I get you. It's really variable what someone's person AL definition of vegetarian is, which often defies what the intuitive definition is. E.g. meeting a self proclaimed vegetarian that eats fish. Yes, we'd call that a pescatarian (or just an omnivore) but they stick to "vegetarian". I think that the inconsistencies come from that vegetarian means some types of animal products, and the types become unclear.
And speaking personally, vegetarianism is morally inconsistent, too. Just leave the whole animal alone!
I think my only really problem with this is that it creates confusion because of people using the term wrong. I've known too many people who say they are vegetarians but still eat meat frequently, or they eat fish, which is meat regardless of what Catholics claim.
Vegetarians are people who eat no meat intentionally but may consume milk, eggs, and some other animal byproducts like honey so long as nothing had to directly die or suffer.
Veganism is a higher level where the attempt is to remove all products and foods that are not plant based it that require some other creature too perform outside of it's natural life cycle.
Pescatarians are people who are vegetarians other than the eating of fish.
Raw food advocates do not cook their food.
Jainism has a religious element to their food intake and behavior regarding other creatures.
In any case it's either done for dietary or ethical reasons. The standard diet is to eat what's comfortable or easy with little thought to what you're eating. That's pretty much the only constant as there's numerous other non-veg diets out there that people eat for a variety of reasons religious, dietary, and personal.
Me personally, I'm of the opinion that you should case about what you're eating and as long as you're comfortable with what that means regarding how it's procured, eat up
Yep, agreed. The problem, minor though it is, is that there are a bunch of people that should refer to themselves as Pescatarian, but don't.
I suspect that they refer to themselves as vegetarians because it's simpler and encapsulates a large chunk of their preferences. It just causes confusion when they go to the waiter. "I'm vegetarian....Oh, I'll have the fish"
In any case I was simply trying to explain why I liked the 'part-time' thing.
It's odd when people get defensive about it when you just say you're vegetarian, but I know it happens. My SO was vegetarian for 14 years and this happened from time to time. Sometimes the comment that having animals killed on your behalf is a flag that this person thinks it is amoral to kill animals for food. Meat is murder after all. I recognize very much so that not all vegetarians are like that.
I'm one of those people. Most people know what a vegetarian is. A few know what a pescatarian is. Hardly anybody understands what an ovo-lacto vegetarian is.
It's just way easier for me to say I'm vegetarian "but I eat fish sometimes". People get that.
He didn’t conflate anything. He said “I’m vegetarian.” You are the one who is making ethical assumptions on his behalf. He can state he is a vegetarian and then state another opinion without an arrogant and condescending vegan looking down on him from up high.
Seeing how there are many reasons to be vegetarian, there's bound to be some confusion as some people consider cultured meat vegetarian (due to it not infringing on animal welfare), and others not (due to others not eating meat for other reasons).
There's a term for people who don't eat meat, but eat fish:
Pescetarians.
I'd rather have it clear that people use the right terms, since some will probably complain about being given only vegetables when there was fish available, whilst happily claiming they are vegatarian.
it's almost like claiming that you are vegan when you are vegatarian.
That confusion already exists, plenty of people who are vegetarians for animal welfare reasons also don't want to eat fake meat. People are complicated.
I think everyone is in agreement about what "vegetarian" means apart from you.
Vegetarians don't eat the flesh of animals, and it's always been like that. Eggs and milk are animal products, not the flesh of animals - so vegetarians can still eat them. Vegans don't eat animal products at all, which rules out eggs and milk. Pescatarians eat fish, but they aren't vegetarians.
So if N is the number of distinct foods you can eat, N(pescatarians) > N(vegetarians) > N(vegans).
Is there anything in particular about this that you find difficult to understand? I can model it as an ontology for you, perhaps?
I understand your point, but don't you think that referring to "ethical consequentialist vegetarians" as "consistent vegetarians" or simply "vegetarians" is a bit dishonest? I'm also a long-term vegetarian and animal rights supporter, same my family and many of my friends; I think I have never met an ethical consequentialist vegetarian in my entire life... I believe this article says more about consequentialism than vegetarianism in "general" (if there is such a thing).
As said above, I don't think anyone is confused except for you.
Don't get me wrong, I think vegans and vegetarians can sometimes be annoyingly hypocritical and arbitrary, I think I see what you're trying to get at, but as for what constitutes a typical vegetarian diet I don't see why it's so hard to see the difference between milk and meat.
Thanks for calling this out. It's baffling to come across vegetarians at all (I'm vegan btw) talking about ethics. To me it's worse than an omni who thinks they care about animals, because a vegetarian has taken some steps to look into the details, but then decides to stop short.
Unless you’re trying to change someone’s mind, why strive for internal consistency at all? I like animals; I hate killing; I like meat. Over time, I think this will push me in the vegetarian/vegan direction, but the contradiction does not bother me in and of itself.
When I was visiting Brazil I met a bunch of people that called themselves vegetarians who would eat chicken and bacon. Turns out "vegetarian" means not eating beef. It led to some pretty funny misunderstandings.
These definitions are rigid. Anyone can do something they are not supposed to once in a while but 'vegan' and 'vegetarian' do mean that you refuse to eat animal products or meat, not that you don't eat much of them.
And speaking personally, vegetarianism is morally inconsistent, too. Just leave the whole animal alone!
reply