Pescatarians don't always create the confusion themselves. Although I tell people that I'm semi-vegetarian because I eat seafood, they invariably forget and simply call me a vegetarian. Then someone else hears it and assumes that I've erroneously given myself the title. I think that this is how a lot of the miscommunication gets started.

My husband is a vegetarian, and I can't tell you how often I am asked "Does he eat fish?" I tell the questioner either "He doesn't eat anything that had a mother" or "He doesn't eat anything with a face."

soem peopel say they are vegetarian but eat chicken.

this is ridiculous to me.

I have seen this here on 3fc. it's just....weird. that someone would, what? COnside chicken a vegetable? :P

MIL told us she was going to become a vegetarian. In talking to her, it became obvious that she wasn't really talking about giving up meat as much drastically decreasing her meat, especially red-meat consumption.

I bought her the book "The Gradual Vegetarian," because it was one I missed from my own cookbook collection (I had given it to a friend). I am not and have never been a vegetarian - but I own several vegetarian cookbooks.

I think that the term vegetarian is probably going to be overused and misused until there are more accurate and precise words for any food lifestyle choice other than "I'll eat whatever you put in front of me."

Even "flexitarian" implies a flexibility that maybe isn't (and shouldn't be expected to be) there. It ends with family members saying, "Well, if you're so darned flexible, tell me why I shouldn't make a ham for Easter Dinner?"

LOL, I never thought of it that way, but so true.

Maybe oligocarnivore? ;)

I think pescetarian is the perfect title. That's what I used to be and am now again. However, many people don't know what that is, so it is sometimes easier to just say, "vegetarian" unless they are at a vegetarian event. I think people get too hung up on titles, especially those that like to argue about the nitty gritty. If someone asks a vegetarian if they eat fish, what does it really cost the vegetarian to just say, "no I don't" and leave it at that.

Now, eating chicken and calling yourself vegetarian is completely erroneous, I believe.

Just my .04 (current economy)

I don't really see a difference in the level of "erroneousness" (I'm sure that's a made up word), between the person who calls themselves a vegetarian where they more accurately would need to say "I would be a vegetarian (or a vegan) if I didn't eat fish," as the person who would have to say "I would be a vegetarian if I didn't eat ______" whether that blank is insects, fish, chicken, beef or any other critter or critter by-product.

An exception really is an exception. From the outside, it seems that there's a vegetarian "hierarchy" of morality that is dependent upon the perceived intelligence or value of the animal eaten/not eaten - so it's "better" to be an insect-eater than a fish-eater, which is better than a bird-eater, which is better than an eater of low-intelligence mammals, which is better than an eater of high-intelligence mammals (or worse in my opinion - the person who feels it's is better to be aneater of not-so-cute mammals as an eater of cuter and cuddlier mammals).

I don't understand why a person who eats no meat but fish would be considered any more a vegetarian than a person who eats no meat but chicken.

Shouldn't frequency and quantity also be a factor? Wouldn't a person who eats chicken once a year, be more of a vegetarian than a person who eats fish once a week? If not, why not?

And really wouldn't the same type of explanation as I described earlier, be easier and more accurate:


Instead of saying "I'm a vegetarian" - saying "I would be a vegetarian (or vegan, or pescatarian) if I didn't eat ____ (insert animal or animal by-product) _______ (inspert spcified quantity) at least once a _______ (insert time period here).



What about the person who says "I don't intentionally eat meat or meat products, but I wouldn't get too upset if I found out that a restaurant or friend served me vegetable soup that might have been made with chicken broth as long as I don't see any meat floating in it"?


For most people, there are countless shades of gray.

Excellent points Kaplods!

Thinking about it, I agree that frequency is truly the factor. I've changed my way of thinking so scratch my chicken remark. (pun intended) Thanks!

I don't care what people call themselves. If I question, I ask. When I ask, I don't expect to get lambasted for wanting to be more informed. That's basically the point I was making.

I agree! I put no moral value on one life over another.
I am definitely an omnivore and I do eat meat, though not too much (not for ethical reasons; I just like the taste of veggies and fruits more, I think!) and I remember in my Korean class we were discussing how some Koreans still eat dog soup, and when asked, I honestly answered that I wouldn't mind trying it, and the rest of the class was really surprised that I wouldn't feel guilty about it, and I didn't understand why. I don't see how eating dog would be any different than eating chicken. I don't see how we have the right to judge that the existence of one animal to be more important than the existence of another. I just don't. If you eat meat, I don't think you have the right to say it's wrong to eat dog (or any other kind of meat) but okay to eat other kinds of meat.
One thing I WON'T do is kill bugs, because it makes me feel like a murderer. I will catch them and take them outside, or let them be if I can't. And people often ask me why I won't kill them, because they are just bugs. I don't see how killing a bug would be any more justifiable than killing a puppy. They are both living creatures and one doesn't have the right to life any more than the other. I have NEVER understood this viewpoint of viewing one type of life as being more important than any other.

That's not the point I was trying to make. I think we all do and should make moral judgements about the value of life and towards what we eat, but we have to know why we are making those judgements, and make sure they're the judgement we want to be making.

Even among human life we do, and must place gradations of moral judgements. If you had to choose between saving the life of your own child an another child, you'd probably choose your own child (and probably wouldn't be judged harshly for it). If you had to take a life in order to save your own (whether that was a human or an animal) or to save the life of a loved one - it would (and should) involve you making value judgements as to the value of the lives in question.


