I am an anal retentive linguophile, and so I am annoyed by the imprecise use of language. I am also pissed off by misuse of "irony" and am only just starting to cave on the use of "nauseous" to mean "nauseated".
so... are you pissed when any words change? Considering that they have been changing since the creation of language wouldn't a real linguophile expect words to change meanings?
Also, now that there are widespread dictionaries and spell check, as well as courses that teach, capital E, "English", do you think that the language will enter some sort of stasis where words will no longer change as fast?
JebusUD on
and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
but they're listening to every word I say
What if you ritually slaughter a pig every time you make a green salad?
Then the Blood God blesses your meal and you gain immortality for the time it takes you to consume the salad.
What if you have leftovers and you put them in the fridge or freezer? Are you immortal still? Because I've got a FoodSaver and a head full of insane stunts I've always wanted to try.
Aren't most egg-farm chickens living in conditions worse than death, though? I assume eggs and such are only okay for the animal-ethics vegetarians if they're free-range corn-fed organics, or whatever the latest trend in consumer-feel-goodery is.
Depends where you get your eggs from. Battery farming is being phased out in the EU and will be illegal from 2012.
In practice most of the supermarket chains have signed a voluntary agreement not to sell the products of battery farming.
I guess, deal with it. There is no difference between people saying "I am a vegetarian but I eat fish" or saying "I'm not a vegetarian but I only eat fish." It conveys the same idea.
Except they don't. The first conveys that the person doesn't know what the word vegetarian means.
How do they not convey the same idea? One says, I am a carnivore except for this, one says I am an herbivore except for this. Both show they know what the word means.
JebusUD on
and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
but they're listening to every word I say
I am an anal retentive linguophile, and so I am annoyed by the imprecise use of language. I am also pissed off by misuse of "irony" and am only just starting to cave on the use of "nauseous" to mean "nauseated".
so... are you pissed when any words change? Considering that they have been changing since the creation of language wouldn't a real linguophile expect words to change meanings?
I don't mind most words changing until the change means they become meaningless.
I guess, deal with it. There is no difference between people saying "I am a vegetarian but I eat fish" or saying "I'm not a vegetarian but I only eat fish." It conveys the same idea.
Except they don't. The first conveys that the person doesn't know what the word vegetarian means.
How do they not convey the same idea? One says, I am a carnivore except for this, one says I am an herbivore except for this. Both show they know what the word means.
It makes as much saying "I'm a vegetarian but I eat any meat".
Quid on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
What if you have leftovers and you put them in the fridge or freezer? Are you immortal still? Because I've got a FoodSaver and a head full of insane stunts I've always wanted to try.
The Blood God is unamused by your puny antics of food preservation. If you're not scarfing down arugula and cucumber slices in midair while attempting that cordless bungee jump, you're on your own.
I guess, deal with it. There is no difference between people saying "I am a vegetarian but I eat fish" or saying "I'm not a vegetarian but I only eat fish." It conveys the same idea.
Except they don't. The first conveys that the person doesn't know what the word vegetarian means.
How do they not convey the same idea? One says, I am a carnivore except for this, one says I am an herbivore except for this. Both show they know what the word means.
It makes as much saying "I'm a vegetarian but I eat any meat".
Because they make one exception that means they might as well be making all exceptions?
*blizp* *zap*Does not compute.
JebusUD on
and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
but they're listening to every word I say
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
I guess, deal with it. There is no difference between people saying "I am a vegetarian but I eat fish" or saying "I'm not a vegetarian but I only eat fish." It conveys the same idea.
Except they don't. The first conveys that the person doesn't know what the word vegetarian means.
How do they not convey the same idea? One says, I am a carnivore except for this, one says I am an herbivore except for this. Both show they know what the word means.
It makes as much saying "I'm a vegetarian but I eat any meat".
Because they make one exception that means they might as well be making all exceptions?
*blizp* *zap*Does not compute.
I think it's mostly that the word defines itself through exception. A vegetarian is defined by what he/she doesn't eat - meat. If the vegetarian does eat some meat, the definition changes.
