to think that if you eat fish or chicken you are not a vegetarian?

[knowitallstrikesagain]

So vegetarian seems to mean different things to different people. But the common definition is flesh from an animan, including fish and birds, used as food.

If you don't eat meat, you are a vegetarian. If you eat meat, you are not a vegetarian. If poultry and fish are types of meat and you eat them, then you do eat meat and are therefore not a vegetarian.

Didn't the powers that be come up with a new word to describe people who eat fish but no other type of meat? (I know what it is but can't spell it )

I understand saying you are veggie to make life easier, eg when RSVPing a wedding for food, or a staff meal out, but if you are having dinner with a friend, surely you could specify that you like some meats more than others?

AIBU to think that if you eat ANY animals, you are not a vegetarian?

limejelly

not funny at all.

If it has a face and you eat it, you are NOT NOT NOT veggie. The times I have been out with a 'veggie' who just eats chicker/fish/lamb!

Even gummi bears are NOT veggie (that's the gelatine element there, not the 'bear' one).

The worst are the bastard non veggies who pinch your veggie option meal on a flight (which you ordered in advance).

AdoraBell I think running a sausage factory would be enough to turn the most fervent meat eater veggie tbh!

I've had reason to visit a few different food processing places over the years, I can promise you that seeing any of them turns you off food, meat or no.

on the plus side, I got to try the famous Percy Pigs for the first time this week, because M&S now do a green eared veggie version.

and bless, my little nephew (who's 7), bought some Percy Pigs, and when he was told they were veggie (he thought they were just a different flavour)(his mum said "ooh, i can eat those, they're vegetarian"), he put them away in his wardrobe and gave her the pack on Mothering Sunday

Veggie percy pigs are nasty though! Far too sweet! On the upside, Starburst (opal fruits that were) are veggie these days.

A vegetarian who eats fish is a fishandchipocrite.

It's also annoying when they stick fingers in ears and go 'la la la' at any mention of farmyard animals being killed so they can eat steak. DH has a terrible habit of doing this. If people want to eat meat, then they really need to accept that it means animals die.

I believe meat eater do accept that, even if they don't want to do it themselves. Just like a lot of veggies don't want to grow their own. We are part of the food chain, and man is on top which is why some meat eaters don't care that an animal died so they can eat, because it's the circle of life.

I don't eat red meat because I don't like the smell, not because of any animal rights issues I might have. I eat chicken and fish and hardly think about their deaths.

To those who claim to vegetarian on ethical grounds and then eat fish and/or chicken, what is the logic please? Are fish/chickens less 'living' than cows/lambs?

theodorakis has reminded me of the HFW Fish programmes where the catching of fish seemed to cause a far more cruel and prolonged lingering death than cow/lamb slaughter, where the animal are stunned. OK wild fish will have a natural life, but farmed fish haven't and I think that the majority of chicken production is much worse than lamb/beef production, so surely if anyone wants to be picky pick and choose, they should be eating lamb/beef or possibly game that has lived a reasonably natural life and quick as possible death rather than an indoor reared chicken (even most mass produced free range is not that great - basically cram loads of chickens in a barn and have a tiny door in the corner that the chickens could go outside but generally don't) or fish that have suffered in death. Most prawn etc production, particularly in Thailand etc has lots of ethical problems as well.

I'm not vegetarian but I think everyone should aim to eat much less meat and fish and production should be much higher welfare as standard. If the low welfare options are available, this reinforces the perception that meat should be cheap and plentiful for all.

To throw a final thought out there, I've heard it said by a vegetarian that they would eat roadkill, as they could not think of any ethical argument against it!

MeCook I know a LOT of people who:

Won't eat meat off the bone
Won't eat a fish with its head still on
Won't eat for example a hog roast or roast chicken if they can see the animal
In some cases, people who won't eat non-processed meat eg can see seams of fat, sinew etc in a steak

I would say these people are in denial. Same as fish eaters think it isn't cruel. In fact fishing is one of the most destructive and cruel forms of farming as it's harder to regulate welfare under the sea.

I would also urge you - and everyone in fact - to think about the animals you eat's deaths - and lives - because it might encourage you to either a) eat animals that were better looked after and b) find out more about what you're putting inside you.

I gave up calling myself pescatarian because too many people assumed I only wanted fish! I no longer eat fish.

I don't eat meat because of the taste and texture, which is also why I don't eat aubergine, Brie style cheese or goat cheese

whatmeworry don't say that! can't stop eating food altogether!!!

I try not to buy 'processed' food, but given that I don't grow my own absolutely everything and do buy food in shops I dread to think what sort of nasties we're being exposed to!

I stopped eating meat (and fish) over twenty years ago for ethical reasons. I started eating fish again ten years ago - no good reason for starting again. I know that these days I could eat meat from local small producers, where the animals are well cared for - DH and kids eat meat, we are regulars at local farm shops and specialist producers - but I just can't bring myself to. I struggled to digest fish for a long time - not sure my stomach could cope with a steak....

