How long have you been veggie?

Mentalmiss

Peanut wrote:

lol :rolleyes:

...Surprised at the number of people answering 16-20 in the survey, I would have thought most of the responses would be for the lower ranges.

I responded as 20+ but only because there is no 30+

Piste

rockbeer wrote:

I must have forgotten signing the form where I promised to justify all my choices to any meat eater who happens along with a chip on his or her shoulder.

Yeah I hate having to justify my vegetarianism to people, because they always want a big debate on it, which I don't want. Usually I just say "I don't like meat" (such a lie!) because no-one can argue with that.

Tar.Aldarion

...but it tastes so good?

Piste

It does

Tar.Aldarion

So I hear.

Do poeple here celebrate their anniversary of becoming a vegetarian, or is that just me?

AuntieAoife

I'm 13 years and counting. My Dad has a brother with a farm and once I copped where my nice lamb dinners were coming from that was the end of my meat eating days!

Once met a girl in Glasgow who told me she was also veggie. A few days later we were out at dinner and she ordered carbonara (sp?). I mentioned it and and she told me she ate white meat, and pork is pale enough to qualify!

Backtoblack

rockbeer wrote:

My point exactly. What's the point in using the word...

That's the nature of words; they're imprecise and their meanings evolve over time as a reflection of useage. They're only symbols after all, which leaves them open to interpretation. That's fine for creative writing and general conversation, while disciplines where precision matters e.g. sciences and technologies tend to create their own terms with very specific meanings, often misunderstood and misused by the rest of us, but properly understood by those who need to work with them.

But when it comes to labelling people, I think you're looking for the impossible. How can you hope to achieve a definition that everyone agrees on? Who decides what is the correct definition? The millions of 'fish-eating vegetarians' out there certainly wouldn't agree with either you or me. Absolute definitions require universal acceptance, and that just isn't going to happen. There isn't a 'word authority' who decides these things: the meaning of words is determined by useage. And very often, by prejudice.

Even before I started eating fish again I pretty much stopped calling myself a vegetarian. I got completely fed up with people leaping to their own misguided conclusions about my beliefs and my attitude towards them. Funny how hostile and defensive some meat-eaters can get when you mention that you're a veggie

I've mentioned this on another thread but a fish eating vegetarian should actually be calling themselves a pescetarian. IMO its unfair to true vegetarian to accept the term vegetarian if you do eat fish because you are not in fact a true vegetarian (look at the dictionary). I am a pescetarian, end of story.
Its fooking annoying though, that people don't know the 2 classifications because I am always having to explain the term - often to mixed reactions -one person told me not to bother people with such terms - like the mere mortals would not understand - ffs!
Anyway. A fish eater is not a vegetarian to the truest meaning of the word.

I gave up meat a year ago (only. boo me!!!!!! ) and when i did, i started as a pescetarian because i thought it may be easier for me to begin with. It is a bloody good start at least - and I am proud of my resolution.
I eat fish, not too often now. But perhaps in the future i will decide to pledge to full vegetarianism.. and its quite possible that i shall! But for the mean time I am a pescetarian.

thank you for listening.
here's the link(dictionary):
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pescetarian
here's the link (Encyclopedia)
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Pesco/pollo_vegetarianism

Please do take the time to have a quick glance!

nervous_twitch

4 years.

I havent noticed it for the most part, only on the occasional venture out with my family to some establishment which has been kind enough to privilege us a vegetable stir-fry/curry :rolleyes: I tend to eat a lot of Indian now, just for the range.

I don't eat fish. I do eat eggs, but not battery eggs.

MagnumForce

Why is there no "All my life" option?

I hate the question "Why are you a vegetarian?" I got fed up of explaining and now I just say "I was born that way...and so were you, I just kept doing it."

I also hate the question "Do you eat fish?" Of course I don't eat ****ing fish! Im a vegetarian! ahhh!! I don't get this whole "But fish isn't meat" thing, It's the living tissue of a living breathing animal, what else is it?!

Also what annoys me is the lack of vegetarian options in some restaurants, it really is quite annoying to go to a restaurant and realise that there is nothing there you can eat.

Funny story actually, Once when I was about 9 or something, I was at a friends birthday party in McDonalds, and I ordered a Veggie burger, and after much discussion i thought it was settled, imagine my suprise when the orders came and I opened my "veggie burger" to find that they had just given me a Big Mac with the burger taken out, with meat juices still present and accounted for. God I hate McDonalds.

viggi-tea

11-15 years option for me.

bohsman

Ive been a vegetarian 99% of my life, no interest in eating meat, never liked it when I tried it. Technically Im a Pesci whateveryouwanttocallit but damned if Im explaining that term wherever I go, I eat fish fairly regularly, basically I eat what I want and dont follow any rules telling me what I can and cant eat. I dont care about the killing of animals etc and when I was growing up the health aspect never really came into it either bar not making chocolate mousse because of salmonella.

