Do Vegetarians eat fish?

[Thtwudbeme]

What about egg, and milk products?

[GOPisEvil]

1. Fish, no. Eggs and dairy, sometimes.

Vegetarians do not eat the flesh of critters (in the most basic sense). In my experience, the vegetarians I know do eat eggs and dairy though.

Now vegans do not consume animal products of any kind, again that's the most basic definition.

[jpgray]

2. You can be a lacto-ovo veggie

And since fish apparently can't feel pain, some people eat fish but not meat/poultry for moral reasons. I don't know if that's properly called vegetarianism, though.

[Left Is Write]

3. My sister is an ovo-lacto vegetarian.

She eats eggs and dairy products. She does not eat fish, though, because she considers them animals. She never liked fish much anyway.

She's in her 40s and has been a vegetarian since age 15.

[robbedvoter]

4. The Friday fasting Christians have fish as the only meat.

I used such a cook book for my vegan guy - was not acceptable (although I ded skip the fish)

[Common Sense Party]

39. Technically, that's not "fasting."

I fast once a month--going without any food or water for 24 hours.

Catholics (from what I remember as a kid) choose not to eat red meat on Fridays during Lent. Why, I can't remember. But they don't call it fasting.

Not that important, but FYI.

[Blue-Jay]

5. Thtwudbeme, meet Can 'O Worms.

Can 'O Worms, meet Thtwudbeme.

[jpgray]

51. At this time of night it should be "meet bottle of gin"

[Thtwudbeme]

72. Good grief!

I just got home from work, and this thread has seventy posts???

Holy cow--you weren't kidding. I didn't think it was that big of a deal; Michael and I are trying to cut out meat, other than fish....and I wondered if we qualified as vegetarians---or at least semi-vegetarians.

[yewberry]

78. Incredible, isn't it?

Just say the magic word, and the squabbling begins!

If you have questions or are looking for recipes, please do ask. Also, there's a recipe thread here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=231&topic_id=497&mesg_id=497


Good luck!

[Gold Metal Flake]

6. Ms. OR is a...

Ovo, cheese-o, fish-o, crustaci-o, but not bivalve-o, froglegs oh hell no vegetarian.

[Floogeldy]

7. A true vegetarian eats . . .

. . . whole grains, vegetables, fruits, legumes, beans, nuts and seeds.

That is all.

:)

[Blue-Jay]

9. and lawn clippings.

[Floogeldy]

11. No

Lawn clippings have dog pea on them.

:o

[ScreamingMeemie]

32. But, pea is a vegetable.

:shrug:

[LeftyMom]

8. Definitely not fish

I would argue that true vegetarians don't eat dairy or eggs either, since animals must suffer and die to produce them for human consumption, however ovo lacto vegetarians are vegetarians by the widely accepted definition.

[jberryhill]

12. If you don't milk the cows...

...then they suffer.

We bred them that way. Whether or not we should have done that, they're here. If someone objecting to dairy on moral reasons adopted a "liberated" dairy cow, what would they do at milking time?

Or did you think we killed cows in order to get the milk out?

[LeftyMom]

13. If you do not milk them thier milk dries up

just like any other mammal. Faster if you don't give them hormones to create more milk.

In any case, you have to impregnate them and take away the babies (for veal crates and human consumption or near immediate slaughter for pet and baby food) to have the whole milking problem, cows don't lactate just because any more than any other mammal, it's a reproductive function.

If you're spoiling for a fight about liberation let me know and I'll be thrilled to provide, but this isn't the thread for it.

[Kali]

19. Um pardon

but dairy cows are/were bred to produce more milk than a normal calf could handle - lots of cultures (and us in the past) kept a milk cow around - usually you could raise her calf, an orphan or two AND have fresh milk and related products for the house.

They do produce in excess. Check out the bag on a beef cow for comparison - sometimes they can barely raise a calf - those babies get on solid food pretty quick!

