And common sense disagrees with you. Fish aren't any different from other types of meat except that they live in the water. It's just as ignorant to say "I'm a vegetarian" and eat chicken as it is to say "I'm a vegetarian" and eat fish.
And common sense disagrees with the notion that eggs aren't meat
So, new question, because the definition wrangling is not going to go anywhere. The following scenario occurs:
Alice invites Bob to dinner, Bob says "Sure, but you should know that I'm vegetarian". Alice says this is fine, and in out of a genuine desire to accomodate, cooks fish. (For the sake of clarity, Bob does not eat fish)
Who's wrong?
Nobody. Alice tried to cook Bob a nice dinner, Bob tried to specify his dietary requirements but Alice misunderstood. Nobody did anything wrong, there.
Maybe I should have said "incorrect". It seems to me that either Alice shouldn't have assumed Bob ate fish, or Bob should have specified his dietary requirements more clearly.
I lean towards the former.
Meh? Yes, it would have been nice if one of them had done one of those things, but neither of them are wrong for not doing it.
They are different colors. People put them into categories. like black people and white people. Black people are really more brown and white people are really more extra light brown.
Do I need to make a chart here or something?
JebusUD on
and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
but they're listening to every word I say
And common sense disagrees with you. Fish aren't any different from other types of meat except that they live in the water. It's just as ignorant to say "I'm a vegetarian" and eat chicken as it is to say "I'm a vegetarian" and eat fish.
And common sense disagrees with the notion that eggs aren't meat
"Meat is animal flesh that is used as food.[1] Most often, this means the skeletal muscle and associated fat, but it may also describe other edible tissues such as organs, livers, skin, brains, bone marrow, kidneys, or lungs.[1] The word meat is also used by the meat packing industry in a more restrictive sense—the flesh of mammalian species (pigs, cattle, etc.) raised and prepared for human consumption, to the exclusion of fish and poultry."
That's what wiki says.
What part of that definition makes you think that eggs are somehow meat?
And common sense disagrees with you. Fish aren't any different from other types of meat except that they live in the water. It's just as ignorant to say "I'm a vegetarian" and eat chicken as it is to say "I'm a vegetarian" and eat fish.
And common sense disagrees with the notion that eggs aren't meat
Eggs aren't animals. They are produced by animals. Sure, they develop into animals once fertilized. But they aren't animals.
It also helps that an animal that produces an egg is in all likelihood not going to die because of it.
They are different colors. People put them into categories. like black people and white people. Black people are really more brown and white people are really more extra light brown.
Do I need to make a chart here or something?
It just seems like a pointless distinction. It's more red than white, and it has all the stuff that makes "red meat" bad for you.
If you're going to use analogies, use less retarded ones.
Perhaps you could explain where the line actually is. You see, it used to be someone who doesn't eat meat.
But apparently, you're really upset that people who choose to eat only certain meats have to explain that and don't have a word, or at least a commonly known word. So where do we decide a person is a vegetarian since whether or not they eat meat is irrelevant.
I guess if we decide we're using the definition of "meat" you like to use rather than the one in the dictionary and that has frequently and historically been used, then yes, it's irrelevant.
What do you mean rather than the one in the dictionary? Fish being meat is one of the definitions that is in the dictionary.
They are different colors. People put them into categories. like black people and white people. Black people are really more brown and white people are really more extra light brown.
Do I need to make a chart here or something?
It just seems like a pointless distinction. It's more red than white, and it has all the stuff that makes "red meat" bad for you.
I thought it had less of the bad stuff and that was the distinction. Plus it tends to have a stringier texture. It is probably useful in cooking.
JebusUD on
and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
but they're listening to every word I say
But hey, I don't see what gives you exclusive rights to impose the definition of "meat" that you like on everyone else, especially since historically, "meat" has frequently not included fish. Again, I'm not saying that that makes sense, I'm just saying that that's the way it is.
Aren't you the one complaining about the fact that language changes and people have to deal?
Well, guess what, a lot of people define fish as meat. Stop freaking out.
So...if you believe fish to be not meat...and you eat it...but no other parts of any animal...does that make you a vegetarian
No it makes you ignorant.
Historical use of the word disagrees with you. Webster's Dictionary disagrees with you.