Getting the ham pulled out of a ham and cheese sandwich made hours earlier down the country is the most annoying thing for me. Apologies for making it harder for real vegetarians to explain that they dont eat fish but meh.

Nature Boy

bohsman wrote:

Technically Im a Pesci whateveryouwanttocallit but damned if Im explaining that term wherever I go

People are always going to ask questions anyway so you might as well explain your diet when they ask you. It's not that hard: "I eat no animal flesh except for fish"

Esmereldina

Hey all! I'm relatively new to boards and only discovered the veggie forum
today I'm been a vegetarian for almost 4 years. For about half a year after that I did eat fish but then I gave it up too.
Regarding the reasons that people often see fish as a special case when it comes to giving up meat... Kurt Cobain also said that 'It's ok to eat fish, cause they don't have any feelings'... He lied of, course Finding Nemo was a real eye opener there...

samhain's son

I was veggie for about 3 years then gave in for about six and then back when the foot and mouth crisis happened I realised I couldn't eat meat so is that about 5 years ago? However I had a baby and started eating fish while I was breastfeeding and still do occasionally especially if eating out as sometimes there just isn't anything else on the menu.

I loved the taste of meat and sometimes I have dreams that I have had a steak but when I wake up I picture a cow or a pig in my head and I know I couldn't eat him or her. Sometimes when I we are out and the smell hits me I imagine how I would feel if someone took one of my children for food and my longing goes away.

So I didn't vote in the poll because I am not a vegetarian but will be again soon I hope.

Oh I forgot to post I've been veggie for 16 years, I don't exactly remeber my start date as I drifted into it but i was in 4th class.

inverted_world

Nature Boy wrote:

People are always going to ask questions anyway so you might as well explain your diet when they ask you. It's not that hard: "I eat no animal flesh except for fish"

I really don't understand why you are getting so wound up about this. I know a few pescetarians who call themselves veggie and it doesn't bother me at all. I'm veggie because it's a healthier diet, and most pescetarians are because of health too, not because killing animals is wrong. They do live a mostly vegetarian diet, I know very few pescetarians who eat fish more than once a week, if even. In fact, pescetarians apparently live longer than vegetarians. It's not up to you to worry about what other people's dietary beliefs are.
Sure, I know vegetarians who eat jelly, marshmallows, and gummy bears. It doesn't matter. It's not giving anyone a bad name, so lighten up!

Tar.Aldarion

Those people you mention are not vegetarian, that is not what the word means.
He is getting wound up because it is misrepresenting what he is, because of other poeple.
It also leads to being asked, 'Do you eat fish?' five million times.
People can't seem to tell that a fish is not different from an animal in any sort of great respect.

'In fact, pescetarians apparently live longer than vegetarians.'

Some links please?

Whilst throwing about these facts...
There are also studies that show that the smarter you are the more likely you will become vegetarian.

inverted_world

I read it in a report in a newspaper a couple of months ago, the Irish Times I think, and I can't find a link.

The attitude I'm getting off some people in this forum is quite elitist. People can eat what they want, without others looking down on them or getting their knickers in a twist over what they decide to call themselves. It's not those who might eat a bit of fish on a regular occasion but prefer to be called vegetarian who are "misrepresenting" us full time veggies, but but the ones who mouth off about what someone should and shouldn't eat. This is nearly as bad as telling a meat eater that their diet is wrong! It's not a religion!

People are not so thick that they don't know what vegetarian is, believe it or not.
The only time I've been asked such questions has been when someone else is cooking for me, and I'd rather be asked than them wrongly assume. A vegetarian menu is very unlikely to include fish, so I don't see how some vegetarians giving themselves a little bit of leeway is affecting you or anyone else.

Peanut

inverted_world wrote:

People are not so thick that they don't know what vegetarian is, believe it or not.

uhhh I beg to differ!!!
Really how many times have I been asked do i eat fish/chicken/dairy whatever.. I've lost track!

It's in everyone's best interest not to fudge around terms, and it's not really some elitist thing, in fact I feel it's the opposite - people will sometimes say they are veggie when they are not in order to try to have some cool social karma type attitude. This is usually with females as well, as a guy saying it is more likely to be disparaged for his lack of manliness!

