Vegetarians who eat fish are confused.

Alrighty, have to reply to this.

1) Fish, most definitely feel pain.

Oh, I definitely agree

2) Yes most fish are caught from the ocean, however salmon farming is crueller than what battery hens go through. The fish are shoved in a 'pool' so tight they can't move at all. The pools are rife with infection. Its a hideous life.

Also fish caught in the ocean invariably kill other marines life...sharks, dolphins, turtles to name but a few. Not to mention killing fish is not regulated. There aren't 'steps' like killing pigs/chickens (though the steps are horrible) fish are merely caught and stuffed in a ship. Left to suffocate in pain.

Fish removed from the ocean usually would have eaten other marine life too.

Just as cropping vegetables inevitably kills invertebrates and higher forms of life. Just because you don't see it, like you see meat and fish doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Original post by diving_queen

3) Calling a fish unintelligent is ignorant. People think fish are stupid but they are one of the most mysterious life forms on the planet. We simply do not know their level of intelligence because it can not be measured the same way as mammals. But I can safely say that sharks are not stupid. And they definitely have a mental capacity decent enough to think and feel pain.

My pet fish definitely know when they are going to be fed and where in the tank the food is coming from.

Original post by diving_queen

4) Eating ordinary meat from supermarkets is condoning animal suffering. 100%. It doesn't mean you don't love animals. But you are knowingly causing their pain and suffering. So can't love them that much to be honest.

So's eating vegetables grown and harvested by large scale mechanised agriculture, including the use of pesticides.

Original post by diving_queen

However, I am all for people actively going and buying properly reared, organic meat and eggs. Though still causing pain in some way they are a million times better than buying Tesco meat or purchasing a meal in a restaurant (which obviously uses the cheapest stuff they can find thus the nastiest stuff). At least the person is doing their best to eat meat responsibly.

/End preachy veggie rant.

Can't argue with that.

Reply 181

NW86

12

Original post by marcusfox

I posted a bit of scientific data you di, I can see how some people may not agree with that point of view.

Nevertheless, if the hens are happy, outdoor hens with plenty of room to run around, no chicken was ever killed or maltreated, they still wouldn't meet the criteria for a vegan lifestyle, so that argument doesn't erm... fly.

I'm not going to respond to this in full because it's two am and typing on an iPhone is riduclous.

However, I ignored your scientific data because I can easily pull of WHO reports and varus other British med journal reports that support a vegan diet over a non vegan diet. I'm not getting into a battle of who can post the most studies.

Secondly, the part I found most... Shocking??? About your post, seeing as you're clearly not a moron, was to question the environmental devestation caused by meat farming, The FAO have stated that the main cause of rainforest destruction in Latin america is for meat farming-grazing land.

I think you should read up on it, because of that jpeg, I would have said that point is probably the least refutable

Reply 182

tite23

13

Original post by hmon93

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

Something in the way?

Reply 183

marcusfox

16

Original post by NW86

I'm not going to respond to this in full because it's two am and typing on an iPhone is riduclous.

However, I ignored your scientific data because I can easily pull of WHO reports and varus other British med journal reports that support a vegan diet over a non vegan diet. I'm not getting into a battle of who can post the most studies.

Secondly, the part I found most... Shocking??? About your post, seeing as you're clearly not a moron, was to question the environmental devestation caused by meat farming, The FAO have stated that the main cause of rainforest destruction in Latin america is for meat farming-grazing land.

I think you should read up on it, because of that jpeg, I would have said that point is probably the least refutable

Oh, I'm sure you can.

You ignored the fact though that all that evidence I posted was to support my point was that vegans need to carefully plan their diets, including eating foods artificially fortified with B12 and for those who don't eat fish (since that is the entire point of the thread), also to gain enough essential omega-3, eat a very large quantity of vegetarian suitable food to make up the difference.

I wonder if that's in your papers? If so, undoubtedly vegans would have ulterior motives in making light of that fact, because it tends towards the argument that veganism is artificial, and we can't have that now, can we?

I'm sure there is a degree of environmental devastation towards meat farming in South America. You cannot disagree that this environmental devastation is anything but relatively recent on the human timescale, and it is only because of the need to feed out of control population growth. Man has been eating meat for millenia without vegans, and without environmental devastation.

You would doubless argue that if the whole world were to become vegan, as vegans always do, then there wouldn't be this environmental devastation. So thats no eating land animals and no eating fish and other animal products. What are you suggesting we all eat? Grass?

180 million square km of total land area and round about 6 billion people. Every square km needs to feed about 33 people. But you won't feed people on deserts or in Antarctica, or all the rest of the unfarmable places in the world. There's probably only about 10-15% on which you can grow food crops.

Plenty of the rest will support basic vegetation (such as grass) that only animals can eat. Look at New Zealand - sod all use for growing any appreciable quantity of food crop, but close to 50 million sheep. The ground is rarely flat and the volcanic rock on which New Zealand is built is very close to the surface, that country is quite unsuitable for the cultivation of grain. And the same applies to many other parts of the world.