I guess, deal with it. There is no difference between people saying "I am a vegetarian but I eat fish" or saying "I'm not a vegetarian but I only eat fish." It conveys the same idea.
Except they don't. The first conveys that the person doesn't know what the word vegetarian means.
How do they not convey the same idea? One says, I am a carnivore except for this, one says I am an herbivore except for this. Both show they know what the word means.
It makes as much saying "I'm a vegetarian but I eat any meat".
Because they make one exception that means they might as well be making all exceptions?
*blizp* *zap*Does not compute.
I'm actually seeing a term entering the vernacular via cookbook titles - "flexitarian". It's basically "When I'm cooking for myself or others, I only prepare vegetarian dishes, but I don't have a problem eating meat when I'm out with other people". I think the sentiment is that your vegetarianism isn't going to prevent Hickory Park from ordering X lbs of meat this week, so you're not really helping anyone by refusing it if a group of friends wants to go there.
I am an anal retentive linguophile, and so I am annoyed by the imprecise use of language. I am also pissed off by misuse of "irony" and am only just starting to cave on the use of "nauseous" to mean "nauseated".
so... are you pissed when any words change? Considering that they have been changing since the creation of language wouldn't a real linguophile expect words to change meanings?
Also, now that there are widespread dictionaries and spell check, as well as courses that teach, capital E, "English", do you think that the language will enter some sort of stasis where words will no longer change as fast?
I'm annoyed when words change due to ignorance. Like "irony" or "nauseous". It's not people appropriating a new word for previously unexplored purposes, it's dumb people using words wrong. Same way "irregardless" is becoming a word because people are dumb.
I don't rage uncontrollably, it just annoys me.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I'm a vegetarian and get annoyed when people ask if I eat fish. No, I don't eat fish. I'm a vegetarian. You know, an actual one.
I'm not trying to convert anybody. I don't consider it terribly complicated. If somebody gets dense or decides to play "test the person who does something I don't do", I find that the dog shit analogy works well.
Them: What about chicken stock? It's not like there's pieces of chicken in there. You're not really eating chicken.
Me: You don't eat dog shit, right? How about if I make some liquid dog shit and then use that as stock for your meal. It's not like you're, you know, eating entire pieces of dog shit. It's just a little liquid dog shit that makes it taste better.
Again, that isn't my go-to analogy. I only use it if people feel the need to convert me back to omnivorism.
Because they make one exception that means they might as well be making all exceptions?
*blizp* *zap*Does not compute.
You're making an exception that directly contradicts the definition of the world. "Vegetarian that eats meat" is a contradiction in terms. It's like gravity that pushes stuff away, or light that darkens a room, or water that dehydrates stuff.
what makes fish less worth sparing than other animals
That's an assumption of why they're pescetarian. Maybe they only like fish. Though usually people do it for health reasons.
Yeah, most of the vegetarians I've met aren't really doing it to protest animal husbandry, but because they feel healthier removing meat from their diet.
Why only plants? They're also multicellular eukaryotes. I only eat yeasts, although I've been thinking of moving to vitamin supplements and synthetic lipids.
Because they make one exception that means they might as well be making all exceptions?
*blizp* *zap*Does not compute.
You're making an exception that directly contradicts the definition of the world. "Vegetarian that eats meat" is a contradiction in terms. It's like gravity that pushes stuff away, or light that darkens a room, or water that dehydrates stuff.
I'd say it's more like a pacifist who only beats up black people.
My girlfriend has been a vegetarian pretty much all of her life because she doesn't like the taste of meat, generally speaking, so it's a little annoying when she tells people about her dietary restrictions and they immediately retort with assumptions about her moral high horse that couldn't be farther from the truth
She is not infallible, though. Bacon, and only bacon, is at times a problem. Sometimes I will order something with bacon and the mere smell of it drives her into a haze of carnal lust and she simply must take a bite of it, though she usually can't stomach it.
So, I don't really know what I'm supposed to call her other than "peculiar." I mean, she is a vegetarian, but mostly just because. She could probably do without the label altogether, except how else does she explain herself to people that ask why she can't eat at a certain restaurant, etc. etc.?
Fish/Egg vegetarianism comes from the idea that fish don't feel pain, kinda a misnomer if you ask me.