Anyway, the main reason this annoys me, is, as you say, that vegetarianism is not a hugely difficult concept to grasp, but lots of people don't. Not that I'd really expect them to if they are not interested in it themselves, but confusing the issue only makes things worse. It's a bit like saying you are a Catholic but with a bit of Islam thrown in!

rockbeer

What's really weird about this whole discussion over what is and what isn't veggie is the need for strict rules and definitions some people seem to have. Fish might be 'obviously' not veggie to many people, but there are many more vague areas. Once you start nit picking there's no end to it - even the 'flesh or not' viewpoint has holes in it because the world isn't simple enough to be easily labelled for our convenience. To whit: do all you serious veggies know what the e numbers on processed foods mean? Do you know or care that Guinness and many other beers aren't veggie? Are fish scales actually flesh, or are they an acceptable animal derivative? Do you always ask what's gone into stuff (e.g. soup) in restaurants? Do you know for sure that your baked goods don't contain gelatine? Are you bothered that calves die to support the dairy industry? Drinking milk and eating cheese are as tied up with cow-death as actually eating the flesh...

I've been 'mostly veggie' for over 20 years and I've never met a veggie or vegan who doesn't allow themselves some exceptions that seem acceptable to them. Total purity is an impossible dream, the pursuit of which is by its very nature elitist because, in the minds of people who think in those terms, it always comes down to the superiority of those making what are peceived to be the greatest sacrifices. Which is just crap.

Personally I can't see there's any difference between inadvertently eating gelatine - or drinking beer-finings - and consciously eating fish (or anything else for that matter) occasionally. Ignorance is no defence, and arguably it's worse than making an informed choice. To me it's not about purity, it's about awareness, and about manifesting that awareness as often as reasonably possible without becoming some kind of flag waving obsessive. No matter how pure you are, you aren't going to change the world by your choices. So just find a level you're happy with, get on with it, and let others do the same without letting their inconsistencies get to you.

It's easy to accuse others of hypocrisy and inconsistency, but at the end of the day you're only answerable to yourself for the degree of ethics and health-consciousness you exercise in your dietary choices. Why get so hot and bothered about other people's choices?

One more question. If I don't eat meat for twenty years, then have a big juicy steak, how long do I have to be meat free for before I can call myself a veggie again? Somebody must have a simple answer, surely.

Peanut

rockbeer wrote:

One more question. If I don't eat meat for twenty years, then have a big juicy steak, how long do I have to be meat free for before I can call myself a veggie again? Somebody must have a simple answer, surely.

You can call yourself whatever you like, but I would think a good defintion of being veggie would be that, at any given point in time, you don't intend to eat meat in the (near) future.

I don't think calling fish-eating "non-vegetarian" is being elitist or strict, or is the result of some perceived superiorty complex.
I think it's just basic reason & common sense.

There are different shades of grey, but some of them are blacker or whiter than others. To call fish veggie is really stretching the greyscale!

And one more thing, why do people always assume that a person is vegetarian for so-called ethical reasons?
There are lots of reasons, and just because someone doesn't want to have fish/gelatine in their food doesn't necessarily mean that they are trying to take some higher moral stance or anything similar.

rockbeer

Peanut wrote:

You can call yourself whatever you like, but I would think a good defintion of being veggie would be that, at any given point in time, you don't intend to eat meat in the (near) future.

I was being ironic... the point being that 'vegetarian' is only ever at best a temporary state - non-veggieness is always only a bacon sarnie or pint of Guinness away. To me, labelling myself makes no sense. I might well, on the other hand, describe myself as somebody who generally eats vegetarian food, and this to me is much more useful and informative, and doesn't have the downside of setting myself a standard that's impossible to live up to or opening me up to the inevitable accusations of inconsistency.

Peanut wrote:

I don't think calling fish-eating "non-vegetarian" is being elitist or strict, or is the result of some perceived superiorty complex.
I think it's just basic reason & common sense.

Great... but that's only your opinion. Not to disrespect that, but what's it really worth in the wider context? I don't know precisely what you eat and drink... but let's assume you indulge in the odd pint of Guinness. Most people do. This is no more veggie than me having a swordfish steak now and then, yet many folk seem arbitrarily happy to ignore this reality just because an actual lump of flesh isn't involved. Or more probably because they like to think of themselves as veggie and therefore selectively ignore the things they do that contradict this self-perception.

But what's the difference??

I don't care if anyone wants to indulge in a pint of the black, but I wish they would accept the reality that they are no more veggie than us mackerel munchers. Perhaps they could then get over this obsession with labels.

