Vegetarians who eat fish (pescetarians) - how do you justify this?

Not if they think "vegetarian" can include eating fish, which they obviously do (and they're wrong).

I don't like meat but I do like fish. I only eat ethically sourced fish though.

I don't get vegetarianism - full stop.

So, the animal doesn't get eaten by you.

It gets eaten by someone else.

Also, where's the line between animals being sentient beings and becoming a fruitarian - where fruit and vegetables are living things, so pulling them up is "murdering" them.

If people object to the conditions the animals live in - there are organisations such as P.E.T.A who campaign for animal rights etc. If an animal isn't mistreated before it's death, I don't see what's so "wrong" about carnivorism.

Plus, I agree, you cannot be a pescetarian and still maintain your argument that eating an animal is morally wrong, because they're sentient beings. A fish has just as much right to be alive as a cow. We're not talking about eating intelligent animals such as dolphins either; cows, chickens and fish are all fairly low on the IQ scale. Pigs, however, are apparently moderately intelligent.

What a ridiculous argument.

Couldn't think of anything to actually back up your point of view then? Surprising.

Also - fun fact for you; the Nazis introduced a lot of measures to ensure no-one was cruel to animals etc, that turned out pretty well, eh?

Regardless of the many excuses pescetarians come up with, the reality is that fish aren't mammals or birds, they can't make adorable noises and they aren't fluffy. It's the same reason why most meat-eaters in this country won't eat cats and dogs. Cuteness counts.

Because it's f*cking hypocritical, that's why.

It seems like quite a sound argument to me.

Sometimes these things are to do with disagreements over farming. Fish grow in the wild naturally, and are then 'caught'. This is a fairer life for the fish when compared to, say, chickens, which are born and fed genetically modified products, kept in dark places for a fragment of their lives and fattened beyond a natural weight for the purpose of being eaten.

That's an interesting argument (thats not sarcastic).

This, although not all fish are caught in the wild, you do get farmed fish, like Salmon for example.

No, it doesn't.

It's just sensationalised "omg ud be ok with eatin humans then omg!!!111" as if that's anything like the same thing, whatsoever

People campaigning for animal rights need to do just that. If you don't eat meat as a result of the conditions the animals live in, fair enough

But to compare the fact that people eat meat and that not bothering me to "oh but what if humans were being eaten" is just cringeworthy.

Well, my argument's obviously completely gone over your head, since my point is neither that people should be vegetarians or that it should be legally enforced. I'm a meat eater for goodness sakes.

My points were
-that the argument 'if you don't eat it someone else will' is rubbish, as you wouldn't eat humans just because everyone else is.

-that you yourself make value judgements about what one should or shouldn't kill and eat. If you decide that you don't want to kill and eat humans for moral reasons, why shouldn't others decide the same thing about animals?

-and if you decide that it's ok to eat animals but not people, why shouldn't others decide that it's ok to eat fruit and veg but not animals?

It wasn't sensationalism. It was a hypothetical analogy that showed flaws in your reasoning.

I don't wholly avoid meat because it's a sentient life form because I feel the jury is still out on quite how sentient, it's more because of the treatment of the animals, battery farming I wholly oppose. I eat fish but not fish that is farmed like Salmon, etc.

Ah yes, I was generalising again But you get the idea.