And even now, all those starving people in Africa, well over a billion, add in the rest of the world's starving and you've probably got between 25-30% of the world who don't get enough food. Taking all the land that supports food animals, but cannot support arable farming, out of production is hardly likely to ease the problem. In many areas where animals are farmed, they are the only things which can be farmed.

The vegan will say that land that is not cultivable now, can be made so. Oh no, that's "Environmental Devastation"! Clearly as population increases, land available for cultivation decreases. Where deforestation has taken place to create food crops (whether to feed animals or humans), soils have been exposed to higher rainfall and extremes of temperature. So the soils harden and turn to desert. As you can see has been happening with the massive expansion of the Sahara desert.

Oh, desert. Look at the desertification taking place in central Asia because of the river water being diverted for crop irrigation. Yes, soon that land will be useless.

Oh, but don't forget the sea. 70% of the world's surface and miles deep in places. Oops, sorry, no fishing allowed. It's not the 'vegan' way. Yes, millions of people who subsist almost exclusively on fish would not be able to survive. Won't you think of the Eskimos!?

Looking purely at the UK situation, even considering our farming industry, we still have to import 30-40% of the food that we need. No sheep, and lets face it, those mountains in Wales and Scotland are good for bugger all else. No fish. How much food would we have to import? Countries that currenly export grain wouldn't be exporting it if they needed it to feed their own vegan population.

So don't give me narrow minded arguments and wishful thinking that veganism is a suitable option for the entire population of the planet. It is quite patently ridiculous.

The poor in Africa are malnourished as it is, and you're suggesting they turn vegan? Words fail me.

Reply 184

Dreamer1257

I agree it's weird. My best friend became a vegitarian a month ago and she told me that there are different types of vegitarians. She's the type that eats only eggs as far as meat.-_- Yeah...

Reply 185

Megaross

16

Nothing to do with confusion, some people are vegetarian for reasons other than animal cruelty/ not wanting to munch on animals. Stupid generalisation is that.

However they aren't vegetarian, they are pescetarian by definition.

Reply 186

Abc1234x

8

Original post by inspiration91

Only fertilised eggs have growing chicks in them!

So my point still stands.. the eggs we eat are unfertilised so could never become anything living.

But they COULD be fertilised- that's what they were meant for in the first place.
Lolll I've never thought this much about eggs before.

Reply 187

Abc1234x

8

Original post by marcusfox

I was teaching cloning to year 11s once.

Some of them actually thought that during the cloning process, when you take the genes from a sheep and put them into an egg, the egg in question was a chicken egg, which would then hatch and you would get a very small sheep.

Haha....that would be pretty cool though.

Reply 188

Emaemmaemily

18

Original post by aliluvschoc

My dad has this odd notion that humans are not meant to eat meat of the texture of bird/mammal.That we can't digest it. Obviously fish flesh is a lot easier to digest but still... :dontknow:

I'm not sure about that. I've eaten enough red steaks and I've never seen them come out in a similar state after I'm done with them.

He calls himself a vegetarian for ease, but would correct it to pescetarian if prompted.

Anyway all I'm saying is vegetarianism and hence pescetarianism isn't solely about the love of animals and so on.

I was going to add this. Not everyone is "vegetarian" for ethical reasons; some just don't like the taste/texture of certain meats which means that they may like something like fish still.
It may technically have a different name, but considering most of society don't know all of the names specifically, they may call themselves vegetarians for ease.

Reply 189

diving_queen

11

Original post by NW86

completely disagree with you on this. There is no way to fully assure the meat has been properly reared.

Refer to the case just 3 weeks ago, of Harling Farm (YouTube and BBC cover the story) a British pork farm with the red tractor assurance of standards, in which animals were filmed being kicked and hit with metal bars over a prolonged period of time. RSPCA spokesperson said it was some of the worst footage they had ever seen.

Enjoy eating that "properly reared meat".

I don't eat meat...

And thats why I said 'properly reared meat'. Genuinely 100% decently reared and humanely killed meat. Not this 'free range' on a box rubbish.

Obviously the checks on farms need to be increased dramatically. And slaughterings changed dramatically.

And the whole industry..changed.dramatically.

I am way more for a the abolitionism of meat than being a welfarist. But I am also not an idiot. Getting the whole world to stop eating meat is near-by impossible unless it all becomes infected and people can't eat it or they'll die...

So i'll stick to my green stuff for now.

Reply 190

Podruga

actually there is some subcategories(if I can call it like that) Vegeterians.
Lacto-vegetarians: who consuming milk and milk products, but not meat, eggs, fish etc.
Ovo-vegetarians: who consuming eggs, but not milk and milk products, meat, fish etc.
Marine-vegetarians: who consuming fish, but not milk and milk products, meat, eggs etc.
and Vegans who are consuming anything from animals (and their subproducts).
So a "Vegetarian" is a very general concept.

Reply 191

hmon93

10

Original post by tite23

Something in the way?

Of course

Reply 192

abc:)

22

Original post by blueray

Vegetarians who eat fish are confused or "Pescetarian" in shorter words.

Vegetarians don't eat animals for the fact that they have a heart and are living and can't be regrown like plants.

