Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Leichenhalle · Jul 3, 2007, 03:22 am

Though I myself am not vegetarian, I know many people who are. A couple of times I asked them why they don't eat meat, and their reply is that it is horrible and inhumane to slaughter animals so we can eat them. If pressed, they go on about how they were living creatures who had a right to live.
I was perfectly fine with their choice, until I noticed that one of them was eating a fish. At first I was shocked and asked them if they stopped being vegetarian. Their reply was that no, vegetarians are allowed to eat fish - and they said that to me with a tone that implied that it was common knowledge and I was out of the loop.

My thinking is that if you don't eat meat because it is inhumane to kill them, what makes eating fish okay. Furthermore, cows are killed instantly whereas fish mush choke to death - what is more inhumane there?
Yet absolutely nothing that I can say will convince my friend that she is not a vegetarian on account of the fish eating.

However, my final stand on things is that if a person were to eat any animal whatsoever, they have no right to call themselves a vegetarian, but are rather an omnivore.

I request that you take the time to vote on whether or not one can eat fish and still be a vegetarian.

Kuldeep · Jul 3, 2007, 04:16 am

You are right fish is as much animal as others. Fish eaters should not and cannot be called pure vegetarians.

tinybear · Jul 3, 2007, 06:25 am

There's a theory that fish and other sea creatures such as shrimp, oysters, clams...etc. feel less pain than other animals. Don't know how true that is though.

The Bacon Guy · Jul 3, 2007, 06:41 am

You're quite correct in saying that they have no right to call themselves a vegetarian of any sort. The correct word for a "vegetarian" who eats fish is a pescetarian. Though hypocrite will do just as well.

tinybear · Jul 3, 2007, 07:10 am

They aren't necessarily hypocrites. I know a guy who doesn't eat any chicken, beef, lamb, pork or any other forms of red meat but takes vegetables, fish and seafood purely as a matter of personal preference.

The Bacon Guy · Jul 3, 2007, 07:20 am

Right, but the OP talks about people who eschew meat for ethical reasons while still eating fish. Those are the people to whom I was referring.

FaeNixx · Jul 3, 2007, 08:55 am

I don't eat meat, but I do eat fish. But I do not go on about the ethical implications about meat-eating. I don't think it's unethical to butcher an animal at all. I don't eat meat out of a personal choice.

Leichenhalle · Jul 3, 2007, 02:44 pm

I respect your decision to not eat meat due to the unethical nature of its production.

However, when fish are caught, they are left to slowly choke to death. I consider this even more inhumane than killing land animals for their meat, since those animals are killed instantly.

Heather · Jul 4, 2007, 05:37 am

There are several different types of vegetarians, one of which, considered by some, do in fact eat fish.

Types of Vegetarians

However, the general concensus amoung most vegetarians is that those who do eat fish, poultry or any other type of product that is the meat of an animal are not in fact "real" vegetarians and for good reason.

Vegetarian: a person who does not eat or does not believe in eating meat, fish, fowl, or, in some cases, any food derived from animals, as eggs or cheese, but subsists on vegetables, fruits, nuts, grain, etc.

By definition, a vegetarian does not eat fish, poultry, seafood, or any type of meat.

christibe · Jul 29, 2007, 08:35 pm

Well, anyone can be allowed to call themselves anything. I am a vegetarian, yet I haven't excluded dairy from my diet. Literally, I am a hypocrite. Compared to general society and their eating habits, I am a vegetarian. Despite my own hypocrisy, I consider people who label themselves vegetarian and still eat poultry and fish and pork to be hypocrites. That doesn't mean I am correct, but it matters to me, despite my own practice of using cows in my eating.

Also, some people who call themselves vegetarians while still eating fish do so because it is unknown if fish can feel pain, or have the ability to think. So, a fish isn't an animal like the rest of us animals. So, eating fish is ok.

I would go so far as to say that the only true vegetarians are those that only eat fruits and nuts, as nothing dies because of their need to eat.

But yeah, it's just a way of labeling yourself to help you categorize yourself within society. So, whatever you say is fine... it is never fact. I only say 'I am a vegetarian' when confronted with the social situation of 'Christina, why are you not eating any meat?', or apparently, on a thread discussing vegetarianism.

Muckraker · Jul 29, 2007, 10:56 pm

People can label themselves whatever they want and for whatever reason. I just hope they realize it complicates things for people who label themsellves something with a higher degree of accuracy :)

I could call myself a Christian but if I don't believe in Christ then I would be confusing people who weren't Christians and I may cause them to have distorted views of what the word "Christian" means.

