^^^ that should be no, they are not vegetarian.

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).

I had dialogues with people like you in college. The dialogues would go something like this:

Somebody like you: [X] is the best American novelist.
Me: Actually, I don't like [X]'s books.
Somebody like you: Well, you're wrong.

http://www.bartleby.com/73/2019.html

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.

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:

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.

Anonymous wrote:When the general public learns the meaning of the word pescatarian, I will start using it. Currently whenever I say it, I get a blank stare.

Thank you.

And the rest of you pedants - who are you helping with this? You realize that something like 90 percent of vegetarians quit being veg because they say it's too hard to keep the diet up 100% of the time.

If you care about animals, you should be trying to include thee people in your ethical universe - if they identify as veg, then they are likely eating significantly less meat than someone who doesn't identify as veg. It is a win for everyone.

It might make you feel better to think that you are part of a super elite group of eaters. But it does not reflect reality. Reality is that sometimes circumstances dictate flexibility. I never ever ever eat red meat, ever. But someone who eats red meat when they are traveling in a country where they don't speak the language, and then comes home and goes back to soy - I would say that person can be a vegetarian. What do you win excluding them?

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.)

^wrong. There are at least ten variants of vegetarianism.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The difference between you and a vegetarian is that if I go to your house and you serve fish, I will not eat it, regardless of what else there is to eat. I am a vegetarian, while you are not.

And if you have a friend who's vegetarian and coming over for dinner, there is no need to ask them what does that mean. It's a very simple definition! A vegetarian doesn't eat fish.

Except that there are plenty of people who call themselves vegetarians and eat fish. Now, you may say that these people are not really vegetarians. But there is no way to know, without asking, if a person is a fake (fish-eating) "vegetarian" or a real (non-fish-eating) vegetarian.

Which is one reason why I ask everybody who comes over to eat the same question: Is there anything you don't eat?

Of course, it's polite to ask that question and it's fine to do so. But if someone answers, "Yes, I'm a vegetarian", then you have your answer. And please don't think that vegetarian = someone who eats fish, because it doesn't!

No, I don't. Different people have different definitions of "vegetarian". Even different people who call themselves "vegetarian" have different definitions of "vegetarian". You may believe that yours is the single, true, accurate definition, but other people aren't cooperating with you.

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

Anonymous wrote:

Not pp. And not a vegetarian.

Those people aren't a vegetarian, and shouldn't be calling themselves a vegetarian, and will get eye-rolled bigtime for calling themselves vegetarian while eating meat.

There are not "different definitions" of being vegetarian. A vegetarian doesn't eat the flesh of any animal. That's it. It's very simple and to the point.

Fine. Nonetheless, THEY DO CALL THEMSELVES VEGETARIANS. Yes, I'm shouting. Not everybody uses your definition of "vegetarian".

When I talk with people, my main purpose is communication, not correcting their word choice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's like my husband's office, where 75% of the people call themselves vegetarians, yet eat fish or chicken. It amuses him, because his wife and kids are ovo-lacto vegetarians.

So... vegan?

No, ovo lacto vegetarians eat eggs and daqiry; vegans eat neither.

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.

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.

Which is fine. But doesn't make her a vegetarian.

The reasons don't really matter - a vegetarian is someone who simply does not eat the flesh of any animal (for whatever reason). Fish are animals, and thus if you eat seafood, you are not vegetarian.

When the general public learns the meaning of the word pescatarian, I will start using it. Currently whenever I say it, I get a blank stare.

I know a few people who don't eat what they consider red meat, but eat chicken and fish.