[LeftyMom]

22. True, dairy cows are bred for a higher maximum capacity to produce milk

but lactation is self-regulating. After the initial period, the mother's production dovetails with the infant's capacity and both wax and wane in near syncronicity in healthy mother/infant pairings (and in mammals that produce larger numbers of offspring, too.)

In any case, you still have to produce more cows than you need and kill the excess to keep the lactation going. Animals generally don't lactate for no reason.

[Kali]

20. yes they will dry up if not milked, but big risk of mastitis and ruined

bags/teats.

[LeftyMom]

23. Most dairy cows in the US have mastitis anyhow

but sudden weaning isn't a good idea in any mammal.

[jberryhill]

74. If I'm what?

"If you're spoiling for a fight about liberation let me know"

Yeah, that's why I dropped into the DU lounge... for a fight, and moral condemnation from those whose opinions differ from mine.

That and a thesis on cow tits.

[jberryhill]

77. Okay, how about if I did this...

I set up a chicken farm where they run around, dance their little chicken dances, or whatever it takes to amuse themselves...

...and if one gets injured accidentally, I have a veterinarian on hand to comfortably anesthetize the chicken and amputate it's broken leg, or wing, or whatever, and fit it with a high-tech prosthetic limb and nurse it back to full chickitude..

Is it okay with you if I eat the amputated parts?

Or should I give them to the dog?

[LeftyMom]

14. Reply to your edit

No, I'm not an idiot. I'm a mother, I know darn well how milk comes out.

It takes a mother cow to make milk. The babies aren't all needed for replenishment of spent dairy cows (after a few years when milk production wanes, dairy cows are slaughtered) are slaughtered in the first few days of life for "bob" veal, used in pet foods and baby food mostly, or kept anemic in crates for a few weeks to create "milk fed" white veal.

[alphafemale]

24. Actually they'd starve. There'd be no way to feed them.

Feed is expensive and the grazing land could be put to a more valuable use.

So they'd starve.

Or maybe they'd be taken out and shot.

But there would be no reason to keep cows alive if it were not for the economic value to the people who raise them.

People fight giving kids free meals in schools...no way there's going to be a free food program for several million cows to be kept fat and happy 'til peaceful death in old age.

[LeftyMom]

26. Did I in any way imply all dairy production would cease at midnight?

I guess a few could survive on message board straw men. :eyes:

In any case, while there are sanctuaries that keep previously farmed animals for thier own sake and not thier percived ecomomic value, a gradual tapering of demand for animal products and the gradual cessation of impregnation and exploitation of cattle is probably the best we can really hope for.

[alphafemale]

34. imo People, in general, are not going to be weaned off meat...ever.

Not without something catastrophic that makes the protein value gained per grazing acre absolutely un-doable anymore.

Most people aren't going to be "educated" or "guilted" into vegetarianism.

The majority of people don't give a rat's ass....err a moldy tofu :D

...about anything that doesn't directly impact their lives.

[LeftyMom]

36. I'm an optomist

because a world full of selfish assholes sounds like a crappy place to live. I'm stuck here, I might as well do my best to improve the place. Even a small change is important to the animal helped, but I try to dream big. :)

[alphafemale]

37. Good for you. We stubborn realists need you

to raise our spirits and keep our hope alive.

But remember you also need us...to keep your optimism from sailing you off the dang planet entirely.

BTW I'm the proud parent of a vegetarian who is now a freshman in college. She has been meat free for 5 years as of the day after Thanksgiving this year.

I've learned lots about making vegetarian cooking...(especially soups...I struggled to find a way to make vegetarian broth taste good.)

And the rest of us eat less meat than we did before.

I also spread the word that a meal doesn't HAVE to have meat to be delicious or satisfying.
I'll even cook it for them.

But I'll probably never be a complete vegetarian either.

[jberryhill]

75. Improve?

"I might as well do my best to improve the place"

Do you think calling you fellow inmates on earth "assholes" is an "improvement"?

Us assholes are stuck here too.... with you, apparently.

[friesianrider]

67. Many people are being weaned off meat.

As more and more people realize how destructive a meat diet is to the environment and one's health, they will (and are) coming to understand that it probably isn't necessary to have meat at every meal - or even every day or every week.