It is a bit annoying that I can't simply say I'm vegetarian and receive a meal that I can eat but that is the nature of the beast. Saying I'm a Catholic on Friday doesn't necessarily mean I will eat only fish and saying I'm a Christian on Sunday doesn't necessarily mean I won't do any work.

By definition, a vegan is a strict vegetarian that will consume no animals or animal products and is REALLY annoying to go to a restaurant with. Vegetarian is the general term which, with the advent of the term vegan, is now synonymous with "lacto-ovo vegetarian," meaning a vegetarian who also eats eggs and milk.

Since the term "vegetarian" has lot of connotations along with its denotation, many people mislabel themselves as such, just like "Christian," or "Republican," or "musician," or "artist."

Labelling begets mislabelling.

christibe · Jul 29, 2007, 11:07 pm

lol Muckraker, that is why I usually do not go to restaurants with people, or, if fast food, only Taco Bell or Noodles and Co. and QDoba... by doing this I don't have to identify myself as vegetarian, and therefore, people don't have to find me annoying.

There are many other reasons for that... the way I eat doesn't have to be one.

tivodan1116 · Jul 29, 2007, 11:10 pm

Quote:

Quote by: FaeNixx

I don't eat meat, but I do eat fish.

What you mean is that you eat meat, but only fish.

Fish=meat.

Quote:

Quote by: christibe

Also, some people who call themselves vegetarians while still eating fish do so because it is unknown if fish can feel pain, or have the ability to think. So, a fish isn't an animal like the rest of us animals. So, eating fish is ok.

For being such "earthy" people usually, vegetarians that think this way sure don't know much biology.

Fish are vertebrate animals with complete nervous systems. There is a decent-sized body of scientific evidence that they feel pain. Assuming they don't is just a way of alleviating human guilt.

Quote:

Quote by: Muckraker

By definition, a vegan is a strict vegetarian that will consume no animals or animal products and is REALLY annoying to go to a restaurant with.

Ugh... TELL me about it. Besides their difficulty in ordering, I find most of them to be unduly preachy. I refuse to change my eating habits to accommodate someone else's ridiculous and unnatural preference.

Personally I like Gordon Ramsay's position on vegetarians - He thinks they are wasting their lives shunning delicious meats and has admitted to serving meats surreptitiously to vegetarians on occasions when he has had the opportunity.

christibe · Jul 30, 2007, 01:39 am

Quote:

Quote by: tivodan1116

What you mean is that you eat meat, but only fish.

Fish=meat.

For being such "earthy" people usually, vegetarians that think this way sure don't know much biology.

Fish are vertebrate animals with complete nervous systems. There is a decent-sized body of scientific evidence that they feel pain. Assuming they don't is just a way of alleviating human guilt.

Ugh... TELL me about it. Besides their difficulty in ordering, I find most of them to be unduly preachy. I refuse to change my eating habits to accommodate someone else's ridiculous and unnatural preference.

Personally I like Gordon Ramsay's position on vegetarians - He thinks they are wasting their lives shunning delicious meats and has admitted to serving meats surreptitiously to vegetarians on occasions when he has had the opportunity.

I agree, Tivodan, yet I hear them state that justification.

What I do not understand is the omnivore reaction to vegetarians. Such as Gordon Ramsay. I am only choosing an eating habit different than yours. I'd contend that both eating styles are perpetuating this sort of argument- who's eating is the better way? by serving meat to vegetarians, which causes disgust to the vegetarian, which leads the vegetarian to the opinion that the omnivore is a close-minded twit. I have heard many omnivores say that they would serve meat to a vegetarian. Why does that feel like an appropriate action? A person who chooses to not eat meat is somehow immediately an enemy to you and you would need to attack them? I don't understand!!

Although I do think the most amusing omnivorous statement to be- Would a vegetarian eat humans?

Kuldeep · Jul 30, 2007, 06:18 am

Quote:

Quote by: christibe

Although I do think the most amusing omnivorous statement to be- Would a vegetarian eat humans?

I am looking at it the other way round ! I am a vegetarian and ask omnivorous humans: when they eat animals why do they not take humans as well!!!

tivodan1116 · Jul 30, 2007, 03:05 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Kuldeep

I am looking at it the other way round ! I am a vegetarian and ask omnivorous humans: when they eat animals why do they not take humans as well!!!