It also is an old school approach because back then it could be difficult to get proper protein without some sort of meat in your diet.
My grandfather was an egg/fish old school vegetarian while my uncle has been a full on vegan for forty years. It's not that hard to work around. Vegans just need to be prepared.
Fish/Egg vegetarianism comes from the idea that fish don't feel pain, kinda a misnomer if you ask me.
It also is an old school approach because back then it could be difficult to get proper protein without some sort of meat in your diet.
My grandfather was an egg/fish old school vegetarian while my uncle has been a full on vegan for forty years. It's not that hard to work around. Vegans just need to be prepared.
I don't see why an animal's capacity for feeling pain should be the justification for "selective vegetarians" that consume said creatures
Shouldn't the decision ultimately be made based on the creed of "if I am ending an animal's life to eat this when I have no biological reason to do so, I am doing something wrong?"
I mean, again, we're only talking about moralistic vegetarians here (oh how nuanced this issue becomes when you start getting so specific!), but still
Because they make one exception that means they might as well be making all exceptions?
*blizp* *zap*Does not compute.
You're making an exception that directly contradicts the definition of the world. "Vegetarian that eats meat" is a contradiction in terms. It's like gravity that pushes stuff away, or light that darkens a room, or water that dehydrates stuff.
I think it is more like saying, I work out every day, except saturdays. That is a contradiction because you don't work out everyday, even though you started the sentence saying you did. No one is going to flip their shit over that one.
I think the reason for the strong reaction when people say "I am a vegetarian but I eat fish" is the moral element. It offends their sensibilities. Otherwise it is just a normal use of a term with an exception.
JebusUD on
and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
but they're listening to every word I say
Fish/Egg vegetarianism comes from the idea that fish don't feel pain, kinda a misnomer if you ask me.
It also is an old school approach because back then it could be difficult to get proper protein without some sort of meat in your diet.
My grandfather was an egg/fish old school vegetarian while my uncle has been a full on vegan for forty years. It's not that hard to work around. Vegans just need to be prepared.
I don't see why an animal's capacity for feeling pain should be the justification for "selective vegetarians" that consume said creatures
Shouldn't the decision ultimately be made based on the creed of "if I am ending an animal's life to eat this when I have no biological reason to do so, I am doing something wrong?"
I mean, again, we're only talking about moralistic vegetarians here (oh how nuanced this issue becomes when you start getting so specific!), but still
That's the excuse, don't ask me why that stuck. They needed to eat something though.
Xenogears of Bore on
3DS CODE: 3093-7068-3576
0
Options
Powerpuppiesdrinking coffee in themountain cabinRegistered Userregular
edited October 2009
I could see someone who eats fish telling people they're vegetarian when offered some beef or pork or something. Why bring up the exception to your vegetarianism if it's not relevant?
On the other hand, if you ask someone "Hey, we're cooking for the group next week. Any dietary restrictions we should know about?" and they respond "Yeah, I'm a vegetarian" even though they eat fish, they're fucking stupid.
I think the reason for the strong reaction when people say "I am a vegetarian but I eat fish" is the moral element. It offends their sensibilities. Otherwise it is just a normal use of a term with an exception.
I think it's more that diluting the definition causes problems for literal vegetarians. For the record, I don't have a problem with "I'm a vegetarian but I eat fish", because that at least acknowledges that they're outside the normal definition.
The issue is people who say "I'm a vegetarian" (rather than saying "I'm a vegetarian but..."), yet eat fish.
japan on
0
Options
Powerpuppiesdrinking coffee in themountain cabinRegistered Userregular
I think the reason for the strong reaction when people say "I am a vegetarian but I eat fish" is the moral element. It offends their sensibilities. Otherwise it is just a normal use of a term with an exception.
I think it's more that diluting the definition causes problems for literal vegetarians. For the record, I don't have a problem with "I'm a vegetarian but I eat fish", because that at least acknowledges that they're outside the normal definition.
The issue is people who say "I'm a vegetarian" (rather than saying "I'm a vegetarian but..."), yet eat fish.
