Might do a study into this if I get bored enough, so I'll collect some data
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_e_smile.gif)
Moderator: Jon O'Neill
It means they're undoubtedly foreign and don't understand intricacies of English language. Or that they are overselling the point.Jon O'Neill wrote:I saw a sign in a chicken shop the other day for a Halal veggie burger. Any idea what that means?
I knew that would happen. Kinda handy to have the "other" option.Jimmy Gough wrote:You missed fruitarian.
Fruitarianism is pretty major though.Adam Dexter wrote:I knew that would happen. Kinda handy to have the "other" option.Jimmy Gough wrote:You missed fruitarian.
Oh well too late. Myeh.Jimmy Gough wrote:Fruitarianism is pretty major though.Adam Dexter wrote:I knew that would happen. Kinda handy to have the "other" option.Jimmy Gough wrote:You missed fruitarian.
Yeah, you're not going to get much data if all you ask is what people are, and not who went for whatAdam Dexter wrote:Hmm was wondering if there was any correlation to proficiency at countdown and vegitarianism (or veganism)
Might do a study into this if I get bored enough, so I'll collect some data
In real life? I've never met any.Jimmy Gough wrote:Fruitarianism is pretty major though.Adam Dexter wrote:I knew that would happen. Kinda handy to have the "other" option.Jimmy Gough wrote:You missed fruitarian.
Raccoon Boy and Phil Reynolds? Or am I getting my terms confused here?Gavin Chipper wrote:In real life? I've never met any.Jimmy Gough wrote:Fruitarianism is pretty major though.
Ooh, 1970s comedy. How retro.Jon Corby wrote:Raccoon Boy and Phil Reynolds? Or am I getting my terms confused here?Gavin Chipper wrote:In real life? I've never met any.Jimmy Gough wrote:Fruitarianism is pretty major though.
Jon Corby wrote:Raccoon Boy and Phil Reynolds? Or am I getting my terms confused here?Gavin Chipper wrote:In real life? I've never met any.Jimmy Gough wrote:Fruitarianism is pretty major though.
Oh. I just realised the joke. I thought you were actually a fruitarian! :$Phil Reynolds wrote:Ooh, 1970s comedy. How retro.
Or, right. So someone makes a post regarding your sexuality and you get all stroppy and upset, yet you think it's perfectly fine to make a joke about me being sexually assaulted by a priest in the thread about mars bars. You disgust me. I'm out of here.Phil Reynolds wrote: Ooh, 1970s comedy. How retro.
Blimey, that one must have been brewing for a while (as the other half muttered after me as I left the bathroom on the way to bed last night). Anyway, who said anything about assault? The receipt of gifts in kind would suggest that it was all consensual.Gary Male wrote:So someone makes a post regarding your sexuality and you get all stroppy and upset, yet you think it's perfectly fine to make a joke about me being sexually assaulted by a priest in the thread about mars bars. You disgust me. I'm out of here.
There are two types of breatharians, the ones who cheat and the ones who die.Charlie Reams wrote:You missed breatharianism.
Charlie, close my account. I don't want to be a part of any forum where this cunt can post what he wants without making any sort of apology.Phil Reynolds wrote:Blimey, that one must have been brewing for a while (as the other half muttered after me as I left the bathroom on the way to bed last night). Anyway, who said anything about assault? The receipt of gifts in kind would suggest that it was all consensual.Gary Male wrote:So someone makes a post regarding your sexuality and you get all stroppy and upset, yet you think it's perfectly fine to make a joke about me being sexually assaulted by a priest in the thread about mars bars. You disgust me. I'm out of here.
Kieran, where do you get "pescatarian" from?Kieran Child wrote:If you eat fish you're not veggie, you're "pescatarian".
Wikipedia thinks the spelling is "pescetarian". And Wikipedia is usually right.David Gunn wrote:Kieran, where do you get "pescatarian" from?Kieran Child wrote:If you eat fish you're not veggie, you're "pescatarian".
I worked with a guy in 1998/99 who wanted a word for this and claims he coined "pescetarian", though I think the "et" in the middle is a leftover from "vegetarian", so should be "pescarian".
Interesting if this word has spread, and how.
Ian Volante wrote:Is this from the Alanis Morrissette school of irony?Jason Larsen wrote:How ironic!
I'll tell you what is ironic - Phil's new nickname being Phil "this cunt" ReynoldsGary Male wrote:Charlie, close my account. I don't want to be a part of any forum where this cunt can post what he wants without making any sort of apology.Phil Reynolds wrote:...
Thanks Rosemary, there's a reference there to a Guardian article in 1993 that mentions "pescetarian", so seems to debunk my ex-colleague's claim.Rosemary Roberts wrote:Wikipedia thinks the spelling is "pescetarian". And Wikipedia is usually right.David Gunn wrote:Kieran, where do you get "pescatarian" from?Kieran Child wrote:If you eat fish you're not veggie, you're "pescatarian".
I worked with a guy in 1998/99 who wanted a word for this and claims he coined "pescetarian", though I think the "et" in the middle is a leftover from "vegetarian", so should be "pescarian".