If they tasted good and it wasn't a crime, I would. Why not?

Uh oh... see what happened there? Your point was based on what you thought was a ridiculous premise - people eating other people - and then I failed to give you the answer you needed to validate your point.. oops.

Jul 30, 2007, 03:34 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Leichenhalle

I request that you take the time to vote on whether or not one can eat fish and still be a vegetarian.

If you eat fish, you're not a vegetarian by definition. Fish are not (drum roll please) plants.

Regards
S.

Jul 30, 2007, 03:38 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Kuldeep

I am looking at it the other way round ! I am a vegetarian and ask omnivorous humans: when they eat animals why do they not take humans as well!!!

Cultural taboo. Most North Americans abhor the notion of eating dog, a revulsion not shared in the Philippines or Korea. If people were served well-prepared human flesh surreptitiously, they nor their digestive system would ever know. Hmm, sounds like a movie plot. Perhaps SoylentGreen would like to respond to this post.

Regards
S.

christibe · Jul 31, 2007, 02:01 am

Tivodan, actually no.
1. There are pretty standard ways the conversation happens when it is found out that I do not eat meat. Some people are cool and want to learn why/ how I get my protein/ etc., some are argumentative, some takes offense to my eating habits. The one question that I have heard asked humorously is, "Would you eat humans?"

My answer is "Yes. Humans can defend themselves."

tivodan1116 · Jul 31, 2007, 05:15 pm

Quote:

Quote by: christibe

My answer is "Yes. Humans can defend themselves."

Umm, by which you are implying that animals cannot?

Given that the species we most commonly eat have continued to exist for millions of years, it is plain that animals can, in fact, defend themselves.

View Poll Results: Can you eat fish and still be a vegetarian?
Yes	0	0%
No	17	100.00%
Voters: 17. You may not vote

Jul 3, 2007, 03:22 am	#1 (permalink) (top)
Leichenhalle Sedimentary Rock Posts: 10	Vegetarians don't eat fish Though I myself am not vegetarian, I know many people who are. A couple of times I asked them why they don't eat meat, and their reply is that it is horrible and inhumane to slaughter animals so we can eat them. If pressed, they go on about how they were living creatures who had a right to live. I was perfectly fine with their choice, until I noticed that one of them was eating a fish. At first I was shocked and asked them if they stopped being vegetarian. Their reply was that no, vegetarians are allowed to eat fish - and they said that to me with a tone that implied that it was common knowledge and I was out of the loop. My thinking is that if you don't eat meat because it is inhumane to kill them, what makes eating fish okay. Furthermore, cows are killed instantly whereas fish mush choke to death - what is more inhumane there? Yet absolutely nothing that I can say will convince my friend that she is not a vegetarian on account of the fish eating. However, my final stand on things is that if a person were to eat any animal whatsoever, they have no right to call themselves a vegetarian, but are rather an omnivore. I request that you take the time to vote on whether or not one can eat fish and still be a vegetarian.

Jul 3, 2007, 04:16 am	#2 (permalink) (top)
Kuldeep Kuldeep Location: Bhopa, M.P, India Posts: 1,713	You are right fish is as much animal as others. Fish eaters should not and cannot be called pure vegetarians.

Jul 3, 2007, 06:25 am	#3 (permalink) (top)
tinybear Volcanic Erupter Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 7,327	There's a theory that fish and other sea creatures such as shrimp, oysters, clams...etc. feel less pain than other animals. Don't know how true that is though.

Jul 3, 2007, 06:41 am	#4 (permalink) (top)
The Bacon Guy Away Location: Scotland, Central Lowlands Posts: 3,317	You're quite correct in saying that they have no right to call themselves a vegetarian of any sort. The correct word for a "vegetarian" who eats fish is a pescetarian. Though hypocrite will do just as well.

Jul 3, 2007, 07:10 am	#5 (permalink) (top)
tinybear Volcanic Erupter Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 7,327	They aren't necessarily hypocrites. I know a guy who doesn't eat any chicken, beef, lamb, pork or any other forms of red meat but takes vegetables, fish and seafood purely as a matter of personal preference.

Jul 3, 2007, 07:20 am	#6 (permalink) (top)
The Bacon Guy Away Location: Scotland, Central Lowlands Posts: 3,317	Right, but the OP talks about people who eschew meat for ethical reasons while still eating fish. Those are the people to whom I was referring.