Peanut wrote:

There are different shades of grey, but some of them are blacker or whiter than others. To call fish veggie is really stretching the greyscale!

In your opinion. In my opinion, because there is no such thing as a 'pure vegetarian', or even a practical working definition of what that is, as a label the term is basically meaningless, and is only really useful as a clear and unambiguous way of explaining to habitual meat eaters that you don't want dead cow with your salad.

Peanut wrote:

And one more thing, why do people always assume that a person is vegetarian for so-called ethical reasons?
There are lots of reasons, and just because someone doesn't want to have fish/gelatine in their food doesn't necessarily mean that they are trying to take some higher moral stance or anything similar.

Not sure who this is aimed at, but if it's me, I don't assume all vegetarians choose their diet for ethical for reasons, but I'm aware that many do. To deny that would be to deny reality. As far as I'm aware, there are four primary reasons for being veggie or near-veggie:

1. Not liking meat
2. 'Ethical' reasons
3. Health reasons
4. Economic factors

I would imagine most of us choose our diets for a combination of one or more of these... Are there any other reasons that are important to people? I'd be really interested to know.

Peanut

So you reckon that,

- vegetarians sometimes eat/drink stuff that is not 100% veg.
- therefore fish eating can be called vegetarian
- so the word is pointless & we should just give up using it

We use labels to have a shared understanding. If we broaden the definition of something so much that it becomes meaningless, then you are right, we should just drop the word, because no-one will have any idea what it means.

Of course there are grey areas. But, in my opinion at least, there is a significant difference between putting Guinness and cod in the same category.
They both contain fish, but in vastly different quantities
(I don't drink it, for what it's worth )

rockbeer wrote:

Not sure who this is aimed at, but if it's me, I don't assume all vegetarians choose their diet for ethical for reasons, but I'm aware that many do.
...

No, it was just a general rant..

rockbeer wrote:

1. Not liking meat
2. 'Ethical' reasons
3. Health reasons
4. Economic factors

I would imagine most of us choose our diets for a combination of one or more of these... Are there any other reasons that are important to people? I'd be really interested to know.

If you're not including religious/ethnic reasons in "ethical", then that would be another one.

rockbeer

Peanut wrote:

So you reckon that,
- vegetarians sometimes eat/drink stuff that is not 100% veg.

Yes... virtually all self-described vegetarians make exceptions that seem acceptable to them. Eating fish is one of the most extreme of these, but IMHO no different in kind to any other.

Let's clear another thing up while we're at it - I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I don't think it invalidates the positive choices not to eat meat that such people do make, for whatever reason. Whereas I sense that some people here are suggesting that those who eat fish once in a while are not only 'less vegetarian' but somehow less 'pure' as a result.

Peanut wrote:

- therefore fish eating can be called vegetarian

I didn't say that. I've already said elsewhere that I eat fish and I don't call myself vegetarian. However, many people who do eat fish call themselves veggies, and they see no contradiction in this. You might disagree with them, but like it or not you are up against common useage and nothing you say is going to change that so you might as well get used to it. It's like railing against the hole in the ozone layer rather than putting on sun block.

Peanut wrote:

- so the word is pointless & we should just give up using it

As a label to describe a person, pretty much, yes. As I say, it has its uses to describe foodstuffs - it's usually more accurate to describe a lettuce as vegetarian than a human being. And it can be useful as shorthand that non-veggies understand easily. But if you make assumptions about someone who describes themselves as a vegetarian based on their use of the word, some of those assumptions will invariably turn out to be wrong. As this lengthy discussion neatly illustrates. So you have to ask yourself how useful is it really? You choose to criticize their use of the word, whereas I try to avoid using it altogether. In its broadest sense it's fine, but once you start trying to pin it down it becomes very elusive.

Peanut wrote:

We use labels to have a shared understanding. If we broaden the definition of something so much that it becomes meaningless, then you are right, we should just drop the word, because no-one will have any idea what it means.

Agreed. In fact this is precisely what I've been arguing - that's its useless as a label therefore I don't use it as such. However I think you are suggesting that I am somehow responsible for broadening the meaning too much, whereas I'm only trying to point out the facts. That broadening process you describe has already taken place. It is a fact of life. You can't avoid it.

Peanut wrote:

Of course there are grey areas. But, in my opinion at least, there is a significant difference between putting Guinness and cod in the same category.
They both contain fish, but in vastly different quantities
(I don't drink it, for what it's worth )

Me neither Or eat cod - it's endangered.