Interesting if this word has spread, and how.
CJ de Mooi said it on Eggheads, that may have been the one you heard.Kieran Child wrote:A term I heard recently and quite liked was "fish and chip-ocrite"
I went for other, because I don't have any dietary specialties etc but nor do I eat anything and everything (there are some foods I wont eat).Adam Dexter wrote:I also missed the whole point of this. I was going to compare it to member's ratings, but now realise that votes are private. SO unless people tell me what they chose, it's not really going to work!.
Like itKieran Child wrote:A term I heard recently and quite liked was "fish and chip-ocrite"
Quite right, Ben. The hypocritical element is anyone calling themselves a vegetarian and eating fish.Ben Hunter wrote:There's nothing hypocritical about eating fish but not other meat, it all depends on your reasons for not eating meat.
I don't consider that particularly hypocritical. What would be hypocritical would be for somebody to call themselves an animal lover and rigorously eschew meat while happily eating battery eggs.David Gunn wrote:Quite right, Ben. The hypocritical element is anyone calling themselves a vegetarian and eating fish.Ben Hunter wrote:There's nothing hypocritical about eating fish but not other meat, it all depends on your reasons for not eating meat.
But they're no worse than atheists who worship Cod.David Gunn wrote:Quite right, Ben. The hypocritical element is anyone calling themselves a vegetarian and eating fish.Ben Hunter wrote:There's nothing hypocritical about eating fish but not other meat, it all depends on your reasons for not eating meat.
It's very easy for these people to avoid accusations of hypocrisy, they just need to stop giving themselves pointless labels. A friend of mine who had declared herself vegan was going through a stressful episode when she really wanted to eat honey. Even though she didn't see anything wrong with the practice of beekeeping, her objection was that she would 'no longer be vegan' if she ate the honey, as though it was more important to stick to a rigid definition of a word invented by some guy than to define and stick to her own principles.David Gunn wrote:Quite right, Ben. The hypocritical element is anyone calling themselves a vegetarian and eating fish.Ben Hunter wrote:There's nothing hypocritical about eating fish but not other meat, it all depends on your reasons for not eating meat.
Me tooJoseph Bolas wrote:I went for other, because I don't have any dietary specialties etc but nor do I eat anything and everything (there are some foods I wont eat).Adam Dexter wrote:I also missed the whole point of this. I was going to compare it to member's ratings, but now realise that votes are private. SO unless people tell me what they chose, it's not really going to work!.
If you're a vegetarian on moral grounds that killing animals for food is wrong, then eating fish is hypocritical. I can't think of any sensible moral code that would value a rabbit's life above that of a haddock.Rosemary Roberts wrote:I don't consider that particularly hypocritical. What would be hypocritical would be for somebody to call themselves an animal lover and rigorously eschew meat while happily eating battery eggs.David Gunn wrote:Quite right, Ben. The hypocritical element is anyone calling themselves a vegetarian and eating fish.Ben Hunter wrote:There's nothing hypocritical about eating fish but not other meat, it all depends on your reasons for not eating meat.
The moral code of the rabbit?David Roe wrote:I can't think of any sensible moral code that would value a rabbit's life above that of a haddock.
Agreed - I never claimed that any such views were sensible.David Roe wrote: I can't think of any sensible moral code that would value a rabbit's life above that of a haddock.
Dinos has such a way with words, he's a cunning linguist.Dinos Sfyris wrote:you grow vaginal sores on your face and become a pussy
The other half used to be a hardcore Roman Catholic (it's ok, he got better), and apparently his family ate fish but not other meat because that's what Jesus did, or something like that. I'll ask him when he gets back to explain further.David Roe wrote:I can't think of any sensible moral code that would value a rabbit's life above that of a haddock.
By "sensible moral code", I didn't actually mean "a moral code you agree with". I'm not vegetarian, but I can see it as understandable if that's how it takes you.Michael Wallace wrote:(I'm not proposing that religion is a 'sensible moral code', by the way, more just saying something that seems relevant.)
If rabbits have a greater capacity for suffering than haddock (which they probably do) and you base your diet on how much the organisms you eat have suffered before they ended up on your plate then that would make sense to me. You have to draw the line somewhere, otherwise you can replace haddock with absolutely anything, including plant life and fungi, and you'll end up a breatharian. Most veggies draw the line at plant life and fungi to be on the safe side, but there are animals out there (probably not very tasty ones mind) that almost certainly have no consciousness let alone the capacity to suffer.David Roe wrote:If you're a vegetarian on moral grounds that killing animals for food is wrong, then eating fish is hypocritical. I can't think of any sensible moral code that would value a rabbit's life above that of a haddock.