Jul 3, 2007, 08:55 am	#7 (permalink) (top)
FaeNixx Sedimentary Rock Location: Durham, UK Posts: 4	I don't eat meat, but I do eat fish. But I do not go on about the ethical implications about meat-eating. I don't think it's unethical to butcher an animal at all. I don't eat meat out of a personal choice.

Jul 3, 2007, 02:44 pm	#8 (permalink) (top)
Leichenhalle Sedimentary Rock Posts: 10	I respect your decision to not eat meat due to the unethical nature of its production. However, when fish are caught, they are left to slowly choke to death. I consider this even more inhumane than killing land animals for their meat, since those animals are killed instantly.

Jul 4, 2007, 05:37 am	#9 (permalink) (top)
Heather Odd Girly Girl Location: Wisconsin Posts: 557	There are several different types of vegetarians, one of which, considered by some, do in fact eat fish. Types of Vegetarians However, the general concensus amoung most vegetarians is that those who do eat fish, poultry or any other type of product that is the meat of an animal are not in fact "real" vegetarians and for good reason. Vegetarian: a person who does not eat or does not believe in eating meat, fish, fowl, or, in some cases, any food derived from animals, as eggs or cheese, but subsists on vegetables, fruits, nuts, grain, etc. By definition, a vegetarian does not eat fish, poultry, seafood, or any type of meat.

Jul 29, 2007, 08:35 pm	#10 (permalink) (top)
christibe Igneous Magma Posts: 322	Well, anyone can be allowed to call themselves anything. I am a vegetarian, yet I haven't excluded dairy from my diet. Literally, I am a hypocrite. Compared to general society and their eating habits, I am a vegetarian. Despite my own hypocrisy, I consider people who label themselves vegetarian and still eat poultry and fish and pork to be hypocrites. That doesn't mean I am correct, but it matters to me, despite my own practice of using cows in my eating. Also, some people who call themselves vegetarians while still eating fish do so because it is unknown if fish can feel pain, or have the ability to think. So, a fish isn't an animal like the rest of us animals. So, eating fish is ok. I would go so far as to say that the only true vegetarians are those that only eat fruits and nuts, as nothing dies because of their need to eat. But yeah, it's just a way of labeling yourself to help you categorize yourself within society. So, whatever you say is fine... it is never fact. I only say 'I am a vegetarian' when confronted with the social situation of 'Christina, why are you not eating any meat?', or apparently, on a thread discussing vegetarianism.

Jul 29, 2007, 10:56 pm	#11 (permalink) (top)
Muckraker Igneous Magma Posts: 354	People can label themselves whatever they want and for whatever reason. I just hope they realize it complicates things for people who label themsellves something with a higher degree of accuracy :) I could call myself a Christian but if I don't believe in Christ then I would be confusing people who weren't Christians and I may cause them to have distorted views of what the word "Christian" means. It is a bit annoying that I can't simply say I'm vegetarian and receive a meal that I can eat but that is the nature of the beast. Saying I'm a Catholic on Friday doesn't necessarily mean I will eat only fish and saying I'm a Christian on Sunday doesn't necessarily mean I won't do any work. By definition, a vegan is a strict vegetarian that will consume no animals or animal products and is REALLY annoying to go to a restaurant with. Vegetarian is the general term which, with the advent of the term vegan, is now synonymous with "lacto-ovo vegetarian," meaning a vegetarian who also eats eggs and milk. Since the term "vegetarian" has lot of connotations along with its denotation, many people mislabel themselves as such, just like "Christian," or "Republican," or "musician," or "artist." Labelling begets mislabelling.

Jul 29, 2007, 11:07 pm	#12 (permalink) (top)
christibe Igneous Magma Posts: 322	lol Muckraker, that is why I usually do not go to restaurants with people, or, if fast food, only Taco Bell or Noodles and Co. and QDoba... by doing this I don't have to identify myself as vegetarian, and therefore, people don't have to find me annoying. There are many other reasons for that... the way I eat doesn't have to be one.

Jul 31, 2007, 02:01 am	#19 (permalink) (top)
christibe Igneous Magma Posts: 322	Tivodan, actually no. 1. There are pretty standard ways the conversation happens when it is found out that I do not eat meat. Some people are cool and want to learn why/ how I get my protein/ etc., some are argumentative, some takes offense to my eating habits. The one question that I have heard asked humorously is, "Would you eat humans?" My answer is "Yes. Humans can defend themselves."