AIBU - vegan dinner party guest EATING FISH

[isitginoclock]

We're throwing a dinner party. I've just excused myself to the loo to write this because I'm FUMING!! One of our guests has recently become a vegan. I spent bloody ages making her a mushroom pate for starter which she happily tucked into whilst we ate our salmon tartare. She then asked if she could try some salmon.

Wtf?!?!

I've bought loads of different stuff for her to eat and spent all frigging day cooking it. Why do I bother?!

I wonder how upset the guest would be if the OP had put some meat stock in the mushroom paté and told her that just a little bit didn't hurt.

And if the term vegan can be 'nuanced' it's not up to you to decide which nuances a particular individual should have

It is up to all of us, as speakers of the english language, to decide that any vegan whose nuance is to eat fish IS NOT A VEGAN OF ANY KIND.

Vegans don't eat fish. There is no nuance that allows one to be a vegan and eat fish. They are mutually exclusive, like teetotal whiskey drinker, or intelligent UKIP voter.

They are mutually exclusive, like teetotal whiskey drinker, or intelligent UKIP voter.

Penguin, I'd agree that this particular fish-eating guest was obviously and definitely not (yet) vegan.
I wasn't particularly reacting to the fish in my last post - just to the statement 'if the term vegan can be nuanced'. The thing is, it HAS to be nuanced, since it's not possible for a human to live without exploiting or harming animals at all. But that's really a much more fluffy philosophical topic and not fully related to the original post, so maybe I just ought to shut up. ;-)

And if the term vegan can be 'nuanced' it's not up to you to decide which nuances a particular individual should have.
.but here's the thing: veganism is not really nuanced is it? By definition it is the hard line.
A vegan who eats fish after having a whole dinner party menu specially made for them is not a vegan; they're a fussy eater.

you can have more or less strict vegans
but
that does not alter the fact that non consumption of animal flesh is a necessary (although not sufficient) condition of veganism

Well, you can't avoid ever walking on grass incase you crush a worm, no, but I do think anyone in the right mind has to agree that vegan can't include fish eating, and vegetarians don't eat chicken!

It's only nuanced at the extreme end, surely?

Vegans don't eat fish. There is no nuance that allows one to be a vegan and eat fish. They are mutually exclusive, like teetotal whiskey drinker, or intelligent UKIP voter.

Exactly. Isn't a fish-eating vegan technically an oxymoron?

It's so much more stark than the previous example of 'contraceptive-using Catholic', since there are a wide number of behaviours, beliefs and observances which define a Catholic. But the English definition of 'vegan' is 'a person who does not eat or use animal products' (OED, Merriam-Webster, Cambridge, various vegan groups). It begins and ends with consumption.

There might be more wiggle room if the accepted definition predominantly referred to beliefs, ethics or intentions. But it doesn't.

(Although, somehow, 'fish-eating vegetarian' doesn't wind me up much. It just seems a bit clearer okay, no meat, but fish okay and is more of a convenient, shorthand summary than anything else. Whereas a vegan who eats fish... with a much longer list of restricted items, how are you supposed to anticipate what's acceptable, if fish is back on the plate?)

I've heard it all now. When someone says they're a vegan, you should bear in mind that they might be a nuanced vegan who, in fact, consumes meat. Which isn't the same as being a fussy eater with an entirely mis-judged sense of moral superiority at all.

In other news: "I'm faithful to my spouse; I sleep with other people in a nuanced way".

This thread does make me laugh, and it also reminds me why I generally hate stiff upper lip dinner parties hosted by people who have such narrow definitions of right and wrong and get so easily offended.

I don't think we've actually got into the definition of 'right and wrong' yet, London. We're talking about the definition of 'vegan'. Which part is confusing you? The bit where it says vegans don't eat animal products, or the bit where it says vegans don't eat animal products?

Also, I doubt you get invited to many 'stiff upper lip dinner parties' if you specifically require a dish created from a restricted list of foods, and then laugh at the idea of anyone being so, you know... restrictive.

Like current definitions of "gender", definitions of vegetarian and vegan can be extremely fluid, not least because people often call themselves one or the other to make themselves look "better" to other people.