YANBU. A pescetarian is someone who eats fish. Is there a word for people that only eat white meat?

YANBU, especially as chickens are the most abused animal and have the most shit life.

Lizzie personally my ethical objections relate to the cruel way animals are farmed, not the actual fact of killing them to eat (which might be gory but it is generally over quite quickly, and is part of nature).

In theory, I would eat anything which had been caught in the wild, and nothing that was farmed. However, after years of being veggie the idea of eating animal meat seemed disgusting, but for some reason eating fish didn't. I won't buy farmed fish.

I also agree that if you can't personally bear to kill it, then you shouldn't eat it. I have been fishing and finished fish off myself by whacking them over the head, but don't think I could bring myself to kill a cow or chicken.

If I was going to give something up for ethical reasons I would give up dairy and keep eating fish. Sadly, I am too fond of cheese to do so. I compromise by only eating organic/free range versions.

It would definitely be ethical to eat roadkill (or 'presents' from the cat!), but the idea of eating meat grosses me out.

Personally I respect anyone who makes an ethical choice about what they eat, even if it is different to mine.

Have to agree about chicken, in dorset where I grew up there is a big chicken 'factory'. I grew up listening to the workers having a huge laugh about the way they killed them. Again, not cute or fluffy but still creatures that suffer. Why can't abatoirs be regulated better, if I had a chicken in my garden I could probably eat it if I had shot it and knew it hadn't been ridiculed or the subject of a laugh. I do understand why people eat roadkill, couldn't myself but that is my issue. I still stand by the lobster cause and do buy them and release them when I can.

I also agree that if you can't personally bear to kill it, then you shouldn't eat it. I have been fishing and finished fish off myself by whacking them over the head, but don't think I could bring myself to kill a cow or chicken

Genuine question: Why do you think you are able to kill a fish but not a cow or chicken? Is it to do with the size of the animal and the ease of killing it? Or is it that you consider fish to be less significant animals as I know is an argument used sometimes by people who eat fish but not meat?

Not stirring, just wondering. I can imagine killing any animal to eat it, but would also imagine it takes much more to kill a cow than a fish so would find killing a fish easier, practically not morally.

Genuine question: Why do you think you are able to kill a fish but not a cow or chicken? Is it to do with the size of the animal and the ease of killing it? Or is it that you consider fish to be less significant animals as I know is an argument used sometimes by people who eat fish but not meat?

I would say size, ease of capturing and preparing, movement of the animal (fish on land doesn't run away), ease of killing (killing a cow without a weapon I think would be quite tricky), lack of infication of pain eg making sounds, likeness to humans and domesticated animals, perceived "cuteness" all play a factor.

(as far as I can remember I've not killed any of the above)

Yep, I would think that would be many people's thinking, all of which comes down to you are happy to kill an animal if it is easy for you to do and you can seperate fish from other animals. Which shows they are seen as lesser creatures. But why? What logic about vegetarianism says that fish can be eaten because hypothetically you would physically be able to kill one, but a cow is quite big and furry so therefore is more worthy of life?

People who call themselves veggie but eat fish have never been able to explain this bit very well.

There's no logic, so it can't be explained - people just find it easier to detach from non mammalian species I guess...

If you follow the logic that all life is equally valuable, then you would have to behave like the Jains in India who sweep insects from the floor to make sure they don't step on them. Presumably you wouldn't take antibiotics if you were sick, as bacteria are alive too. If not, where do you draw the line?

Basically human morals stem from empathy, and the more like us an animal is, the more empathy we feel for them.

I thought that the basic meaning of vegetarian was that you do not eat flesh,
whatever it comes from and that you do not eat food which has 'flesh' products in it, i.e. gelatine etc.

I find all this compartmentalising rather odd, to be honest.

I have been vegetarian for 25 years now, but I don't check for all by-products as I don't eat meat/fish because I don't like it and it never agreed with me, not because of ethical reasons. So I am fairly sure I have gelatine/rennet etc on a fairly regular basis.

However, I will continue to refer to myself as a vegetarian because I have no intention of going into a restaurant and saying "I don't eat meat, including chicken, fish, seafood but I don't mind if the cheese contains rennet".

Those who are vegetarian because of concern for animals should surely embrace anyone who makes any sort of effort to reduce their meat intake, not turn their noses up and accuse them of not doing it "properly". Realistically, we are not going to become a meat-free society any time soon, so surely any reduction of meat consumption is to be encouraged?

I can understand the argument about people confusing the issue by saying they eat fish, but having said that, in 25 years I have only once come up against real misunderstanding of what vegetarianism means, and that was on an Air China flight. Years ago I did occasionally come across restaurants that simply didn't offer vegetarian options, but since it became more popular there has never been a situation where I couldn't get anything but fish - it hasn't always been the most exciting thing, but it has always been meat/fish-free.

If you believe passionately in vegetarianism then maybe think about making it an inclusive thing, not a divisive thing.

pannda - you're not old enough to have been veggie for 25 years!

I was 12. I will be 37 this year!