Yes, anything that could conceivably lead morons to believe that people who call themselves vegetarians eat fish by default is asinine. I don't have a problem with it if and only if the fact you eat fish is unlikely to become known to the person you're talking to.
I could see someone who eats fish telling people they're vegetarian when offered some beef or pork or something. Why bring up the exception to your vegetarianism if it's not relevant?
On the other hand, if you ask someone "Hey, we're cooking for the group next week. Any dietary restrictions we should know about?" and they respond "Yeah, I'm a vegetarian" even though they eat fish, they're fucking stupid.
Yes, this.
I don't think someone should have to give a lecture on pescetarianism every goddamned time they try to explain their dietary restrictions, especially when it's not relevant.
Fish/Egg vegetarianism comes from the idea that fish don't feel pain, kinda a misnomer if you ask me.
It also is an old school approach because back then it could be difficult to get proper protein without some sort of meat in your diet.
My grandfather was an egg/fish old school vegetarian while my uncle has been a full on vegan for forty years. It's not that hard to work around. Vegans just need to be prepared.
I don't see why an animal's capacity for feeling pain should be the justification for "selective vegetarians" that consume said creatures
Shouldn't the decision ultimately be made based on the creed of "if I am ending an animal's life to eat this when I have no biological reason to do so, I am doing something wrong?"
I mean, again, we're only talking about moralistic vegetarians here (oh how nuanced this issue becomes when you start getting so specific!), but still
That's the excuse, don't ask me why that stuck. They needed to eat something though.
If you are using ending life as the criterion for it being immoral then you also have to include plants. You are killing plants to eat them most of the time. Therefore you have to have a different criterion. Generally, the best accepted one is the utilitarian argument that pain is bad and needs to be reduced. Under utilitarianism the reduction of pain and the increase of pleasure is the goal. Most people only extend this to humans, though vegetarians extend this to anything that feels pain. Though I think most people realize that fish feel pain, so this argument doesn't really hold up anyway.
I guess you could still eat clams and jellyfish or some such though.
JebusUD on
and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
but they're listening to every word I say
Fish/Egg vegetarianism comes from the idea that fish don't feel pain, kinda a misnomer if you ask me.
It also is an old school approach because back then it could be difficult to get proper protein without some sort of meat in your diet.
My grandfather was an egg/fish old school vegetarian while my uncle has been a full on vegan for forty years. It's not that hard to work around. Vegans just need to be prepared.
I don't see why an animal's capacity for feeling pain should be the justification for "selective vegetarians" that consume said creatures
Shouldn't the decision ultimately be made based on the creed of "if I am ending an animal's life to eat this when I have no biological reason to do so, I am doing something wrong?"
I mean, again, we're only talking about moralistic vegetarians here (oh how nuanced this issue becomes when you start getting so specific!), but still
Well, you're ending lives even if you're the most restrictive vegan in the world, so putting your boundary at organisms you consider less complex isn't the sole domain of piscetarians.
I've got no problem with not eating meat. But don't get all militant if someone serves you meat without realizing your tastes. In fact, I would go as far as to say there should be an exception if you're in someone's home, and they serve meat and don't realize your tastes and don't have any vegetarian alternatives handy. Unless somehow, the meat makes you physically ill, I don't see the issue with eating that meat. It's already dead, you can't bring it back and it's wasteful if it doesn't get eaten.
Well, you're ending lives even if you're the most restrictive vegan in the world, so putting your boundary at organisms you consider less complex isn't the sole domain of piscetarians.
actually, I have heard, but don't quote me on this, that there are extreme forms of Buddhism where you can only eat plants that aren't killed when you harvest them. So, no carrots for example, but lettuce is fine.
JebusUD on
and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
but they're listening to every word I say
0
Options
Powerpuppiesdrinking coffee in themountain cabinRegistered Userregular
I've got no problem with not eating meat. But don't get all militant if someone serves you meat without realizing your tastes. In fact, I would go as far as to say there should be an exception if you're in someone's home, and they serve meat and don't realize your tastes and don't have any vegetarian alternatives handy. Unless somehow, the meat makes you physically ill, I don't see the issue with eating that meat. It's already dead, you can't bring it back and it's wasteful if it doesn't get eaten.