Not always. Way overgeneralising. Also leave them be, get on with your own life.

Reply 193

Brevillemonkey

1

Original post by blueray

Vegetarians who eat fish are confused or "Pescetarian" in shorter words.

Vegetarians don't eat animals for the fact that they have a heart and are living and can't be regrown like plants.

What I don't understand is how you can be so hypocritical and not eat animals because you find it "cruel etc" yet happily eat a fish?

Let me make this simple for you.
Don't look if you're screamish (mods don't delete as I have given a warning)

Spoiler

They both breath and move freely. Yet you don't eat one but do for the other.

If that's not not being confused then I don't know what is.

This is a massive assumption, not every vegetarian becomes one for the same reason. I have two friends who are vegetarian, the first one does so because he considers a vegetarian diet to be far healthier, which is purely for his own benefit. This is a purely selfish reason for vegetarianism, and I'm not saying it's a bad reason, but it's certainly not your reason.

The other friend switched to vegetarianism because of the meat industry's (primarily beef and poultry) contributions to global warming, which was something she didn't want to support. While this is a much more selfless reason, it's less to do with "having a heart" and caring about animals, and more to do with not turning the Earth into a Venus-like planet.

I'm not saying someone can be an absolute pure vegetarian while still eating fish, but there are many different reasons for becoming a vegetarian, many of which would still allow you to eat the occasional fish without contradicting your reasons for effectively becoming a vegetarian for the vast majority of the time.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 194

jacketpotato

20

Original post by diving_queen

Spoiler

I agree with you. However, I would rather eat fish than pigs or chickens. Being reared in a battery cage is much worse than being raised in the ocean (salmon farms debatable), and chickens/pigs are much more intelligent than fish. For this reason I don't think its necessarily hypocritical for people to eat fish even though they won't eat other animals, it is perfectly possible for people to draw the line somewhere in between fish and chicken.

Reply 195

marcusfox

16

Original post by Brevillemonkey

The other friend switched to vegetarianism because of the meat industry's (primarily beef and poultry) contributions to global warming, which was something she didn't want to support. While this is a much more selfless reason, it's less to do with "having a heart" and caring about animals, and more to do with not turning the Earth into a Venus-like planet.

Just LOL. Do you think there's enough hyperbole there?

The modern meat industry has been going for years, with large scale cattle farming going back well before the start of the 20th century, and not even the slightest hint of the planet going that way.

She's also clearly ignoring the fact that producing vegetarian food - flooded rice paddies anyone? - produces a hell of a lot of methane too. But I can bet that she still eats rice.

Nope, vegetarians the world over jumped on the bandwagon, because cows producing methane which causes ~~global warming~~ climate change is a bad thing, therefore more evidence that meat = bad. As if they didn't have a good argument already.

Almost as bad as the argument that we should all become veges to save the planet. :rolleyes:

I bet she also knows that before the introduction of cattle, millions upon millions of buffalo dominated the Great Plains of America and Canada. They were so thick you could not see where the herd started and where it ended.

I can only assume that the anti-meat, manmade global warming crowd must believe that buffalo farts have more socially redeeming value than the same flatulence emitted by cattle.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 196

Brevillemonkey

1

Original post by marcusfox

Just LOL. Do you think there's enough hyperbole there?

The modern meat industry has been going for years, with large scale cattle farming going back well before the start of the 20th century, and not even the slightest hint of the planet going that way.

She's also clearly ignoring the fact that producing vegetarian food - flooded rice paddies anyone? - produces a hell of a lot of methane too. But I can bet that she still eats rice.

Nope, vegetarians the world over jumped on the bandwagon, because cows producing methane which causes ~~global warming~~ climate change is a bad thing, therefore more evidence that meat = bad. As if they didn't have a good argument already.

Almost as bad as the argument that we should all become veges to save the planet. :rolleyes:

I bet she also knows that before the introduction of cattle, millions upon millions of buffalo dominated the Great Plains of America and Canada. They were so thick you could not see where the herd started and where it ended.

I can only assume that the anti-meat, manmade global warming crowd must believe that buffalo farts have more socially redeeming value than the same flatulence emitted by cattle.

I don't really understand what the point of this post was. I never said any of the reasons were good, bad, valid or not. My point was that different have their own different reasons for becoming a vegetarian.

And don't start preaching to me, I had steak for breakfast.

Reply 197

marcusfox

16

Original post by Brevillemonkey

I don't really understand what the point of this post was. I never said any of the reasons were good, bad, valid or not. My point was that different have their own different reasons for becoming a vegetarian.

And don't start preaching to me, I had steak for breakfast.

I was clearly pointing out the flaws in her argument, not yours.

Reply 198

inspiration91

Original post by Abc1234x

But they COULD be fertilised- that's what they were meant for in the first place.
Lolll I've never thought this much about eggs before.

No they couldn't because hens are kept seperate. Trust me, when we eat eggs, they are NEVER fertilised! In some countries they do eat fertilised eggs I believe, but generally, the eggs we eat are not fertilised so could never harbour any life!