And common sense disagrees with you. Fish aren't any different from other types of meat except that they live in the water. It's just as ignorant to say "I'm a vegetarian" and eat chicken as it is to say "I'm a vegetarian" and eat fish.
"I'm right because of common sense" packs a lot of stupid into six words.
Aside from historical precedent explain to me why fish should not be considered meat. Here is my argument for why it should be.
Animal happens to live in the water. Animal has a brain, nervous system, flesh, all that good stuff that we associate with animals that we slaughter, eat, and generically classify as meat. Cows? Made of meat. Chickens? Made of meat. Lambs? Made of meat. Fish? Made of meat. Crabs? Made of meat. Logic is on my side here when all the opposition has is "well we decided a long time ago that it just isn't, okay?"
And common sense disagrees with you. Fish aren't any different from other types of meat except that they live in the water. It's just as ignorant to say "I'm a vegetarian" and eat chicken as it is to say "I'm a vegetarian" and eat fish.
And common sense disagrees with the notion that eggs aren't meat
I never understood "eggs aren't meat" either. I mean, I technically get it, but I don't see the big difference between half of a biological chicken and the whole deal. It's meat waiting to happen that never got lucky. But then vegetarians who eat meat (that I've ever met) make sure to explicitly say that or say they are ovo-vegetarians and then explain that that means they eat eggs.
"Red meat" is primarily a technical term, which refers to certain classifications of meat perceived as being "less healthy," which, in the U.S., is actually pretty accurate. While yeah, it probably originally referred to the pre-cooked color of the meat, it doesn't actually refer to that these days.
Thanatos on
0
Options
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
Also, who cares? It's a fucking word. Misuse of the word does not significantly affect your life in any way
This thread was created in part due to the ways in which the misuse of the word does affect vegetarian's lives in some ways.
Man, I should just spend my days delicately explaining to everyone how I'm not a Democrat I'm a liberal and explaining the inextricaties between the two
Or I could say I vote Democrat and not be a fucking pedant
Yeah let's go with the latter
Is someone who refers to themselves as a Democrat but they've voted for the GOP since 1980, what does that make them?
The same as someone referring to themselves as a vegetarian who subsists solely upon beef and pork.
If you're going to use analogies, use less retarded ones.
What? They are in all ways save one the same as being a Democrat.
Wait, how are they not Democrat? We have absolutely no idea their reasoning behind voting GOP since 1980. It could be one of those "this issue that I am conservative on is far more important to me than every other issue" (Let's say for example it was taxes. Are they still Democrat? Sure. Are they a douchebag? Yes.)
I never understood "eggs aren't meat" either. I mean, I technically get it, but I don't see the big difference between half of a biological chicken and the whole deal. It's meat waiting to happen that never got lucky. But then vegetarians who eat meat (that I've ever met) make sure to explicitly say that or say they are ovo-vegetarians and then explain that that means they eat eggs.
Perhaps you should explain what part of it is the animal part then.
I guess if we decide we're using the definition of "meat" you like to use rather than the one in the dictionary and that has frequently and historically been used, then yes, it's irrelevant.
But hey, I don't see what gives you exclusive rights to impose the definition of "meat" that you like on everyone else, especially since historically, "meat" has frequently not included fish. Again, I'm not saying that that makes sense, I'm just saying that that's the way it is. And when we're talking about diets in a technical sense, then yes, I would say that I would be using your definition of "vegetarian." When not talking about them in a technical sense, the definition gets much broader.
It's like the definition of the word "theory." Evolution is a "theory" in the scientific sense; my belief that most cops are either corrupt or turn a blind eye to/protect corruption is a "theory" in the layman's sense. Are those both perfectly valid uses of the word "theory?" Absolutely. Does it mean exactly the same thing in both contexts? Absolutely not.
Aren't you the one complaining about the fact that language changes and people have to deal?
Well, guess what, a lot of people define fish as meat. Stop freaking out.
Yes, I think that's exactly what I said there, when you don't quote one line of a three-paragraph post completely out of context.
And common sense disagrees with you. Fish aren't any different from other types of meat except that they live in the water. It's just as ignorant to say "I'm a vegetarian" and eat chicken as it is to say "I'm a vegetarian" and eat fish.
And common sense disagrees with the notion that eggs aren't meat
They are an animal product, they are not meat.
