Vegetarians who eat fish are confused.

Scroll to see replies

I'm pescetarian, was previously a vegetarian but had to give it up due to getting horrendous migraines. When I started eating fish again I haven't had a single migraine, whereas previously I used to get them at least twice a week. I think it's something to do with omega oils. Apart from the migraines, I was quite happy being a vegetarian (was one for four years) and definitely felt much healthier generally.

Reply 81

velociraptor

Original post by hmon93

It's okay to eat fish because they don't have any feelings.

It's ok to eat fish, but it's annoying when people who eat it claim to be vegetarian

Reply 82

A Mysterious Lord

Not as bad as people who say they're 'half-vegetarian' when they don't eat red meat, yet eat poultry and fish :confused:

Reply 83

OMFS_BoneSetter

Original post by hmon93

It's okay to eat fish because they don't have any feelings.

LOL

Reply 84

destroyerofsouls

Original post by callum9999

Where does it say that they are "biochemically" just as alive as fish? Unless you are just using it as a fancy-sounding meaningless word?

I'm well aware plants are complex - doesn't make them automatically the same as fish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File :s-smilie:

ignal_transduction_v1.png

Because organisms are made of cells which are made of biological chemicals. Tell me why this:

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?q=plant+metabolism&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&qscrl=1&nord=1&rlz=1T4SMSN_enGB450GB450&biw=1366&bih=641&tbm=isch&tbnid=3FGaR507gnRYWM:&imgrefurl=http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2229/8/5/figure/F6&docid=LW4-COTAvYdLIM&imgurl=http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/figures/1471-2229-8-5-6.jpg&w=600&h=800&ei=a7BGT8nDJNGm8gOWmfzBDg&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=330&sig=115899683820888299001&page=1&tbnh=147&tbnw=110&start=0&ndsp=20&ved=1t:429,r:5,s:0&tx=47&ty=99

is any less alive than this:

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?q=animal+metabolism+poster&um=1&hl=en&qscrl=1&nord=1&rlz=1T4SMSN_enGB450GB450&biw=1366&bih=641&tbm=isch&tbnid=0P0E8pVEK4xrxM:&imgrefurl=http://blog.sciencemusings.com/2007_12_01_archive.html&docid=y1DVK__Qwn4i1M&imgurl=http://www.sciencemusings.com/blog/uploaded_images/Metabolism-733633.jpg&w=1528&h=1600&ei=r7BGT_aRIdLb8QP7oZnADg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=797&vpy=132&dur=1372&hovh=230&hovw=219&tx=90&ty=173&sig=115899683820888299001&page=1&tbnh=140&tbnw=134&start=0&ndsp=23&ved=1t:429,r:4,s:0

Reply 85

Mazzini

Original post by velociraptor

many cheeses contain animal rennet (complex of enzymes from mammal stomachs) and are therefore not vegetarian. However, there is a huuuuge selection of veggie friendly cheeses.

I doubt the guy's sandwich had Grana Padano in it.

The vast majority of 'everyday' cheeses are veggie.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 86

marcusfox

Original post by Drapetomanic

I disagree, if your actions are indirectly or directly affecting the lives of other beings then some justification is needed. I don't eat pigs or children because I don't think the suffering involved is necessary. I eat plants because their capacity to suffer is more or less non existent.

If you moralise people's other actions then why not their dietary choices?

Do you think the suffering inflicted on animals when testing drugs is necessary? Would you still use animal tested drugs? What if they would alleviate your own suffering?

Many vegetarians and vegans would justify this by saying it is necessary because they feel that they need it in their lives, regardless of how other people may feel about the matter, and find any moralising on the part of others unwelcome and intrusive. Just as I feel that the fact that meat in my diet is necessary, and being told that I'm somehow a cruel and unethical person for doing so unwelcome and intrusive.

Your justification for eating plants because their suffering is more or less nonexistent is a fallacious argument many vegans and vegetarians often fall into, since it is clearly and undeniably possible to kill an animal instantaneously without it being aware of its fate, and their suffering "more or less nonexistent". Even in these cases, would you eat it? No, of course not.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 87

OMFS_BoneSetter

Can anyone explain to me, why it's alright for Tyra Banks to eat other humans? :-|

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DP4PrnxcM2A

Reply 88

Pitt1988

My mate's Dad was once talking about this, veggies eating fish but not meat. He described it so well. Justifiable homocide lol

Reply 89

lessQQmorepewpew

I fall into this category and realise the inherent hypocrisy of this choice. I stopped eating non-seafood meat about 6 months ago just because I woke up one day just thought the whole intensive process is a bit horrid, fickle I suppose. I didn't eat fish that often before and still dont now (about once a week) . At first I reasoned that my diet does a fair amount of good as it is but I do realise how strange it seems. I still haven't really decided where I stand on the subject to be honest - maybe i'll go all the way in the future. Anyway, I do call myself vegetarian but wouldn't hesitate to explain if questioned. I'm not particularly bothered what other people opinions (excluding here ofc!) but it is a bit tiring when you get chastised for it.

