Thanks very much for your answer Sage, but I'm afraid I'm still not getting it. Your argument sounds absolutely circular to me: it is vegetarian because somebody says it is vegetarian. Sorry, but that's not good enough for me. What is it about seafood that gives it that classification? Why can I still be considered a vegetarian if I eat winkles, but not if I have a liking for escargot? Why is bass ok, but beef isn't? Surely there's got to be some deeper reasoning. Things don't 'fall under the vegetarian bracket' by accident, they are put there by people who have reasons and motives. I want to know what those reasons and motives are. At the moment, I can't see that reasoning beyond some people wanting a convenient half way house for not giving up meat completely.
Maybe the only way I can describe it better would be to refer you to the Wikipedia page and I am not being disrespectful, just try to show how you can be classed as a vegetarian even if the only animal you eat is fish.
Along with this are all the different types and varieties of vegetarians, pesco included.
Did you actually read that Wiki page Sage or are you on a wind up? I'll give you two quotes from it (the highlights are my emphasis). First the opening definition of vegetarianism: Vegetarianism /vɛdʒɪˈtɛəriənɪzəm/ is the practice of abstaining from the consumption of meat (red meat, poultry, seafood, and the flesh of any other animal), and may also include abstention from by-products of animal slaughter.
Second what the article says specifically about pescetarianism : The common use association between such diets and vegetarianism has led vegetarian groups such as the Vegetarian Society to state that diets containing these ingredients are not vegetarian, because fish and birds are also animals.
So far from 'educating us' as you loftily claimed you would do, you have given us a reference to a page that puts the counter argument to the one you wanted. If there is anyone out there who does have the ability to 'educate us' please do. Otherwise, I'll stick to my belief that pescatarians (as well meaning as they may be) are not vegetarians.
Anyway for the purists who don't like thread-themes changing, Billy Connelly did once do a set about a vegetarian dinner party, so were on quite safe ground here.
Not on any wind up at all, I've never been that kind of poster. Just trying to express what I have learnt and how it's not this is vegetarian or this is not, there is a lot that comes under the spectrum which pesco and vegan for example fall under.
Essentially what I am trying to say is that if you were to say to someone who is a vegan or pesco or lacto or whatever, that they're not a vegetarian, they're likely to argue they are. Vegetarianism is a subject that science has come round to expand the meaning and bracket. I mentioned the ignorance to say people would do well to have an open mind instead of stating things as fact rather than being willing to be educated. Obviously I am not totally clued up on it at all, and I apologise if I come across that way, but all I was trying to say is it's not as clear cut as what people say.
Fair dos Sage, apologies for doubting you.
I get what you are saying about a spectrum, but for me if the definition of vegetarianism is abstaining from meat then I don't see how a diet that includes meat can be included in that spectrum; it lies outside. You say that a pesco is likely to argue that they are vegetarian, and I agree with that - it is exactly what happens in my house. But using that as evidence to determine what 'vegetarian' is, seems to be about the least scientific thing that I ever heard. It's not based on any objective facts, but on the reification of individuals' personal desires.
Anyway, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree as I don't see either of us convincing each other. Thanks for the discussion and for trying to teach us something.
Comments
I get what you are saying about a spectrum, but for me if the definition of vegetarianism is abstaining from meat then I don't see how a diet that includes meat can be included in that spectrum; it lies outside. You say that a pesco is likely to argue that they are vegetarian, and I agree with that - it is exactly what happens in my house. But using that as evidence to determine what 'vegetarian' is, seems to be about the least scientific thing that I ever heard. It's not based on any objective facts, but on the reification of individuals' personal desires.
Anyway, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree as I don't see either of us convincing each other. Thanks for the discussion and for trying to teach us something.