But vegetarians (most of them anyhow) also don't eat gelatin, and that's animal product that isn't strictly meat, too.
"Red meat" is primarily a technical term, which refers to certain classifications of meat perceived as being "less healthy," which, in the U.S., is actually pretty accurate. While yeah, it probably originally referred to the pre-cooked color of the meat, it doesn't actually refer to that these days.
The exact definition of white meat varies by time, place, and culture, but domestic chicken and rabbit are generally considered "white", while the meat of large adult mammals, such as beef, mutton, and horse is generally considered "red". The meat of young mammals such as veal and milk-fed lamb are considered "white"; while the meat of duck and goose is considered "red",[1] though the demarcation line may be changing. Game is sometimes put in a separate category of meat altogether (French viandes noires 'black meats').[2]
A newer definition in the United States of America emphasizes not the appearance and strength of taste, but the fat content, making "white meat" synonymous with "lean meat"; traditionally "white" meats such as lamb and veal are reclassified as "red". Even fish and seafood, including fatty and dark-fleshed fishes such as salmon, mackerel, and tuna, are called "white meat"
Seems like it was pretty arbitrary historically, but, now it seems to be as you say, more a distinction made about if the meat is 'healthy' for you or not.
To add some cross-cultural perspective to the fish is not meat argument, I did a Spanish immersion program in Puebla, Mexico some years ago. At the end of it there was a dinner banquet for everyone, and the vegetarian dish served to (a good number of us vegetarians) was a fish dish.
My previously mentioned girlfriend is Colombian, and as Catholics they adhere to the religious definition Thanatos described.
I guess if we decide we're using the definition of "meat" you like to use rather than the one in the dictionary and that has frequently and historically been used, then yes, it's irrelevant.
But hey, I don't see what gives you exclusive rights to impose the definition of "meat" that you like on everyone else, especially since historically, "meat" has frequently not included fish. Again, I'm not saying that that makes sense, I'm just saying that that's the way it is. And when we're talking about diets in a technical sense, then yes, I would say that I would be using your definition of "vegetarian." When not talking about them in a technical sense, the definition gets much broader.
It's like the definition of the word "theory." Evolution is a "theory" in the scientific sense; my belief that most cops are either corrupt or turn a blind eye to/protect corruption is a "theory" in the layman's sense. Are those both perfectly valid uses of the word "theory?" Absolutely. Does it mean exactly the same thing in both contexts? Absolutely not.
Aren't you the one complaining about the fact that language changes and people have to deal?
Well, guess what, a lot of people define fish as meat. Stop freaking out.
Yes, I think that's exactly what I said there, when you don't quote one line of a three-paragraph post completely out of context.
You also decided that because fish wasn't always defined as a meat it shouldn't necessarily be now.
I never understood "eggs aren't meat" either. I mean, I technically get it, but I don't see the big difference between half of a biological chicken and the whole deal. It's meat waiting to happen that never got lucky. But then vegetarians who eat meat (that I've ever met) make sure to explicitly say that or say they are ovo-vegetarians and then explain that that means they eat eggs.
Perhaps you should explain what part of it is the animal part then.
I'd really rather not. All I can guess is that eggs are okay because they're meat that was never fertilized instead of meat that died.
And common sense disagrees with you. Fish aren't any different from other types of meat except that they live in the water. It's just as ignorant to say "I'm a vegetarian" and eat chicken as it is to say "I'm a vegetarian" and eat fish.
And common sense disagrees with the notion that eggs aren't meat
They are an animal product, they are not meat.
But vegetarians (most of them anyhow) also don't eat gelatin, and that's animal product that isn't strictly meat, too.
That's produced from animal parts, though, rather than something that merely comes from an animal.
And common sense disagrees with you. Fish aren't any different from other types of meat except that they live in the water. It's just as ignorant to say "I'm a vegetarian" and eat chicken as it is to say "I'm a vegetarian" and eat fish.
And common sense disagrees with the notion that eggs aren't meat
They are an animal product, they are not meat.
But vegetarians (most of them anyhow) also don't eat gelatin, and that's animal product that isn't strictly meat, too.
So...if you believe fish to be not meat...and you eat it...but no other parts of any animal...does that make you a vegetarian
No it makes you ignorant.