The numbers of people converting to a vegetarian lifestyle are really quite amazing, if one cared to look.

[Kali]

27. I guess I have the most problem with this -

"dairy or eggs either, since animals must suffer and die to produce them for human consumption"


Not true. Animals don't have to suffer to produce those products. Even in intense confinement (which I personally do not agree with) they don't have to suffer. Not to say some or many don't suffer. But to say they must is false.

[LeftyMom]

31. In egg production, the males are killed

On the family farm they're raised a bit and then slaughtered. In the confinement operation, they're thrown straight in the trash imediately after hatching to be crushed or suffocated by the bodies of thier brothers.

Dairy production requires that cows get knocked up and make baby cows. Only so many female calves are needed to replace the females whose milk procution has tapered off after a few years of life (who become hamburger because it hides the tumors) the rest of the females and nearly all of the males are slaughtered- it takes very few males to inseminate the herd, since this is done mechanically with a "rape rack" (really, that's what they call them) and not the old fashioned way with a cow, a bull and some Barry White CDs.

Many of the calves go to the slaughterhouse within a few days of birth, often without ever nursing from thier mothers, for "bob" veal, used in baby and pet foods. The unluckiest males go to confinement veal operations, where they are fed a deliberately deficient food to produce anemia, kept in crates too small to turn around (because they will lick up thier urine for extra iron if given the chance and this darkens thier flesh,) frequently blinded, lamed or starved by malnutrition, then slaughtered for white veal.

What part of that isn't cruel?

[Kali]

47. Oh, the part that isn't true.

Slaughter does not have to = suffer. Nor does confinement, although I have already stated my opinion about that.

Your username is LeftyMOM - being knocked up or lactating is pretty much the normal state of being for female mammals in most cases...I can see from a woman's point of view that might seem cruel but seriously....


hahaha rape rack - is that what PETA calls it? hahahaha good one.



What you say has a grain of truth buried in all the gory rhetoric, but the facts are first of all things aren't all like that, there are a lot of people doing things differently and its not truthful (or fair - but that isn't the main problem) for you to lump all of us in the same boat. Beyond the fact that not all meat/dairy is produced in such ways, even that which is produced in the "factory" model has certain benefits to humans, and believe it or not for the animals.

I have opinions about people choosing not to eat certain things for supposedly righteous reasons, but I still feel you have every right in the world to make those choices. Why do you want to impose your agenda on other people?

[LeftyMom]

49. us?

Oh, if you'd told me you had an economic interest in animal exploitation, I wouldn't have wasted my keystrokes. :shrug:

Why do you want to impose your agenda on animals who do nor choose to suffer and die to you? I don't impose my will on anyone and couldn't if I wanted to. All I can do is offer information in the hope that it will lead good-hearted people to kinder choices.

[Kali]

50. I also am about offering information.

And correcting misinformation.

I "impose my agenda" on animals for many reasons, one of them economic, others are less easy to criticize and probably closer to the reasons for your choices than you would care to admit. There is nothing dishonorable or cruel about what I do. I very much resent the implication.

On the other hand you clearly buy into an agenda to eliminate the choice to consume meat/dairy no matter how it is produced, so yes perhaps it is all a waste of keystrokes. Nevertheless I will always correct misinformation and call out extremist rhetoric when I see it.

[LeftyMom]

52. Correct some misinformation then

What did I say that was incorrect? I'll back up anything I posted that you think isn't credible.

I don't buy into any agenda, I don't get my marching orders from the vast animal rights conspicacy, I just read and learn and share what I know and I know that exploiting animals for human greed is wrong. We don't have to do it. In fact, it harms the enviornment and human health (I posted an article about this in articles and editorials earlier this evening,) so even if one cared not one fig for the suffering of animals it would be worth stopping simply for our own sakes.