No, this is unreasonable. Respect people's lifestyle choices. If there's no vegetarian alternatives handy, they don't have to eat meat because not doing so would be wasteful. In any case, the situations where you invite someone to eat food in you're home without asking about diet are few and far between.
Fish/Egg vegetarianism comes from the idea that fish don't feel pain, kinda a misnomer if you ask me.
It also is an old school approach because back then it could be difficult to get proper protein without some sort of meat in your diet.
My grandfather was an egg/fish old school vegetarian while my uncle has been a full on vegan for forty years. It's not that hard to work around. Vegans just need to be prepared.
I don't see why an animal's capacity for feeling pain should be the justification for "selective vegetarians" that consume said creatures
Shouldn't the decision ultimately be made based on the creed of "if I am ending an animal's life to eat this when I have no biological reason to do so, I am doing something wrong?"
I mean, again, we're only talking about moralistic vegetarians here (oh how nuanced this issue becomes when you start getting so specific!), but still
Vegetarians still squish bugs. There are creatures that move that are still able to be killed with no real moral implication. They don't have to all be Jains.
Crabs are water bugs, water bugs that have the side effect of being delicious.
Whether a creature is capable of feeling pain is exactly what it's about to moral vegetarians/vegans. It's all about how much suffering the animal has had to go through for you to eat it. The notion is that crabs (and mollusks, clams, oysters, etc) just aren't capable of really being in pain.
EDIT: On a side note, Pescetarian is a damn fine word and should be used just because it's awesome.
LoserForHireX on
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Because they make one exception that means they might as well be making all exceptions?
*blizp* *zap*Does not compute.
You're making an exception that directly contradicts the definition of the world. "Vegetarian that eats meat" is a contradiction in terms. It's like gravity that pushes stuff away, or light that darkens a room, or water that dehydrates stuff.
This would be accurate, if said light functions exactly like light in every room except the kitchen, or a variety of gravity that behaved exactly like gravity, except it pushes away apples, or water that was otherwise completely like normal water, but dehydrated a particular variety of sponge.
I mean, fuck, even the goddamn dictionary defines a pescetarian as "a vegetarian who eats fish." So, if you don't eat the vast majority of meats, I don't see any problem with using "vegetarian" as a shorthand to describe yourself in situations where you don't feel like giving a vocabulary lesson along with your meal.
I've got no problem with not eating meat. But don't get all militant if someone serves you meat without realizing your tastes. In fact, I would go as far as to say there should be an exception if you're in someone's home, and they serve meat and don't realize your tastes and don't have any vegetarian alternatives handy. Unless somehow, the meat makes you physically ill, I don't see the issue with eating that meat. It's already dead, you can't bring it back and it's wasteful if it doesn't get eaten.
I think this is going a little far.
Etiquette is important sure, but I don't see why someone should compromise on their beliefs over a misunderstanding. Generally if someone is vegetarian they'll make it known to anyone planning on cooking for them.
Because they make one exception that means they might as well be making all exceptions?
*blizp* *zap*Does not compute.
You're making an exception that directly contradicts the definition of the world. "Vegetarian that eats meat" is a contradiction in terms. It's like gravity that pushes stuff away, or light that darkens a room, or water that dehydrates stuff.
I think it is more like saying, I work out every day, except saturdays. That is a contradiction because you don't work out everyday, even though you started the sentence saying you did. No one is going to flip their shit over that one.
I think the reason for the strong reaction when people say "I am a vegetarian but I eat fish" is the moral element. It offends their sensibilities. Otherwise it is just a normal use of a term with an exception.
More 'I'm an Orthodox Jew who loves bacon and double overtime on Sundays!' or 'I'm a devout Muslim that likes a good scotch' or 'I'm Catholic and don't feel guilt.'
I've got no problem with not eating meat. But don't get all militant if someone serves you meat without realizing your tastes. In fact, I would go as far as to say there should be an exception if you're in someone's home, and they serve meat and don't realize your tastes and don't have any vegetarian alternatives handy. Unless somehow, the meat makes you physically ill, I don't see the issue with eating that meat. It's already dead, you can't bring it back and it's wasteful if it doesn't get eaten.
