Poor Veggies. :(

[kalniel]

pescevegetarianism as defined above is a form of pseudo-vegetarianism. ie they claim to be vegetarian, but aren't.

According to who?

Unless you listen to some people who are pseudo-vegetarians who by their definition are vegetarian yet clearly aren't. My counter to your point being that despite the fact that I have provided multiple definitions you keep coming back with the fact that they're not universal

But it was quite clear that the definitions are not claiming to be universal, otherwise they wouldn't have the terms 'we define' or 'for the purposes of our membership' etc. That is the case with the above - for the purposes of membership of the IVU eating fish is considered a form of psuedo or non-vegetarianism.

I could start up a vegetarian society that had it's own definitions that said roast chicken, when done with proper roast potatoes in goose fat, was 'for the purposes of our membership' vegetarian. That doesn't all of a sudden make it universal

We agree on the broader points, and the fact of the matter is that that most people who do not eat a large proportion of the meat products out there will for convienience describe themselves as vegetarian. It's just the easiest and most accepted way of doing things.

Maybe I should describe myself as a sustainable-ecologically sound-low pollutant-thoughtfull stewardship-low distance-season-low instensive-demand lowering-not-asking-other-people-to-change-arian.. but that's just too much of a mouthful when 'vegetarian' meets 99.9% of my needs.

Infact I'd argue the majority of vegetarians disagree with the IVU's definition as well, especially with regard to by-products such as leather.

[Kezzer]

Yes, yes I am. 1000's of years ago we were eating meat, when we were still in caves, Woolly Mammoth Steak anyone?

Try again you obviously don't know of cultures that didn't eat meat, and the cultures that worshipped their animals because they were providing meat.

[directhex]

regardless of the consequences to everyone else in the world?

me eating mutton doesn't cause babies in africa to die

me eating animal feed wouldn't magic tasty meals out of thin air throughout ethiopia

[arbitor]

Or he obviously didnt care

I live for today not yesterday or tomorro


brilliant directhex

[pollaxe]

So what are the other factors (from my 5 min google search, this seems like the main one by far)...

IMO the fact that the poor countries have bad land/weather is not a huge factor as the rest of the world can provide more than enough food for them instead of feeding bred animals.

Poor infrastructure in countries. Corruption. War. Poverty. Lack of political will. We have enough food in the world that people don't need to starve. I refuse to believe that because I eat a cow in the UK then someone in Zimbabwe is starving.

I don't deny farming has an impact I don't accept it's as simple as some of these statistical analyses would have us believe.

[Splash]

Kalniel - you still haven't provided me with a universal definition. All the widely accepted definitions I have provided state that vegetarians will not eat fish.

Also 2000th post - must be the millenium bug that's making me so argumentative today.

[chicken]

Maybe the cows are eating all the grain, maybe people are starving in poorer countries but to me that says the world is getting over populated rather than people are being selfish.

There are also vast areas of places like Africa where there are starving, that are unused. Talking to a friend who works in C.A.R. she was saying that the plants fruit all year and the locals do very little work and have next to no planning skills as a result. Taking developed farming ideas into these areas could produce far bigger yields of crops and on the same continent as their consumers.

Turning around and blaming it on someone who eats meat seems to be avoiding dealing with the problem. A method of passing the buck.

[kalniel]

Kalniel - you still haven't provided me with a universal definition. All the widely accepted definitions I have provided state that vegetarians will not eat fish.

There is no universal definition - that's the point

In the English speaking world the most commonly accepted definition is that of no flesh, fish or fowl - ie no meat, fish or bird produce. However in the non-english speaking world this is very much not the case - in Spain seafood is considered vegetarian for example.

So the universal definition, by means of common demoninator, would probably be 'someone who doesn't eat meat'. There is room for sub definitions of course - just as you can give a definition of Christianity which has room for sub definitions according to denomination.

[Splash]

Surely the closest thing to a universal definition must be the INTERNATIONAL Vegetarian Union? Also - by the IVU a vegetarian is someone who doesn't EAT meat/fish/poultry, nothing to do with leather - you seem to be confusing vegetarianism with veganism.


As I say, I'm a robot. A Transformer, in fact. Just a different kind of Transformer to the ones you might be thinking of.

2001 - woooooo! A Space Odyssey!

[chicken]

As I said earlier, I think the reason a lot of people use the term "Vegetarian" to describe themselves is because it's better that they don't get given any meat even if they would eat fish, chicken, whatever. It's a nice short classification to get food they will eat.

I don't think it's got as much to do with the "I'm a vegetarian, aren't I morally superior... oh yeah but I do eat fish..." type of attitude as you seem to be attributing to it.

[kalniel]

Except that the self proclaimed 'international' VU doesn't seem to represent international vegetarians, nor does it seek to provide anything other than it's own membership definition. Which is the way it should be IMO. Just as the Anglican church doesn't tell the Methodist church it isn't Christian

I could create a club called the International Real Vegetarian Society and say that roast chicken and goose fat potatoes are vegetarian, for the purposes of membership in the IRVS.

[Crazy Cricket]

I live for today not yesterday or tomorro

Just what is it about the apathetic lifestyle that makes you so proud about it ?

[kalniel]

As I said earlier, I think the reason a lot of people use the term "Vegetarian" to describe themselves is because it's better that they don't get given any meat even if they would eat fish, chicken, whatever. It's a nice short classification to get food they will eat.

Absolutely. It's certainly not worthy of a 'YOU'RE NOT VEGETARIAN SO I WON'T RESPECT YOU' type response (not that I'm saying anyone is saying that )

If anything, question the reasons behind it, and choose whether to respect it or not based on that, but it's not worth doing it just on the name

[Splash]

Absolutely. It's certainly not worthy of a 'YOU'RE NOT VEGETARIAN SO I WON'T RESPECT YOU' type response

I said nothing along those lines, if you're trying to attribute that to me. I just wish people wouldn't mis-label themselves in the way that they do.

I'm just an omnivore that doesn't eat meat or fish is all.

[kalniel]

No, to clarify I'm not trying to attribute that to you at all

Other people may take the response that because someone doesn't fit in with their own definition of something it's not worth considering, something we saw a bit of in the religion thread where there were some very narrow minded definitions of Chrisitanity which were then used to attack Christianity as a whole. That's what I'm trying to avoid here

In this case it's almost the opposite - the minority (in the english speaking world) are the ones being talked about here. My point is they should still be considered rather than just dismissed out of hand for what they call themselves.

[Crazy Cricket]

Ignore this 'un, makes no sense since it's in reply to something that's no longer there!