[Kali]

60. I have tried to correct several things you have wrong.

You don't seem to realize there are bred-in differences in domestic animals. You refuse to acknowledge there are differences in the way domestic animals can be raised and processed. You exhibit the rather tired, superior attitude that your choices are what makes the world better. For YOU maybe - I again ask why do you want to impose your choice on other people? You deny that you impose your will, but I didn't say anything about your will or your abilities - I asked why you want to impose your choice - which is essentially eliminating other's choice.

You make statements like:

"In fact, it harms the enviornment and human health" In fact it can do just the opposite as well, so what? For every example of one I can show you the opposite. That is like saying sex is harmful. It sure can be, on the other hand as you probably know, it can have some beneficial results too. One thing I have learned in life is that what is really right or wrong is usually an issue of how you do something rather than the something itself. Hammer as a weapon or tool and all that....

"In any case, you still have to produce more cows than you need and kill the excess to keep the lactation going" I don't think that is how people who raise dairy calves look at it. I mean everything has to die eventually, but those calves aren't just killed to keep the cow lactating - as you yourself pointed out, some go for veal production, others go to feedlots or, OH MY GOD some get raised by caring, careful farmers and ranchers. Yes they eventually become part of the food chain - what doesn't, except for a few embalmed/preserved humans?

"(who become hamburger because it hides the tumors) " Oh come on! What tumors? Please.

"I'm stuck here, I might as well do my best to improve the place. Even a small change is important to the animal helped, but I try to dream big" How is your not eating meat or dairy "helping" any animal? Are you going to adopt it instead? What is the big dream? The improvement? People behaving the way YOU see fit seems to be the main point.

"...a gradual tapering of demand for animal products and the gradual cessation of impregnation and exploitation of cattle is probably the best we can really hope for. " That isn't an agenda?

But mostly what has bothered me was "animals must suffer". That is not true. Just because you can recite some inflammatory descriptions of dairy operations does not mean food production animals must or do suffer. Just because you use the word doesn't mean they are suffering. But by using it, and using extreme examples to illustrate your views you aren't educating or providing information. You are pushing an agenda.

[LeftyMom]

64. Okay, let's run down the list.

"You don't seem to realize there are bred-in differences in domestic animals." Differences as compared to what? This isn't a complete thought, so I'm not sure what your point is.

"You refuse to acknowledge there are differences in the way domestic animals can be raised and processed." Actually, I adressed differences between small farms and large confinement operations upthread.

"You exhibit the rather tired, superior attitude that your choices are what makes the world better. For YOU maybe - I again ask why do you want to impose your choice on other people? You deny that you impose your will, but I didn't say anything about your will or your abilities - I asked why you want to impose your choice - which is essentially eliminating other's choice." As I said before, I can't make anybody do anything. I offer information about why I make the choices I do and hope that others find my reasons compelling. Just like you're doing.

""In fact, it harms the enviornment and human health" In fact it can do just the opposite as well, so what? For every example of one I can show you the opposite. That is like saying sex is harmful. It sure can be, on the other hand as you probably know, it can have some beneficial results too. One thing I have learned in life is that what is really right or wrong is usually an issue of how you do something rather than the something itself. Hammer as a weapon or tool and all that...." Flesh consumption raises rates of heart disease, breast cancer and colorectal cancer, amongst many other diseases. "uman studies also support this carcinogenic effect of animal protein, even at usual levels of consumption. No chemical carcinogen is nearly so important in causing human cancer as animal protein." -Epidemiologist T. Colin Campbell

As for the enviornmental consequences of animal agriculture and flesh consumption, the Guardian covered this the other day. http://society.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5366035-105909,00.html


""In any case, you still have to produce more cows than you need and kill the excess to keep the lactation going" I don't think that is how people who raise dairy calves look at it. I mean everything has to die eventually, but those calves aren't just killed to keep the cow lactating - as you yourself pointed out, some go for veal production, others go to feedlots or, OH MY GOD some get raised by caring, careful farmers and ranchers. Yes they eventually become part of the food chain - what doesn't, except for a few embalmed/preserved humans?" In what way is impregnanting an animal, taking it's offspring immediately after birth, then tethering the bereaved mother to a milking machine not cruel? In what way is keeping a malnourished calf in a veal crate not cruel? We don't have to so this, we aren't obligate carnivores. There's no benefit to this behavior.