Historical use of the word disagrees with you. Webster's Dictionary disagrees with you.
And common sense disagrees with you. Fish aren't any different from other types of meat except that they live in the water. It's just as ignorant to say "I'm a vegetarian" and eat chicken as it is to say "I'm a vegetarian" and eat fish.
"I'm right because of common sense" packs a lot of stupid into six words.
Aside from historical precedent explain to me why fish should not be considered meat. Here is my argument for why it should be.
Animal happens to live in the water. Animal has a brain, nervous system, flesh, all that good stuff that we associate with animals that we slaughter, eat, and generically classify as meat. Cows? Made of meat. Chickens? Made of meat. Lambs? Made of meat. Fish? Made of meat. Crabs? Made of meat. Logic is on my side here when all the opposition has is "well we decided a long time ago that it just isn't, okay?"
Historical precedent is the entirety of what defines language. How a word has been used in the past defines it! So, "aside from historical precedent" why should any word be defined as meaning anything? Fuck, that's a really stupid fucking argument.
Thanatos on
0
Options
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
And common sense disagrees with you. Fish aren't any different from other types of meat except that they live in the water. It's just as ignorant to say "I'm a vegetarian" and eat chicken as it is to say "I'm a vegetarian" and eat fish.
And common sense disagrees with the notion that eggs aren't meat
Eggs aren't animals. They are produced by animals. Sure, they develop into animals once fertilized. But they aren't animals.
It also helps that an animal that produces an egg is in all likelihood not going to die because of it.
Have you seen a chicken farm? You're sponsoring chicken prostitution, basically
How is that morally okay in comparison to, say, a slaughterhouse? Because let's call a spade a spade, the people who care about this shit are the moral vegetarians. Vegetarians who are vegetarian because of health choices generally do not give a flying fuck if they are served fish. They're like "Whatever, I just won't eat that"
They don't flip a bitch about the definition of the word and mudding of it and whatever the fuck else holy christ
I guess if we decide we're using the definition of "meat" you like to use rather than the one in the dictionary and that has frequently and historically been used, then yes, it's irrelevant.
But hey, I don't see what gives you exclusive rights to impose the definition of "meat" that you like on everyone else, especially since historically, "meat" has frequently not included fish. Again, I'm not saying that that makes sense, I'm just saying that that's the way it is. And when we're talking about diets in a technical sense, then yes, I would say that I would be using your definition of "vegetarian." When not talking about them in a technical sense, the definition gets much broader.
It's like the definition of the word "theory." Evolution is a "theory" in the scientific sense; my belief that most cops are either corrupt or turn a blind eye to/protect corruption is a "theory" in the layman's sense. Are those both perfectly valid uses of the word "theory?" Absolutely. Does it mean exactly the same thing in both contexts? Absolutely not.
Aren't you the one complaining about the fact that language changes and people have to deal?
Well, guess what, a lot of people define fish as meat. Stop freaking out.
Yes, I think that's exactly what I said there, when you don't quote one line of a three-paragraph post completely out of context.
You also decided that because fish wasn't always defined as a meat it shouldn't necessarily be now.
Which is it?
"Fish" is meat in a strictly technical sense, but frequently isn't meat in a layman's sense.
Aside from historical precedent explain to me why fish should not be considered meat. Here is my argument for why it should be.
Animal happens to live in the water. Animal has a brain, nervous system, flesh, all that good stuff that we associate with animals that we slaughter, eat, and generically classify as meat. Cows? Made of meat. Chickens? Made of meat. Lambs? Made of meat. Fish? Made of meat. Crabs? Made of meat. Logic is on my side here when all the opposition has is "well we decided a long time ago that it just isn't, okay?"
Historical precedent is the entirety of what defines language. How a word has been used in the past defines it! So, "aside from historical precedent" why should any word be defined as meaning anything? Fuck, that's a really stupid fucking argument.
Said differently, aside from historical precedent, explain to me why "jclast" should not be synonymous with the phrase "dumbest organism on record." After all, they're just collections of letters and syllables.
And common sense disagrees with you. Fish aren't any different from other types of meat except that they live in the water. It's just as ignorant to say "I'm a vegetarian" and eat chicken as it is to say "I'm a vegetarian" and eat fish.
And common sense disagrees with the notion that eggs aren't meat
They are an animal product, they are not meat.
