c4countdown

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

I saw a sign in a chicken shop the other day for a Halal veggie burger. Any idea what that means?

You missed fruitarian.

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?

It means they're undoubtedly foreign and don't understand intricacies of English language. Or that they are overselling the point.

Jimmy Gough wrote:You missed fruitarian.

I knew that would happen. Kinda handy to have the "other" option.

Adam Dexter wrote:

Jimmy Gough wrote:You missed fruitarian.

I knew that would happen. Kinda handy to have the "other" option.

Fruitarianism is pretty major though.

Jimmy Gough wrote:

Adam Dexter wrote:

Jimmy Gough wrote:You missed fruitarian.

I knew that would happen. Kinda handy to have the "other" option.

Fruitarianism is pretty major though.

Oh well too late. Myeh.

Adam 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

Yeah, you're not going to get much data if all you ask is what people are, and not who went for what

Jimmy Gough wrote:

Adam Dexter wrote:

Jimmy Gough wrote:You missed fruitarian.

I knew that would happen. Kinda handy to have the "other" option.

Fruitarianism is pretty major though.

In real life? I've never met any.

You missed breatharianism.

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!

I'm an anything.

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Jimmy Gough wrote:Fruitarianism is pretty major though.

In real life? I've never met any.

Raccoon Boy and Phil Reynolds? Or am I getting my terms confused here?

Jon Corby wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Jimmy Gough wrote:Fruitarianism is pretty major though.

In real life? I've never met any.

Raccoon Boy and Phil Reynolds? Or am I getting my terms confused here?

Ooh, 1970s comedy. How retro.

Jon Corby wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Jimmy Gough wrote:Fruitarianism is pretty major though.

In real life? I've never met any.

Raccoon Boy and Phil Reynolds? Or am I getting my terms confused here?

Phil Reynolds wrote:Ooh, 1970s comedy. How retro.

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.

You missed "freeganism" too, that's quite cool.
It's people who eat out of bins.
Also, wayeee! I'm veggie Go us.
If you eat fish you're not veggie, you're "pescatarian".
The easy way to distinguish is say "All the veggies in the room, put your hands up"
The pescatarians will put their hands up.
The veggies will be too weak to.

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.

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.

Charlie Reams wrote:You missed breatharianism.

There are two types of breatharians, the ones who cheat and the ones who die.

I understand there is CCTV footage (don't know where) of Jasmuheen's sidekicks stocking up on takeaways. No doubt because the air of a room containing them is especially nutritious.

Phil Reynolds wrote:

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.

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.

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.

Guys guys. This is a board for countdown fanatics. We're a very small section of society as it is. The last thing we need is fighting between us. Let's stick together for the greater good

Feel free to persecute goatdowners.

Kieran Child wrote:If you eat fish you're not veggie, you're "pescatarian".

Kieran, where do you get "pescatarian" from?
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.

David Gunn wrote:

Kieran Child wrote:If you eat fish you're not veggie, you're "pescatarian".

Kieran, where do you get "pescatarian" from?
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.

Wikipedia thinks the spelling is "pescetarian". And Wikipedia is usually right.

Ian Volante wrote:

Jason Larsen wrote:How ironic!

Is this from the Alanis Morrissette school of irony?

Gary Male wrote:

Phil Reynolds 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.

I'll tell you what is ironic - Phil's new nickname being Phil "this cunt" Reynolds

Rosemary Roberts wrote:

David Gunn wrote:

Kieran Child wrote:If you eat fish you're not veggie, you're "pescatarian".

Kieran, where do you get "pescatarian" from?
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.

Wikipedia thinks the spelling is "pescetarian". And Wikipedia is usually right.

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.
Interesting that Websters have accepted the word (in July 2008) but it's not in the OED yet.
btw, I also saw reference to "fishetarian", a definition of which was "vegetarians who eat lots of fish". D'oh!

^ That's curious. I got the word from Vegsoc, so it's in pretty wide usage now. I have no clue where it emerged or even that it was such a modern word.
A term I heard recently and quite liked was "fish and chip-ocrite"

Kieran Child wrote:A term I heard recently and quite liked was "fish and chip-ocrite"

CJ de Mooi said it on Eggheads, that may have been the one you heard.

Nah it was someone who I knew for a brief time recently who said it, a few weeks ago. Only ever watched eggheads a couple of times. It's certainly a term I hope becomes popular though.

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!.

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).

Kieran Child wrote:A term I heard recently and quite liked was "fish and chip-ocrite"

Like it
I think that not having a word to describe people who do not eat air-breatheing meat has led to the "confusion" of some people believing that vegetarians eat fish. If the word pescetarian is now in general use that's great. Hope the OED include it soon.

There's nothing hypocritical about eating fish but not other meat, it all depends on your reasons for not eating meat.

Ben Hunter wrote:There's nothing hypocritical about eating fish but not other meat, it all depends on your reasons for not eating meat.