""(who become hamburger because it hides the tumors) " Oh come on! What tumors? Please. " These tumors: http://www.addl.purdue.edu/newsletters/2002/spring/bvgc.shtml Note that "It has been proposed that this intense management results in a higher percentage of these tumors being diagnosed rather than dairy cattle being predisposed to developing them."

""I'm stuck here, I might as well do my best to improve the place. Even a small change is important to the animal helped, but I try to dream big" How is your not eating meat or dairy "helping" any animal? Are you going to adopt it instead? What is the big dream? The improvement? People behaving the way YOU see fit seems to be the main point." This really isn't about me, but every animal that I or somebody who makes similar decisions isn't eating is less demand on the system and ultimately one more animal that won't be bred to die for human consumption. The statistic I've usually seen is that a vegetarian saves 96 animal lives a year.

""...a gradual tapering of demand for animal products and the gradual cessation of impregnation and exploitation of cattle is probably the best we can really hope for. " That isn't an agenda?" I have an opinion and that's what I'd like to see happen. If you want to call that an agenda, I can't really stop you. Everybody has thoughts and hopes about what they'd like the future to be like, you can't fault me for having mine.

"But mostly what has bothered me was "animals must suffer". That is not true. Just because you can recite some inflammatory descriptions of dairy operations does not mean food production animals must or do suffer. Just because you use the word doesn't mean they are suffering. But by using it, and using extreme examples to illustrate your views you aren't educating or providing information. You are pushing an agenda." Back what you've got to say up. Tell me how six chickens in a cage the size of a filing cabinet aren't suffering. Tell me how the deliberately malnourished calf in the veal crate doesn't suffer.

[friesianrider]

69. So, basically you can't back your claims up, huh?

Why don't you show some documentation that what LeftyMom said doesn't happen.

Even the most aggressive meat-eater won't dispute that there is massive and barbaric suffering that goes into the MAJORITY of animal slaughter these days.

But you...you must be privy to some information I've never heard. If you care to share that (specifically) with us instead of hurling insults and stomping your feet while screeching "WELL, YOU'RE JUST WRONG CAUSE I SAID SO!!" I'd certainly be willing to listen.

Prove me wrong.

[friesianrider]

68. Who is imposing their agenda on other people?

The only person I see being disrespectful is you.

[jberryhill]

76. Do wild animals suffer?

My understanding was that breeding bulls and cows the "natural way" gives you a fair number of seriously injured bulls and cows. But, hey, I don' watch the movies at those websites.

If I decide to join you, then can I at least release the mink and the chickens at the same time and then watch?

The information about health consequences is truly interesting. What scares me is that if I don't eat meat, I might suffer the psychological consequence of believing that most of my fellow humans are selfish assholes and that I am superior to them.

[LeftyMom]

80. You know what

Your atttude sucks and I have better thigs to do on a Saturday than argue with you. If you've got a statistic, a link or a point let me know, until then I've got towels to fold.

[jberryhill]

81. You know what

I love you anyway.

[friesianrider]

83. LOL...so, basically you have nothing of substance to say...

You just hurl insults and name call others who you disagree with, and offer nothing reputable backing up your non-sensical (and rather rude) blabberings.

Nice way to introduce yourself here at DU. :eyes: My guess is you won't be around long with an attitude like this, so it's been nice knowing you.

[caty]

10. There are different types of vegetarians........

http://veggietable.allinfo-about.com/articles/whatisavegetarian.html

[Dangerously Amused]

15. Is a fish a vegetable?

Did I miss something?

[Floogeldy]

16. Dizackly!!!!!

[jberryhill]

79. No, but neither are:

Mushrooms, yeast, yogurt bacillus.

I've seen "vegetarians" eat LIVE YOGURT BACILLUS.

Some of them take living yeast - throw into a starch-rich environment, just too fool it. And then, the yeast that don't die from living in their own excrement are put into an oven.