But vegetarians (most of them anyhow) also don't eat gelatin, and that's animal product that isn't strictly meat, too.
That's produced from animal parts, though, rather than something that merely comes from an animal.
Gelatin can be/is made from bones, skin, connective tissue, intestines, and the like.
If you want to get technical some of that is meat and the rest comes from killing the animal.
And common sense disagrees with you. Fish aren't any different from other types of meat except that they live in the water. It's just as ignorant to say "I'm a vegetarian" and eat chicken as it is to say "I'm a vegetarian" and eat fish.
And common sense disagrees with the notion that eggs aren't meat
Eggs aren't animals. They are produced by animals. Sure, they develop into animals once fertilized. But they aren't animals.
It also helps that an animal that produces an egg is in all likelihood not going to die because of it.
Have you seen a chicken farm? You're sponsoring chicken prostitution, basically
How is that morally okay in comparison to, say, a slaughterhouse? Because let's call a spade a spade, the people who care about this shit are the moral vegetarians. Vegetarians who are vegetarian because of health choices generally do not give a flying fuck if they are served fish. They're like "Whatever, I just won't eat that"
They don't flip a bitch about the definition of the word and muddling of it and whatever the fuck else holy christ
Who here publicly flips a bitch or is advocating the flipping of bitches? The internet is not a public restaurant or colleagues home. Though I realize it is serious business.
So...if you believe fish to be not meat...and you eat it...but no other parts of any animal...does that make you a vegetarian
No it makes you ignorant.
Historical use of the word disagrees with you. Webster's Dictionary disagrees with you.
And common sense disagrees with you. Fish aren't any different from other types of meat except that they live in the water. It's just as ignorant to say "I'm a vegetarian" and eat chicken as it is to say "I'm a vegetarian" and eat fish.
"I'm right because of common sense" packs a lot of stupid into six words.
Aside from historical precedent explain to me why fish should not be considered meat. Here is my argument for why it should be.
Animal happens to live in the water. Animal has a brain, nervous system, flesh, all that good stuff that we associate with animals that we slaughter, eat, and generically classify as meat. Cows? Made of meat. Chickens? Made of meat. Lambs? Made of meat. Fish? Made of meat. Crabs? Made of meat. Logic is on my side here when all the opposition has is "well we decided a long time ago that it just isn't, okay?"
Historical precedent is the entirety of what defines language. How a word has been used in the past defines it! So, "aside from historical precedent" why should any word be defined as meaning anything? Fuck, that's a really stupid fucking argument.
So historical precedent trumps honest-to-God logic then? Neat. I'm glad it is clear now that historical Catholics not being able to eat steak and potatoes on Friday means that fish isn't meat when it clearly is the flesh of animals being used for food.
Maybe we should just change out "meat" for "animal products" in the definition of vegetarianism then. OR, we could all put on our grown-up pants are realize that historical Catholics were wrong and that fish is made of meat.
Aside from historical precedent explain to me why fish should not be considered meat. Here is my argument for why it should be.
Animal happens to live in the water. Animal has a brain, nervous system, flesh, all that good stuff that we associate with animals that we slaughter, eat, and generically classify as meat. Cows? Made of meat. Chickens? Made of meat. Lambs? Made of meat. Fish? Made of meat. Crabs? Made of meat. Logic is on my side here when all the opposition has is "well we decided a long time ago that it just isn't, okay?"
Historical precedent is the entirety of what defines language. How a word has been used in the past defines it! So, "aside from historical precedent" why should any word be defined as meaning anything? Fuck, that's a really stupid fucking argument.
Said differently, aside from historical precedent, explain to me why "jclast" should not be synonymous with the phrase "dumbest organism on record." After all, they're just collections of letters and syllables.
I'd start by pointing at my academic record and job performance records, I guess. Past that you can think whatever you want, but that won't magically make it logical.
Arguing over whether or not fish count as meat is retarded. Saying "vegetarians don't eat meat" is just a shortening of "vegetarians don't eat meat, poultry, fish, and other shit made from dead animals." Hence why dictionary definitions are more thorough than the colloquial definition. Colloquially, most Americans consider meat to be the parts of animals that we eat. Stuff like gelatin probably isn't known to be made from the bones of animals.