Okay, I eat meat and I'd be pissed if you had nothing that could be eaten by a vegan in the house. I prefer my meals to have some dietary value.
Posts
so... are you pissed when any words change? Considering that they have been changing since the creation of language wouldn't a real linguophile expect words to change meanings?
Also, now that there are widespread dictionaries and spell check, as well as courses that teach, capital E, "English", do you think that the language will enter some sort of stasis where words will no longer change as fast?
but they're listening to every word I say
What if you have leftovers and you put them in the fridge or freezer? Are you immortal still? Because I've got a FoodSaver and a head full of insane stunts I've always wanted to try.
Depends where you get your eggs from. Battery farming is being phased out in the EU and will be illegal from 2012.
In practice most of the supermarket chains have signed a voluntary agreement not to sell the products of battery farming.
How do they not convey the same idea? One says, I am a carnivore except for this, one says I am an herbivore except for this. Both show they know what the word means.
but they're listening to every word I say
I don't mind most words changing until the change means they become meaningless.
"I'm vegetarian. nah man, that steak's cool."
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
It makes as much saying "I'm a vegetarian but I eat any meat".
The Blood God is unamused by your puny antics of food preservation. If you're not scarfing down arugula and cucumber slices in midair while attempting that cordless bungee jump, you're on your own.
Because they make one exception that means they might as well be making all exceptions?
*blizp* *zap*Does not compute.
but they're listening to every word I say
I think it's mostly that the word defines itself through exception. A vegetarian is defined by what he/she doesn't eat - meat. If the vegetarian does eat some meat, the definition changes.
I'm actually seeing a term entering the vernacular via cookbook titles - "flexitarian". It's basically "When I'm cooking for myself or others, I only prepare vegetarian dishes, but I don't have a problem eating meat when I'm out with other people". I think the sentiment is that your vegetarianism isn't going to prevent Hickory Park from ordering X lbs of meat this week, so you're not really helping anyone by refusing it if a group of friends wants to go there.
I'm annoyed when words change due to ignorance. Like "irony" or "nauseous". It's not people appropriating a new word for previously unexplored purposes, it's dumb people using words wrong. Same way "irregardless" is becoming a word because people are dumb.
I don't rage uncontrollably, it just annoys me.
I'm not trying to convert anybody. I don't consider it terribly complicated. If somebody gets dense or decides to play "test the person who does something I don't do", I find that the dog shit analogy works well.
Them: What about chicken stock? It's not like there's pieces of chicken in there. You're not really eating chicken.
Me: You don't eat dog shit, right? How about if I make some liquid dog shit and then use that as stock for your meal. It's not like you're, you know, eating entire pieces of dog shit. It's just a little liquid dog shit that makes it taste better.
Again, that isn't my go-to analogy. I only use it if people feel the need to convert me back to omnivorism.
It's not natural.
Why only plants? They're also multicellular eukaryotes. I only eat yeasts, although I've been thinking of moving to vitamin supplements and synthetic lipids.
I'd say it's more like a pacifist who only beats up black people.
She is not infallible, though. Bacon, and only bacon, is at times a problem. Sometimes I will order something with bacon and the mere smell of it drives her into a haze of carnal lust and she simply must take a bite of it, though she usually can't stomach it.
So, I don't really know what I'm supposed to call her other than "peculiar." I mean, she is a vegetarian, but mostly just because. She could probably do without the label altogether, except how else does she explain herself to people that ask why she can't eat at a certain restaurant, etc. etc.?
Linux and Mac users know it well.
It also is an old school approach because back then it could be difficult to get proper protein without some sort of meat in your diet.
My grandfather was an egg/fish old school vegetarian while my uncle has been a full on vegan for forty years. It's not that hard to work around. Vegans just need to be prepared.
I don't see why an animal's capacity for feeling pain should be the justification for "selective vegetarians" that consume said creatures
Shouldn't the decision ultimately be made based on the creed of "if I am ending an animal's life to eat this when I have no biological reason to do so, I am doing something wrong?"