But now we're gettig somewhere... So it's a question of quantities? So according to your definitions, if I eat fish once or twice a month, or year, am I more or less veggie than someone who drinks 2 or 3 or more pints of Guinness a night?

Just wondering.

Peanut wrote:

If you're not including religious/ethnic reasons in "ethical", then that would be another one.

Ah yes, I suppose that would probably be a category on its own.

Nature Boy

Peanut wrote:

We use labels to have a shared understanding. If we broaden the definition of something so much that it becomes meaningless, then you are right, we should just drop the word, because no-one will have any idea what it means.

I agree. If people who eat fish/chicken/pork can call themselves veggie then where does it end? I think, if you really want, make up a new word for someone who's 'kinda' veggie.

The word vegetatian to me (and to any definitions I've read) is that a vegetarian is someone who doesn't eat animal flesh, such as a steak, a fillet of cod, a brest of chicken etc. Whatever you do after that is up to the individual, such as not eating foods derived from animal flesh (geletine, isinglass, rennet etc), not eating eggs dairy etc.

Peanut

rockbeer wrote:

Yes... virtually all self-described vegetarians make exceptions that seem acceptable to them. Eating fish is one of the most extreme of these, but IMHO no different in kind to any other.

Ok, this is where I disagree with you

rockbeer wrote:

...
Whereas I sense that some people here are suggesting that those who eat fish once in a while are not only 'less vegetarian' but somehow less 'pure' as a result.

That is a problem with the whole veg 'thing'. People look at it as a special club or something. I guess it's bound to happen that people get that impression, but I think most have no problems with what someone chooses to eat.

rockbeer wrote:

...
You might disagree with them, but like it or not you are up against common useage and nothing you say is going to change that so you might as well get used to it.

Not really, for a start, it's still a minority usage, although a sizeable minority.
And what people say does change things - the "nothing will change" idea is really the voter apathy arguement - i.e. I'm not going to vote because it doesn't make any difference. But, meh, I will try not to lose too much sleep over it

rockbeer wrote:

.. However I think you are suggesting that I am somehow responsible for broadening the meaning too much, whereas I'm only trying to point out the facts. That broadening process you describe has already taken place. It is a fact of life. You can't avoid it.

Well not you personally But I disagree with the assumption that this has already taken place, or that it's a one-way road. It's pretty much culturally specific, in the sense that in the States, what you say would be true, but I don't think it's like that here.

rockbeer wrote:

But now we're gettig somewhere... So it's a question of quantities? So according to your definitions, if I eat fish once or twice a month, or year, am I more or less veggie than someone who drinks 2 or 3 or more pints of Guinness a night?

The difference is that you can imagine someone assuming that Guinness is vegetarian, but you could not possibly make that mistake with a living animal.
One is a pint, another a flopping silvery thing with mouth & eyes.

rockbeer

Nature Boy wrote:

Peanut wrote:

We use labels to have a shared understanding. If we broaden the definition of something so much that it becomes meaningless, then you are right, we should just drop the word, because no-one will have any idea what it means.

I agree.

I think you're both completely wrong about this. Simplistic labels tend to diminish rather than expand understanding. To be effecive, a label relies on genuine and widespread agreement on its meaning - which is demonstrably lacking in the case of 'vegetarian'.

Nature Boy

It certainly is true that people who eat fish, chicken, pork etc want to call themselves vegetarian. So if enough people decide that the label "vegetarian" sould include such people, then what do the original veggies do? We can't use vegetarian anymore. Do we start calling ourselves vegan even though we eat cheese sandwiches and omlettes every so often. If so, what do the vegans do?

nervous_twitch

I agree; while the idea of abolishing labels may be somewhat romantic, its not practical.

- as a vegetarian, I like to think that when I order the vegetarian option in a restaurant I wont be given a plate of salmon etc. I certainly dont have any heirs about me; I do not think myself in any way 'better' than a pescetarian.. but I still think its necessary to differentiate, otherwise we have no way of defining who eats what.. and every-one becomes a meat-eater, vegetarian, pescetarian all in one! Wont somebody think of the children?

heggie

veg·e·tar·i·an /ˌvɛdʒɪˈtɛəriən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[vej-i-tair-ee-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a person who does not eat or does not believe in eating meat, fish, fowl, or, in some cases, any food derived from animals, as eggs or cheese, but subsists on vegetables, fruits, nuts, grain, etc.

I also am sick of being asked do i eat fish, and on occasion being offered fish as a vegetarian option in restaurants. Wongs in Ranelagh for example, has 2 fish dishes in its 'Vegetarian' section of the menu, disgraceful! i'd hate to think if I was an nut allergy sufferer or something!