasons, but who do eat fish, because they don't have the same ethical concerns with fish.

Then those people are NOT vegetarian.

Not everyone is vegetarian for ethical reasons and not always the same ethical ones. My younger child reasons that Jesus ate fish so she feels comfortable with seafood.

I never said anything about reasons. It's a simple definition. A person who eats fish is not a vegetarian. It's really that simple.

It's really not. That is fine for your personal definition. And frankly, I would be shocked if I opened a vegetarian cookbook and saw fish recipes.

But you just heard from a dozen people who don't share your absolutist definition.

We should take a poll of people who don't eat meat, chicken, fish/other seafood, anything with a face and ask if someone who eats fish or chicken is a vegetarian. I bet most, if not all, would say no, that person is a vegetarian.

I don't get it. Are you saying that most people who are vegetarian would define those who eat fish and chicken as vegetarian also? I highly doubt that is true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^^ that should be no, they are not vegetarian.

Ah, sorry, I missed this the first time around. Strike my last post.

[Anonymous]

Who cares how you define vegetarian. It's like fighting about what you like to eat. Eat what you like and stop worrying about defining your personal tastes.

[Anonymous]

Some of the variations of defintion may be cultural. I keep kosher and fish and eggs are not considered meat in Judiasim. I won't eat chicken or red meat, but will very occasionally eat kosher fish. When asked I explain that I'm "mostly vegetarian".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Met someone who said this recently. When you think "meat," do you only think red meat, or all animal meat?

I've never understood the disassociation of fish/chicken as meat - is it cultural?

If you don't think of fish/chicken as "meat," where were you raised? To me, meat = all animal flesh. Red, white, seafood, whatever. And if you eat seafood, you're not vegetarian.

This is me. I usually say vegetarian b/c I loathe these sorts of discussions.

If you eat fish, you're pescatarian. That doesn't necessarily mean you eat all fish or a lot of fish. But, I will eat it depending on what it is. There are reasons why I made this decision that I did but I generally don't like to discuss it and try to just say vegetarian.

[Anonymous]

I'm an emotional vegetarian. I know a lot of vegetarians and we tend to like the same films.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That's OK, I'll make lamb instead

I see what you did there

[Anonymous]

If they said they only eat seafood then my first thought would be Catholic.

But since they are including chicken I am puzzled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I normally assume vegetarian means no chicken, and probably no fish, but I've met a number of folks who are vegetarian for ethical reasons, but who do eat fish, because they don't have the same ethical concerns with fish.

Then those people are NOT vegetarian.

Not everyone is vegetarian for ethical reasons and not always the same ethical ones. My younger child reasons that Jesus ate fish so she feels comfortable with seafood.

I never said anything about reasons. It's a simple definition. A person who eats fish is not a vegetarian. It's really that simple.

It's really not. That is fine for your personal definition. And frankly, I would be shocked if I opened a vegetarian cookbook and saw fish recipes.

But you just heard from a dozen people who don't share your absolutist definition.

We should take a poll of people who don't eat meat, chicken, fish/other seafood, anything with a face and ask if someone who eats fish or chicken is a vegetarian. I bet most, if not all, would say no, that person is a vegetarian.

I don't get it. Are you saying that most people who are vegetarian would define those who eat fish and chicken as vegetarian also? I highly doubt that is true.

Someone who eats"anything with a face" is not a vegetarian.

[Anonymous]

Fish may have eyes but they do not have a face.

[Anonymous]

OP is that you, LG?
How intolerant you are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I normally assume vegetarian means no chicken, and probably no fish, but I've met a number of folks who are vegetarian for ethical reasons, but who do eat fish, because they don't have the same ethical concerns with fish.

Then those people are NOT vegetarian.

Not everyone is vegetarian for ethical reasons and not always the same ethical ones. My younger child reasons that Jesus ate fish so she feels comfortable with seafood.

I never said anything about reasons. It's a simple definition. A person who eats fish is not a vegetarian. It's really that simple.

It's really not. That is fine for your personal definition. And frankly, I would be shocked if I opened a vegetarian cookbook and saw fish recipes.

But you just heard from a dozen people who don't share your absolutist definition.

We should take a poll of people who don't eat meat, chicken, fish/other seafood, anything with a face and ask if someone who eats fish or chicken is a vegetarian. I bet most, if not all, would say no, that person is a vegetarian.

I don't get it. Are you saying that most people who are vegetarian would define those who eat fish and chicken as vegetarian also? I highly doubt that is true.

Someone who eats"anything with a face" is not a vegetarian.

I corrected my post earlier. I meant to say that person would NOT be considered a vegetarian.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There aren't 'different definitions of vegetarian'. There's one.

There are different definitions of vegetarian. When different people use the word "vegetarian", they mean different things. You don't think that this should be so, but nonetheless it is so. You can change this when you become Ruler of the World. (I have some other things I'd like you to change, while you're at it, please.)

There is one definition of vegetarian - you do not eat meat, poultry or fish nor eat or use their bi-products such as leather, fur or ingredients that come from a dead animal.. Its rather simple. If you do, you are not a vegetarian. You are just saying you are to be trendy. If you eat things they produce - eggs and milk, then you are either lacto (milk), ovo (eggs) or lacto-ovo (milk and eggs).

Lots and lots of people who consider themselves pretty hard core vegetarians still wear leather shoes.

[Anonymous]

Why do folk eat fish on Friday? Is it a special meat?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do folk eat fish on Friday? Is it a special meat?

Was not considered flesh by Jews. You can still mix fish and dairy if you keep kosher. The first Christians were Jews so they followed kosher laws for a long time.