Imagine that you were only a single cell - mercilessly dropped out your nutrient into a tube of saliva and a pit of hydrochloric acid.

Heartless bastards.

[Dangerously Amused]

82. Oh, how clever! Fungus doesn't fit the formal definition of "vegetable."

Therefore we may ridicule so-called "vegetarians" who eat fungi. Let us delight in our extraordinary wit!

[nickinSTL]

17. there are those who claim to be vegetarians

who eat fish.

I don't really consider that vegetarianism, but...to each his/her own, I guess.

Eggs and milk are consumed by most vegetarians. Those that don't have eggs or milk are generally called vegans, and vegans consume NO animal products.

As to a lot of the posts on here, many seem to equate vegetarianism exclusively with animal rights, and though many vegetarians refrain from eating meat for those reasons, there are some people who are vegetarian for health reasons.

I have a friend who was vegetarian for several years voluntarily but not for animal welfare reasons, and I myself am effectively a vegetarian for health reasons (can't have much protein).

[Whoa_Nelly]

18. Am an ovo-lacto vegetarian

and love it!

[Redstone]

21. If they do, they're not much of a vegetarian, are they?

Fish are terrible vegetables. Plant hundreds of them in your garden, and not one will grow.

Redstone

[Blue-Jay]

25. What about shrimp?

It's not too different than swallowing a firefly when you're riding on the bike trail.

[Redstone]

28. Even if I wasn't allergic to shellfish, I don't think I'd be eating any

shrimp; have you ever seen one of them with the legs on? Looks too much like a big old bug for me, and I'm not eating any bugs unless I'm DAMN hungry.

Nor lobsters. Do you know what a lobster's diet consists of? Garbage and other lobsters, that's what.

Yuck.

Redstone

[jobycom]

30. Do you try to swallow fireflies when you're riding on the bike trail?

Just asking...

The classic debate is over oysters. Animals or not? Some vegetarians will say "I will eat nothing with a face." Oysters have no faces. Others say "Nothing with a mother." Do you know if oysters have mothers? I don't know. I'm sure I could find out. And if they have some form of procreation that does require a male and female but no nurturing, does that count? Some plants require a male and female for pollination. It's still a fun debate if you want to kill an evening.

For the record, I don't eat oysters.

[ScreamingMeemie]

33. You sir, have never seen Alice in Wonderland...Those baby oysters

had faces...by God.

[jobycom]

38. Well, yeah, THOSE oysters....

:rofl:

[Blue-Jay]

35. It's all a matter of degrees, isn't it?

There are those who will only eat apples that have already fallen off the tree. The same logic could be applied to roadkill.

[BikeWriter]

53. I love oysters.

[jobycom]

54. They are lovable

Cute, cuddly, and quite the conversationalists.

[BikeWriter]

55. Uh, I love to eat them.

[jobycom]

56. Hey, man, what you choose to do

with oysters over the age of consent is none of my business, okay? I mean, it's weird, but, whatever gets you through the night...

[BikeWriter]

57. ...and clams.

[jobycom]

58. Together with the oysters? And they go for that?

Who knew? :rofl:

[BikeWriter]

61. ...snails

[jobycom]

29. There is no controlling legal authority, as Al Gore might say.

People eat what they want, and fit whatever label they feel best to themselves. I don't eat meat, and I consider seafood meat, but for the longest time I refused to call myself a vegetarian, just because I don't like labels. Finally gave up that fight.

Grammatically, a vegetarian is someone who doesn't eat meat, a vegan is someone who doesn't eat animal products (eggs, milk, even honey), and a fruitarian is someone who only eats fruit (meaning the reproductive portions of plants, which fall off the plants naturally, so that the plant doesn't have to be harmed--grains may or may not be included, depending on how strict the person is, since grains stalks are often cut down to harvest the grains).

Then there are products like gelatin and certain food dyes, and even wines (some winemakers filter wine through bone), whose production includes animal products. Some vegetarians are more strict than others about these.