I am also an omnivore, and I do make differential value judgements on lives that I take or are willing to take and lives that I allow to be taken, in order for me to benefit from that taking of life. I try to be conscious of the circumstances I'm willing to accept and benefit from those sacrifices.

I might taste dog or horse, but wouldn't willingly eat an endangered species - or human (even one who died of natural causes).

I don't know that I would include dog or horse in my regular diet, because I do think that the animals humans have domesticated for companionship are somewhat exempt from the table. Even though I eat pork, I wouldn't eat someone's pet potbelly pig (and especially not my own) unless there weren't any other edible options (and I'd have to get pretty hungry to see those animals as edible options).

I'm not saying my values should be anyone but my own's, and I do recognize the hypocracy of some of my beliefs. Some of them are results of societal taboos. I have no moral compunction against eating insects, in fact I think that it would benefit our health tremendously if we stopped using pesticides and instead worked on better harvesting methods of those pests, and ate them instead - or at least used them for animal fodder. Yet, I would find it difficult to eat most insect species (at least unless they could be served in a way that disguised their identity - hypocritical of course).

I'm not opposed to killing a misquito (especially one that is biting me), or most other insects - though I don't kill insects just because they are insects.

I probably would take a life (even a human lie) to save my own in some circumstances, but not in others. I can't imagine I would take a child's life to save my own. I can imagine taking the life of someone trying to take my own.

I would have no problem raising small animals for food (rabbits, guinea pigs), but I wouldn't eat a rabbit or guinea pig I was keeping as a pet (unless I was literally starving).


It isn't the value judgement that's the problem - it's being aware of the reasons and being aware of (and ok with) the inherent hypocracy.

Yes, it is somewhat hypocritical to say I will eat a barn pig, but not a pet pig - but I understand and am ok with the reasons why I would make that choice (not for the pig's sake, but for the the sake of the relationship with the human petowner).

Huh. I have rarely heard this. Mostly, I hear the opposite, lots of insistence than an animal is an animal is an animal.

I think you hear this from people making health choices. I've never heard a veg*n make that distinction from an ethical standpoint.

That actually *is* the usual stance I've seen from veg*ns - the more you do the better / every bit helps. I've never ever seen veg*ns prioritize fish over chicken or vice versa. As I said, that's only something I've seen claimed for health reasons.

I suppose I wasn't clear - I was not not arguing that the stereotype of the moral hiarchy regarding degrees of veg*nism is an exculsively or even primarily veg*n construct (I wasn't even meaning that I thought any vegan had ever argued the point, because I wasn't talking about vegans - I was talking about the stereotypes of meat-eating by the larger/more generic culture). I was speaking from the point of view of someone trying to be objective - seeing a tendency in the larger culture to see gradations of morality in different kinds degrees of meat eating (which is why someone - probably not a vegan someone - might consider the distinction between veg*n, vegetarian, and pescatarian unimportant).

I would expect the vegan to be more likely to see no difference between fish and poultry eating - however in the larger culture, I would argue there most certainly is a tendency to see gradations of morality to veg*nism (which is why some omnivores might see little difference between the two - or might consider eating fish "good enough to call vegetarian" but might not think so regarding poultry, and might not understand why a vegetarian would think the distinction is all that important).

I thought that was relatively clear from my post, because otherwise my argument makes no sense at all - I can't imagine anyone thinking (or thinking that I was thinking) that eating only non-cute animals would make any person a vegetarian. Or that a morality-inspired vegan would consider a person "less immoral" if they only ate noncute animals. My post wasn't meant to be about the vegetarian moral perspective, but rather the perception (from the outside - that is from the viewpoint of primarily nonvegetarians) of the morality of vegetarianism.


I see that I worded my post poorly. I can only hope I clarified rather obfuscated.

Wow, so much great discussion here!

I say I eat mostly vegan, but will eat lacto-vegetarian on occasion. What that means for me is that I will occasionally eat cheese, yogurt or cottage cheese. The fact that I am willing to do this at all on occasion makes me NOT vegan, so I won't call myself that.

As far as a hierarchy is concerned, an animal is an animal is an animal, be it fish, fowl or fly IMO.

Ahh. Then I guess this isn't the crowd that will have that answer :dizzy:

It wasn't a question, it was a statement and a response to archychicks original statement (which she ammended in a later post) that



If someone asks a vegetarian if they eat fish, what does it really cost the vegetarian to just say, "no I don't" and leave it at that.

Now, eating chicken and calling yourself vegetarian is completely erroneous, I believe.





As to this not being the crowd to have the answer (or to understand the opinion, or to have and share an opionion), I disagree. Veg*ns are generally not raised in isolation from the larger culture/community - so they are as aware of the common viewpoints in that culture, even those they do not share.


Maybe because in my neck of the midwest, veg*nism is so rare, that compromise positions are more common, but I've certainly met both veg*ns and non-veg*ns with what I consider a hiarchical concept of veg*nism - and those that held a more rigid view as well. I've also met veg*ns who cared very little and those who cared very much about the use of precise terminology. I suspect there's as much variation of opinions within the veg*n community as there is outside of it.


I realize that as a non-vegetarian, I am a guest in this forum, and not a member. If my opinions aren't welcomed or are offending anyone, I'd appreciate being told directly so. This particular thread seems to be of interest to, and open to the opinions of both veg*ns and non-veg*ns. I would expect a veg*n to know and understand the term pescatarian, so there'd be no reason for a veg*n to ask the OP question at all, so I assumed by it's very nature that responses from both veg*ns and nonveg*ns were welcome, if that's not the case, I apologize.