I mean, again, we're only talking about moralistic vegetarians here (oh how nuanced this issue becomes when you start getting so specific!), but still
I think it is more like saying, I work out every day, except saturdays. That is a contradiction because you don't work out everyday, even though you started the sentence saying you did. No one is going to flip their shit over that one.
I think the reason for the strong reaction when people say "I am a vegetarian but I eat fish" is the moral element. It offends their sensibilities. Otherwise it is just a normal use of a term with an exception.
but they're listening to every word I say
That's the excuse, don't ask me why that stuck. They needed to eat something though.
On the other hand, if you ask someone "Hey, we're cooking for the group next week. Any dietary restrictions we should know about?" and they respond "Yeah, I'm a vegetarian" even though they eat fish, they're fucking stupid.
I've been trying to reach you, but your extension cord doesn't reach that far.
I think it's more that diluting the definition causes problems for literal vegetarians. For the record, I don't have a problem with "I'm a vegetarian but I eat fish", because that at least acknowledges that they're outside the normal definition.
The issue is people who say "I'm a vegetarian" (rather than saying "I'm a vegetarian but..."), yet eat fish.
Yes, anything that could conceivably lead morons to believe that people who call themselves vegetarians eat fish by default is asinine. I don't have a problem with it if and only if the fact you eat fish is unlikely to become known to the person you're talking to.
I don't think someone should have to give a lecture on pescetarianism every goddamned time they try to explain their dietary restrictions, especially when it's not relevant.
If you are using ending life as the criterion for it being immoral then you also have to include plants. You are killing plants to eat them most of the time. Therefore you have to have a different criterion. Generally, the best accepted one is the utilitarian argument that pain is bad and needs to be reduced. Under utilitarianism the reduction of pain and the increase of pleasure is the goal. Most people only extend this to humans, though vegetarians extend this to anything that feels pain. Though I think most people realize that fish feel pain, so this argument doesn't really hold up anyway.
I guess you could still eat clams and jellyfish or some such though.
but they're listening to every word I say
Well, you're ending lives even if you're the most restrictive vegan in the world, so putting your boundary at organisms you consider less complex isn't the sole domain of piscetarians.
Also YOU KILL CABBAGE PATCH KIDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Enlist in Star Citizen! Citizenship must be earned!
actually, I have heard, but don't quote me on this, that there are extreme forms of Buddhism where you can only eat plants that aren't killed when you harvest them. So, no carrots for example, but lettuce is fine.
but they're listening to every word I say
No, this is unreasonable. Respect people's lifestyle choices. If there's no vegetarian alternatives handy, they don't have to eat meat because not doing so would be wasteful. In any case, the situations where you invite someone to eat food in you're home without asking about diet are few and far between.
Vegetarians still squish bugs. There are creatures that move that are still able to be killed with no real moral implication. They don't have to all be Jains.
Crabs are water bugs, water bugs that have the side effect of being delicious.
Whether a creature is capable of feeling pain is exactly what it's about to moral vegetarians/vegans. It's all about how much suffering the animal has had to go through for you to eat it. The notion is that crabs (and mollusks, clams, oysters, etc) just aren't capable of really being in pain.
EDIT: On a side note, Pescetarian is a damn fine word and should be used just because it's awesome.
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
I mean, fuck, even the goddamn dictionary defines a pescetarian as "a vegetarian who eats fish." So, if you don't eat the vast majority of meats, I don't see any problem with using "vegetarian" as a shorthand to describe yourself in situations where you don't feel like giving a vocabulary lesson along with your meal.
I think this is going a little far.
Etiquette is important sure, but I don't see why someone should compromise on their beliefs over a misunderstanding. Generally if someone is vegetarian they'll make it known to anyone planning on cooking for them.
More 'I'm an Orthodox Jew who loves bacon and double overtime on Sundays!' or 'I'm a devout Muslim that likes a good scotch' or 'I'm Catholic and don't feel guilt.'
Plus no matter what you eat you're killing something that was/is alive. Brutal but true.
Okay, I eat meat and I'd be pissed if you had nothing that could be eaten by a vegan in the house. I prefer my meals to have some dietary value.