Now, about fish. We scientifically call fish an "animal," as in "animal, vegetable or amoeba--" the classic distinction. Some cultures have considered fish vegetables, though. The reason Catholics eat fish on Fridays during Lent is because medieval Europeans--at least the Mediterranean ones-- considered fish vegetables. The French, Italians, Spanish and a few other cultures still call seafood the "fruit of the sea," and at one time that was meant literally.

So eat what makes you feel best about yourself--physically or spiritually--and call yourself what you like to call yourself. No one will arrest you, and you will always find some argument to support yourself. :-)

[GOPisEvil]

40. There will be meat-free options at my super bowl party.

Two types of hummus, and meatless chili are on the menu so far.

[Blue-Jay]

41. Burgers?

[GOPisEvil]

42. Possibly.

But more likely options are Florentine Meatballs (turkey, spinach, parmesan cheese) and some Buffalo-style wings. Maybe.

[Blue-Jay]

45. Sounds good. Wish I were in the neighborhood.

I might just end up mooching some free food from the local bar.

[GOPisEvil]

46. We had quite a good time here last year.

bearfan454 brough venison sausage, hard salami and other venison goodies. If he can't make it, I'll have to find a butcher shop that sells it. Should be plenty around here.

I once watched the game at a Chili's. So, this is a step up.

[jobycom]

43. I make a mean meatless chili

If you need backups. Though to be honest, it is a semi-common recipe floating around, involving beer, beans, frozen tofu, TVP, and such stuff.

[GOPisEvil]

44. Ahh...mine is a 3 bean chili.

I've never used tofu or TVP before. If you're willing to make a pot, that would save me some work. But, yeah, my recipe is pretty common, too.

[friesianrider]

66. Good for you!

The meatless chili sounds good. Are you using a fake-meat kind (like Morningstar Farms crumbles)? I make vegetarian tacos with that and they are very yummy.

[Borgnine]

48. I'm an ovo-lacto vegetarian.

Eventually, I'm going to cut out dairy and egg as well. Just, um... give a year or two.

But fish? Nope. That went with the beef, pork, and poultry.

[Swamp Rat]

59. Yes

and eggs and milk and crawfish :D

[buddhamama]

62. traditionally, no

a vegetarian would not eat fish; eggs and milk would be acceptable, however. the definition of vegetarian has expanded a bit in the last ten yrs or so.

a vegan, or vegen (i've seen it spelled both ways) would not eat animal products of any sort- milk, eggs would be excluded from their diet in addition to 'meat'. i've been both a vegetarian (i am currently a vegetarian) and a vegan.

[RebelOne]

63. I'm sort of a vegetarian because I do eat seafood.

But I do not eat anything with hair, fur or feathers.

[friesianrider]

65. Many do, but I'm not sure why.

I never quite understood why people say they're vegetarians if they eat seafood and fish, because fishing is really pretty cruel in itself.

I personally am a veg and I do not eat any fish or seafood.

[Orangepeel]

71. there are several reasons to be a vegetarian

some health related, some animal cruelty related, some environmental --

I understand why people eat fish (I don't eat red meat or pork, but I do eat birds and fish). But I don't for the life of me understand why they would call themselves vegetarian if they do.

There is nothing wrong with being vegan, nothing wrong with being a vegetarian and nothing wrong with someone who doesn't eat any animals but fish. But they are different things. :shrug:

[friesianrider]

73. I agree...

I think therein lies the problems with labels of any sort!

[Orangepeel]

70. French ones do

It's been about 15 years since I've been to France (so it might be significantly easier now), but when I was there, my vegetarian sister had a hell of time.

Anyway, she'd explain she was a vegetarian and the waiter would bring her tuna (fortunately, she eats cheese. If she was vegan, she'd have starved).

But seriously, vegetarians do not eat fish. I think part of the confusion is that many people do not consider fish to be meat, so when someone says, "I'm a vegetarian. I do not eat meat" the reaction is "well, fish isn't meat." (my sister quickly learned to say "je ne mange pas de viande, ne mange pas de poulet, ne mange pas de poisson")