Quite right, Ben. The hypocritical element is anyone calling themselves a vegetarian and eating fish.

David Gunn wrote:

Ben Hunter wrote:There's nothing hypocritical about eating fish but not other meat, it all depends on your reasons for not eating meat.

Quite right, Ben. The hypocritical element is anyone calling themselves a vegetarian and eating fish.

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:

Ben Hunter wrote:There's nothing hypocritical about eating fish but not other meat, it all depends on your reasons for not eating meat.

Quite right, Ben. The hypocritical element is anyone calling themselves a vegetarian and eating fish.

But they're no worse than atheists who worship Cod.

David Gunn wrote:

Ben Hunter wrote:There's nothing hypocritical about eating fish but not other meat, it all depends on your reasons for not eating meat.

Quite right, Ben. The hypocritical element is anyone calling themselves a vegetarian and eating fish.

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.

Joseph Bolas wrote:

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!.

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).

Me too

Rosemary Roberts wrote:

David Gunn wrote:

Ben Hunter wrote:There's nothing hypocritical about eating fish but not other meat, it all depends on your reasons for not eating meat.

Quite right, Ben. The hypocritical element is anyone calling themselves a vegetarian and eating fish.

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.

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.

On the other hand, I knew someone who claimed to be vegetarian on the grounds that she didn't eat red meat, although she did eat chicken. That's just misuse of language.

David Roe wrote:I can't think of any sensible moral code that would value a rabbit's life above that of a haddock.

The moral code of the rabbit?

If vegetarians eat only vegetables, what do humanitarians eat?

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.

The rabbit and the haddock both eat whatever comes their way that suits their digestive system. Most people do the same, and many of them starve because sufficient acceptable food is simply not available. Being picky about your food and having the leisure to apply a moral code to what you eat is a luxury that the human race in general does not enjoy.

Reasons to be a pescatarian but not a vegetarian:
Fish is healthier than other meat.
Fish requires less processing than other meat.
Fish are not usually fed as many antibiotics as other livestock.

That being said, I don't eat fish either.
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.

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?

Also I learnt from South Park that if you don't eat meat you grow vaginal sores on your face and become a pussy

Dinos Sfyris wrote:you grow vaginal sores on your face and become a pussy

Dinos has such a way with words, he's a cunning linguist.

David Roe wrote:I can't think of any sensible moral code that would value a rabbit's life above that of a haddock.

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.

(I'm not proposing that religion is a 'sensible moral code', by the way, more just saying something that seems relevant.)

Michael Wallace wrote:(I'm not proposing that religion is a 'sensible moral code', by the way, more just saying something that seems relevant.)

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.

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.

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.

Ben Hunter wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
But then I'm not especially good with slimy animals in general, not just when it comes to eating them.

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.

Vegetarians are eating furnishings, makeup and cars now? The sick freaks.

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.

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: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.

She just needs to call herself a beegan. (I'm going to check that on Google.)

Or a hexagon.

Edit - it seems that people do use the term "beegan".

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?

No, they just wouldn't be born. The meat industry is bad for other moral reasons...

"The Food Climate Research Network found that measured by production, the UK food sector produces greenhouse gases equivalent to 33m tonnes of carbon. Measured by consumption - including imports - the total rises to 43.3m tonnes. Both figures work out at under one fifth of UK emissions, but they exclude the indirect impacts of actions such as clearing rainforest for cattle and crops, which other studies estimate would add up to 5% to 20% of global emissions.

The report found the meat and dairy sectors together accounted for just over half of those emissions; potatoes, fruit and vegetables for 15%; drinks and other products with sugar for another 15%; and bread, pastry and flour for 13%." The Guardian 30/09/08

I will confess to a certain amount of hypocrisy on the matter, as I still take cow's milk with with my tea, and will on occasion rustle up a mean omelette (with free range eggs, naturally). Also, I wear a leather jacket. That was second hand though... and from the 'society for abandoned animals' charity shop. I'd certainly never claim to be vegan.

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.

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.

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 the reason no one likes vegetarians.

Stuart Arnot wrote:The meat industry is bad for other moral reasons...

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.

I am not a vegetarian because I eat fish. Why I do not eat other meat is because of the disgust I have with the meat industry (and it IS industry rather than farming in most cases).
I gave up meat some years ago not on the principle of killing but the way most food animals are kept and have to live their lives in absolutely disgusting conditions. It is their life I am opposed to, not their death.

I eat all meat except marmeat (marmite), and all other food except Kit(e)Kat Chunkies.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Charlie Reams wrote: You're the reason no one likes vegetarians.

Really? But I know so few people! And why would they judge other people because of dietary similarities? Weird.

Rosemary Roberts wrote:

Stuart Arnot wrote:The meat industry is bad for other moral reasons...

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.

Yes. I think it's morally wrong to fuck up the planet.

p.s. Our territory.