Are vegetarians generally happy to eat animals like grubs which don't even have a CNS? Sounds like you would be but I don't know whether that's generally true. Although I suspect most vegetarians are really motivated by the "cute and cuddly" factors which would same to make insects fair game.Ben Hunter wrote:If rabbits have a greater capacity for suffering than haddock (which they probably do) and you base your diet on how much the organisms you eat have suffered before they ended up on your plate then that would make sense to me. You have to draw the line somewhere, otherwise you can replace haddock with absolutely anything, including plant life and fungi, and you'll end up a breatharian. Most veggies draw the line at plant life and fungi to be on the safe side, but there are animals out there (probably not very tasty ones mind) that almost certainly have no consciousness let alone the capacity to suffer.David Roe wrote:If you're a vegetarian on moral grounds that killing animals for food is wrong, then eating fish is hypocritical. I can't think of any sensible moral code that would value a rabbit's life above that of a haddock.
I think I'd rather eat a bit of 'proper' meat than eat some of the grubs and shit they give them on that jungle celebrity thing.Charlie Reams wrote:Are vegetarians generally happy to eat animals like grubs which don't even have a CNS? Sounds like you would be but I don't know whether that's generally true. Although I suspect most vegetarians are really motivated by the "cute and cuddly" factors which would same to make insects fair game.
Vegetarians are eating furnishings, makeup and cars now? The sick freaks.Kieran Child wrote:One curious statistic that many vegetarians don't recognise (even if it is wrong, which is probably is) is that being vegetarian only reduces your meat consumption by around 60%
This is because other items (most notably furnishings, makeup and cars) have lots of animal products in.
But it's surely not the suffering of the animal which is the reason behind vegetarianism? Otherwise vegetarians would have no problem with eating (say) wild venison killed by a clean shot. It's the principle of killing the animal, not the pain it feels.Ben Hunter wrote:If rabbits have a greater capacity for suffering than haddock (which they probably do) and you base your diet on how much the organisms you eat have suffered before they ended up on your plate then that would make sense to me. You have to draw the line somewhere, otherwise you can replace haddock with absolutely anything, including plant life and fungi, and you'll end up a breatharian. Most veggies draw the line at plant life and fungi to be on the safe side, but there are animals out there (probably not very tasty ones mind) that almost certainly have no consciousness let alone the capacity to suffer.
She just needs to call herself a beegan. (I'm going to check that on Google.)Ben Hunter wrote:It's very easy for these people to avoid accusations of hypocrisy, they just need to stop giving themselves pointless labels. A friend of mine who had declared herself vegan was going through a stressful episode when she really wanted to eat honey. Even though she didn't see anything wrong with the practice of beekeeping, her objection was that she would 'no longer be vegan' if she ate the honey, as though it was more important to stick to a rigid definition of a word invented by some guy than to define and stick to her own principles.
No, they just wouldn't be born. The meat industry is bad for other moral reasons...Dinos Sfyris wrote:I'm an omnivore for moral purposes. If everyone were veggies, all the farmyard critters aren't exactly going to live in a wonderous sanctuary where they serve man no purpose or financial gain, are they?
You're the reason no one likes vegetarians.Stuart Arnot wrote:Somewhat tangentially, could any of the vegetarians or vegans who post here ever contemplate entering a relationship with an omnivore? My sister is getting married to a man who eats meat and I find it incomprehensible. She's yet to give me a good excuse, only mutterings about not kissing him when he's just eaten meat.
It's only the start as well. She's an atheist marrying in a church, and a feminist taking her husband's name.
Enough of my sibling complaints though. Sorry.
You're citing climate change as a moral issue? I strongly disagree. Nor is it a political one, any more than nuclear power is a moral or political issue. Both are scientific questions that are artificially moralicised* and politicised by people with other axes to grind. And I object to you or them grinding axes on my territory.Stuart Arnot wrote:The meat industry is bad for other moral reasons...
I've always wondered if bees, a.k.a. nature's frotteurs, get any sexual gratification from pollinating all those flowers. Because if they do it may just bee the best life ever (sorry). I have to say though, I'd be pretty pissed off if I got home after a hard day's lovin and discovered some incomprehensibly massive bastard had nicked all my food.Stuart Arnot wrote:
On the honey issue, I would say that there's a moral imperative to eat honey, what with the good work they do in pollinating flowers, and their decreasing numbers round here.
It's always a bit hairy labelling something a moral issue due to the impossibility of agreeing on a set of moral imperatives, but I'm stunned you don't think climate change has political implications. And what exactly makes the off-topic forum your territory? I don't agree with a lot of what Stuart said but he has every right to make his point on here.Rosemary Roberts wrote: You're citing climate change as a moral issue? I strongly disagree. Nor is it a political one, any more than nuclear power is a moral or political issue. Both are scientific questions that are artificially moralicised* and politicised by people with other axes to grind. And I object to you or them grinding axes on my territory.
Really? But I know so few people! And why would they judge other people because of dietary similarities? Weird.Charlie Reams wrote: You're the reason no one likes vegetarians.
Yes. I think it's morally wrong to fuck up the planet.Rosemary Roberts wrote:You're citing climate change as a moral issue? I strongly disagree. Nor is it a political one, any more than nuclear power is a moral or political issue. Both are scientific questions that are artificially moralicised* and politicised by people with other axes to grind. And I object to you or them grinding axes on my territory.Stuart Arnot wrote:The meat industry is bad for other moral reasons...