Said differently, aside from historical precedent, explain to me why "jclast" should not be synonymous with the phrase "dumbest organism on record." After all, they're just collections of letters and syllables.
I'd start by pointing at my academic record and job performance records, I guess. Past that you can think whatever you want, but that won't magically make it logical.
Whoooooosh. I'll try again. The only thing that makes the collection of letters 'dumbest organism on record' connected with the collection of letters 'academic record' is historical precedent.
And common sense disagrees with you. Fish aren't any different from other types of meat except that they live in the water. It's just as ignorant to say "I'm a vegetarian" and eat chicken as it is to say "I'm a vegetarian" and eat fish.
And common sense disagrees with the notion that eggs aren't meat
They are an animal product, they are not meat.
But vegetarians (most of them anyhow) also don't eat gelatin, and that's animal product that isn't strictly meat, too.
That's produced from animal parts, though, rather than something that merely comes from an animal.
Gelatin can be/is made from bones, skin, connective tissue, intestines, and the like.
If you want to get technical some of that is meat and the rest comes from killing the animal.
It's one of the differences between a product and a by-product.
moniker on
0
Options
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
Chicken prostitution? I thought eggs typically weren't fertilized.
We force them to ovulate in tiny pens and do shit like cut their beaks off. They're fed high-fat food until they're so fat they can barely move in their tiny cages, which they share until they're basically packed in there. And don't even get me started on milk (it's quite normal for dying cows to be milked incessantly, until day of death quite frequently)
Oh but beef, oh no no no can't eat that, they're killed inhumanely. Whatever will we do
Said differently, aside from historical precedent, explain to me why "jclast" should not be synonymous with the phrase "dumbest organism on record." After all, they're just collections of letters and syllables.
I'd start by pointing at my academic record and job performance records, I guess. Past that you can think whatever you want, but that won't magically make it logical.
Whoooooosh. I'll try again. The only thing that makes the collection of letters 'dumbest organism on record' connected with the collection of letters 'academic record' is historical precedent.
No, in this context the records are the logic that proves I'm not a retard. Historical precedent would be some guy on the Internet saying "jclast has always meant 'dude who not the most retarded thing ever.'"
Posts
They are an animal product, they are not meat.
They are different colors. People put them into categories. like black people and white people. Black people are really more brown and white people are really more extra light brown.
Do I need to make a chart here or something?
but they're listening to every word I say
"Meat is animal flesh that is used as food.[1] Most often, this means the skeletal muscle and associated fat, but it may also describe other edible tissues such as organs, livers, skin, brains, bone marrow, kidneys, or lungs.[1] The word meat is also used by the meat packing industry in a more restrictive sense—the flesh of mammalian species (pigs, cattle, etc.) raised and prepared for human consumption, to the exclusion of fish and poultry."
That's what wiki says.
What part of that definition makes you think that eggs are somehow meat?
Eggs aren't animals. They are produced by animals. Sure, they develop into animals once fertilized. But they aren't animals.
It also helps that an animal that produces an egg is in all likelihood not going to die because of it.
It just seems like a pointless distinction. It's more red than white, and it has all the stuff that makes "red meat" bad for you.
What do you mean rather than the one in the dictionary? Fish being meat is one of the definitions that is in the dictionary.
I thought it had less of the bad stuff and that was the distinction. Plus it tends to have a stringier texture. It is probably useful in cooking.
but they're listening to every word I say
Aren't you the one complaining about the fact that language changes and people have to deal?
Well, guess what, a lot of people define fish as meat. Stop freaking out.
Aside from historical precedent explain to me why fish should not be considered meat. Here is my argument for why it should be.
Animal happens to live in the water. Animal has a brain, nervous system, flesh, all that good stuff that we associate with animals that we slaughter, eat, and generically classify as meat. Cows? Made of meat. Chickens? Made of meat. Lambs? Made of meat. Fish? Made of meat. Crabs? Made of meat. Logic is on my side here when all the opposition has is "well we decided a long time ago that it just isn't, okay?"
I never understood "eggs aren't meat" either. I mean, I technically get it, but I don't see the big difference between half of a biological chicken and the whole deal. It's meat waiting to happen that never got lucky. But then vegetarians who eat meat (that I've ever met) make sure to explicitly say that or say they are ovo-vegetarians and then explain that that means they eat eggs.