Reply 90

callum9999

Original post by destroyerofsouls

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File :s-smilie:

I'm sure someone could devise an equally impressive-looking chart about a computer as well - does that mean computers are alive?

Reply 91

jacketpotato

Rubbish, there are shades of gray in life not just black and white. It is debatable whether fish fill pain. Most fish are caught from the ocean, not reared in cages. Fish are certainly less intelligent than farm animals. There is nothing contradictory about taking the view that catching fish is fine, whereas slaughtering a very intelligent animal like a pig is not.

There is a sliding scale of animal rights. Different people take different account of animal welfare and draw the line in a different place. Similarly, eating meat doesn't mean you have no problem with battery-farming and it doesn't mean you are fine with people who abuse animals.

Reply 92

JuKaMy

Forget fish vs land animal meat, vegetarians are confused full stop.

But yes, an animal is an animal whether it has evolved to live under or above water, vegetarians just don't seem to think things through very rationally. It's all emotion and no real justification.

Reply 93

OMFS_BoneSetter

Original post by Pitt1988

My mate's Dad was once talking about this, veggies eating fish but not meat. He described it so well. Justifiable homocide lol

Doesn't that mean killing humans?

Reply 94

User570431

Original post by marcusfox

I agree on many of your previous points, yet I do have to object on this particular one.

You can buy products that have not been tested on animals.

Reply 95

marcusfox

Original post by blueray

I agree on many of your previous points, yet I do have to object on this particular one.

You can buy products that have not been tested on animals.

Most, if not all drugs are tested on animals, especially drugs that are popular today and have been in use for years.

If they weren't tested on animals for safety and efficacy, it would be very difficult for the manufacturers to get the necessary authorisations to commence human trials.

Reply 96

Pitt1988

Original post by medic_armadillo7

Doesn't that mean killing humans?

Yeah lol, was just funny at the time. Guess it's one of them had to have been there things.

Reply 97

OMFS_BoneSetter

Original post by Pitt1988

Yeah lol, was just funny at the time. Guess it's one of them had to have been there things.

Lol

Reply 98

destroyerofsouls

Original post by callum9999

I'm sure someone could devise an equally impressive-looking chart about a computer as well - does that mean computers are alive?

By computer I assume you mean something like a robot? Like a really advanced robot that could do all the things necessary to stay in one piece, maintain its power supply and assemble a copy of itself?

That sounds alive enough to me. Of course, that does depend on how you define "life".

Reply 99

Drapetomanic

Original post by marcusfox

Do you think the suffering inflicted on animals when testing drugs is necessary? Would you still use animal tested drugs? What if they would alleviate your own suffering?

I'd argue that in most cases animal testing is pivotal to drug development and without it we'd struggle to bring many life saving drugs into the human trial stage. Not to mention the fact that animals seem to be treated in a more "humane" manner than in the meat industry. So yes I'd say drug testing is necessary and the suffering that would ensue if we were to ban it would be greater than the suffering inflicted on the animals.

Many vegetarians and vegans would justify this by saying it is necessary because they feel that they need it in their lives, regardless of how other people may feel about the matter, and find any moralising on the part of others unwelcome and intrusive. Just as I feel that the fact that meat in my diet is necessary, and being told that I'm somehow a cruel and unethical person for doing so unwelcome and intrusive.

I don't find moralising unwelcome and intrusive. I've "moralised" it myself and come to the conclusion that it's an ethical practice. I'd welcome a logical argument to the contrary.

If a murderer says 'I think killing is necessary in my life' most people would "moralise" and condemn his behaviour on the grounds that he doesn't need to kill people to live, and that he is causing unnecessary suffering. That's similar to the argument I'm making regarding meat. Unless you have a medical condition, the majority of the time meat eating isn't necessary, and by buying meat you're increasing the demand of animal suffering (obviously I'm not saying murder is equal to a bacon sandwich but you get the idea).

Your justification for eating plants because their suffering is more or less nonexistent is a fallacious argument many vegans and vegetarians often fall into, since it is clearly and undeniably possible to kill an animal instantaneously without it being aware of its fate, and their suffering "more or less nonexistent". Even in these cases, would you eat it? No, of course not.

Wouldn't I? If we were to rear animals in a completely pain free and healthy environment to be killed without pain or suffering of any kind, then I'd be much more inclined to eat it. Although, you could make the argument that there are more environmentally friendly ways to get your food; so I might refrain for that reason. However, in reality the vast, vast majority of animals live unhealthy lives that restrict their normal behaviour and cause varying levels of suffering. That's not taking into consideration the painful methods by which many animals are slaughtered.

So I fail to see why my argument is 'fallacious' when the hypothetical scenario you describe doesn't exist, the fact remains that animals do experience suffering and plants (more or less) do not.