Anonymous wrote:Why do folk eat fish on Friday? Is it a special meat?
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).
Anonymous wrote:Someone who eats"anything with a face" is not a vegetarian.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 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.
Anonymous wrote:That's OK, I'll make lamb instead
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.
Anonymous wrote:^^^ that should be no, they are not vegetarian.
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.