Wait, how are they not Democrat? We have absolutely no idea their reasoning behind voting GOP since 1980. It could be one of those "this issue that I am conservative on is far more important to me than every other issue" (Let's say for example it was taxes. Are they still Democrat? Sure. Are they a douchebag? Yes.)
Your analogy is flawed
Perhaps you should explain what part of it is the animal part then.
But vegetarians (most of them anyhow) also don't eat gelatin, and that's animal product that isn't strictly meat, too.
The exact definition of white meat varies by time, place, and culture, but domestic chicken and rabbit are generally considered "white", while the meat of large adult mammals, such as beef, mutton, and horse is generally considered "red". The meat of young mammals such as veal and milk-fed lamb are considered "white"; while the meat of duck and goose is considered "red",[1] though the demarcation line may be changing. Game is sometimes put in a separate category of meat altogether (French viandes noires 'black meats').[2]
A newer definition in the United States of America emphasizes not the appearance and strength of taste, but the fat content, making "white meat" synonymous with "lean meat"; traditionally "white" meats such as lamb and veal are reclassified as "red". Even fish and seafood, including fatty and dark-fleshed fishes such as salmon, mackerel, and tuna, are called "white meat"
Seems like it was pretty arbitrary historically, but, now it seems to be as you say, more a distinction made about if the meat is 'healthy' for you or not.
My previously mentioned girlfriend is Colombian, and as Catholics they adhere to the religious definition Thanatos described.
You also decided that because fish wasn't always defined as a meat it shouldn't necessarily be now.
Which is it?
I'd really rather not. All I can guess is that eggs are okay because they're meat that was never fertilized instead of meat that died.
That's produced from animal parts, though, rather than something that merely comes from an animal.
Gelatin is a by-product.
Have you seen a chicken farm? You're sponsoring chicken prostitution, basically
How is that morally okay in comparison to, say, a slaughterhouse? Because let's call a spade a spade, the people who care about this shit are the moral vegetarians. Vegetarians who are vegetarian because of health choices generally do not give a flying fuck if they are served fish. They're like "Whatever, I just won't eat that"
They don't flip a bitch about the definition of the word and mudding of it and whatever the fuck else holy christ
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Said differently, aside from historical precedent, explain to me why "jclast" should not be synonymous with the phrase "dumbest organism on record." After all, they're just collections of letters and syllables.
Gelatin can be/is made from bones, skin, connective tissue, intestines, and the like.
If you want to get technical some of that is meat and the rest comes from killing the animal.
Who here publicly flips a bitch or is advocating the flipping of bitches? The internet is not a public restaurant or colleagues home. Though I realize it is serious business.
So historical precedent trumps honest-to-God logic then? Neat. I'm glad it is clear now that historical Catholics not being able to eat steak and potatoes on Friday means that fish isn't meat when it clearly is the flesh of animals being used for food.
Maybe we should just change out "meat" for "animal products" in the definition of vegetarianism then. OR, we could all put on our grown-up pants are realize that historical Catholics were wrong and that fish is made of meat.
And then language changes and it becomes meat in every sense.
Except you seem dead set against that happening and would rather rail against anyone who attempts to do so.
I'd start by pointing at my academic record and job performance records, I guess. Past that you can think whatever you want, but that won't magically make it logical.
For simplicity's sake I'm using "animal parts" in place of meat, since some people apparently find "meat" to be ambiguous.
Chicken farms don't let roosters get it on. It's more of a hen strip club.
I agree with this.
Whoooooosh. I'll try again. The only thing that makes the collection of letters 'dumbest organism on record' connected with the collection of letters 'academic record' is historical precedent.
It's one of the differences between a product and a by-product.
We force them to ovulate in tiny pens and do shit like cut their beaks off. They're fed high-fat food until they're so fat they can barely move in their tiny cages, which they share until they're basically packed in there. And don't even get me started on milk (it's quite normal for dying cows to be milked incessantly, until day of death quite frequently)
Oh but beef, oh no no no can't eat that, they're killed inhumanely. Whatever will we do
No, in this context the records are the logic that proves I'm not a retard. Historical precedent would be some guy on the Internet saying "jclast has always meant 'dude who not the most retarded thing ever.'"