Ok, I am vegan... And for a start I do not appreciate the 'I hate vegans' from a few commenters... This person is being a bit of a douche, but most of us aren't.
Anyway, she isn't a very good vegan, just take it up with her; she is being a massive hypocrite.

Londonmama the OP's not bothered because the vegan ate fish.

She's bothered because she spent bloody ages making a separate dish and then the vegan ate fish. So she's had a whole load of unnecessary hassle.

HTH

This thread does make me laugh, and it also reminds me why I generally hate stiff upper lip dinner parties hosted by people who have such narrow definitions of right and wrong and get so easily offended

I can't imagine why it would remind you of that, since your comments have nothing at all to do with this thread.
No-one is talking about right and wrong, and no-one is offended. Do you want to try again with a relevant comment?

Is anyone else recalling the episode of 80s sitcom Just Good Friends when Vince meets his girlfriend Penny's pompous ex-husband?

Graham: I'm a vegan now. Do you know what a vegan is, Vince?
Penny: Of course he knows what a vegan is, don't you, Vince
Vince: Oh yeah. I never missed an episode of Star Trek.

One of my relatives is a vegan. And bangs on about it ALL THE TIME. But last time I saw said relative there were a pair of sports trainers on their feet which I'm fairly sure are made of fucking leather

So you're not saying what the guest dos was wrong?

Also, what everyone says just proves the point; the OP found it a hassle to cook the vegan dish, this was implicitly annoying yes by it, and consequently irritated when the guest are fish. That was my simple point. That if the OP did not find it a hassle to cook the special dish in the first place she would not have been so annoyed. And that's why I criticised her reaction, because I find being annoyed with guests special needs and demands quite unwelcoming. And also quite an OTT reaction to such a small thing. But I can see that my opinion is by far in the minority, so I'm glad to say I've learned how low the tolerance threshold for many people clearly is on this matter. Not myself being vegan or vegetarian or allergic to anything or even in the slightest a fussy eater, I won't ever have this problem myself, but just for reference it's good to know.

. That if the OP did not find it a hassle to cook the special dish in the first place she would not have been so annoyed. And that's why I criticised her reaction, because I find being annoyed with guests special needs and demands quite unwelcoming

You've been told this is nonsense. I would have been more than happy to cook to special needs, and would have put a lot of effort in. I would not have been annoyed at all to cook special food for someone who needed special food. But to then have it thrown back in my face as unnecessary is a different matter altogether. It's incredible rudeness, which for you to then blame on the host is even worse. Your rudeness compounds their rudeness.
You are rude squared.

Londonmama by the look of your nickname you might be near me. Neither am I vegan, vegetarian, allergic or a fussy eater - with the exception of beetroot and oysters which I mentioned above. I've just remembered I don't like hummus much and can't abide halva either.

But given that, would you like to come next time I'm having a dinner party and can I come to yours?

I find being annoyed with guests special needs and demands quite unwelcoming.

The guest didn't have special needs (treads carefully). She was just someone who wasn't vegan. Lots of people aren't vegan. Indeed, most people aren't vegan. You don't need special vegan food cooking for you if you aren't vegan, you can just eat what everyone else eats, which is what she did.

Demands is a whole other thing. You don't get to demand things in other people's houses. Three year olds who do it are gently told it isn't nice. Adults who do it are assumed to just be spoilt.

Iimited - I do hope you'll see how far you can push londonmama's tolerance by petulantly demanding roast swan and then deciding you'd rather have a Burger King.

I think we'd probably get on Lynda. I might ask the OP for the number of the fake vegan too. I'd probably buy the vegan food. What am I saying? I'd say 'let's go out to this Lebanese place I know. They do vegan and meat.'

No OP YANBU.

This thread has interested me, as my toddler DS has particular food requirements due to multiple allergies and I have to read labels religiously and explain his needs to others. It's not a "moral choice", and I don't think vegan/veggies should have the monopoly on food morals anyway.

Ive also seen the thread go from veg bashing to borderline harassment by hardline militant pedant vegans/veggies of 9 year old making food choices . My sympathies with Offred. My DD was similar. She was a vegetarian for 364 days of the year, and on each if those days could properly call herself that. On Xmas day she was not a vegetarian. That is all.

I'm not impressed with the food and/or language police on here.