Guinness - not vegetarian friendly!!!

cozmik

one-angry-dwarf wrote: »

it's all about drawing your own line.

Defining yourself as "vegetarian" while still consuming products such as Guinness that are known to be not vegetarian friendly has more than a whiff of hypocrisy about it, but I guess that doesn't matter since it's all about drawing our own lines :P

Sorry I just find it pretty frustrating when people try to muddy up definitions to make them suit whatever they're comfortable with.

The heart of the matter here is that for some people giving up Guinness would be too big a lifestyle change to cope with and it would be much easier to give the meaning of vegetarianism a little tweaking.

Nature Boy

cozmik wrote: »

The heart of the matter here is that for some people giving up Guinness would be too big a lifestyle change to cope with and it would be much easier to give the meaning of vegetarianism a little tweaking.

Ok if you want to make that argument then can you find a definition of vegetarianism that backs up your argument? The oxford compact dictionary says it is a person who does not eat meat . That means we can eat fish, chicken, gelatine, and we certainly can drink Guinness. Dictionary.com says a vegetarian sometimes does not eat food derived from animals which again covers drinking Guinness.

And if you really want to be picky then Guinness doesn't actually have any animal food in it so technically it is vegetarian even if you use the strictest defnition

Nature Boy

D'ya know what? This comes up all of the time. I think we should start a new thread with the aim of coming up with a common definition of vegetariamism for the use of this forum and post it in the forum charter (maybe that's a job for the new moderators )

For me, the definition would be the same as one-angry-dwarf's definition; someone who does not eat animal flesh, anything after that is optional.

meglome

Personally I never ate that much meat, mostly as the mother was a dreadful cook and I got out of the habit. Since then I've learned to love food too much, I'll almost eat anything once it's been properly prepared. I don't overeat but almost any food is good to me. I can respect vegetarians for their principled stance but I've found the majority of vegetarians I know have issues with food that goes beyond just animal welfare. Although that’s a discussion for another time.

Don’t get me wrong as the animals at the top of the food chain I think it's great that we can choose. But I agree with some of the posters, that it has to be a personal decision. I think you can be a vegetarian without being super anal about it. I mean if you didn’t go near anything that involved any animal/fish/bird/insect suffering I hate to think what would be left. IMHO not drinking Guinness because fish extracts are used in the filtering process is a step too far. Then I’m not a vegetarian so…

rockbeer

It's an old chestnut.

Personally, I think "vegetarian" is more useful as a description of food than a label for people. If people could overcome the need to tag themselves with the "vegetarian" label, it would remove much of the confusion. We could argue over the merits of different food without always ending up accusing each other of hypocrisy and double standards.

Nature Boy

Yeah it is a pity that we need labels. If only everyone was a vegetarian, then everything would be easier...

cozmik

Nature Boy wrote: »

Ok if you want to make that argument then can you find a definition of vegetarianism that backs up your argument? The oxford compact dictionary says it is a person who does not eat meat . That means we can eat fish, chicken, gelatine, and we certainly can drink Guinness. Dictionary.com says a vegetarian sometimes does not eat food derived from animals which again covers drinking Guinness.

And if you really want to be picky then Guinness doesn't actually have any animal food in it so technically it is vegetarian even if you use the strictest defnition

lmao, You think it's ok for vegetarians to eat fish and chicken !? and then you accuse me of being picky lol

Yeah it is a pity that we need labels. If only everyone was a vegetarian, then everything would be easier...

It's more a pity that some people think fish and chicken do not count as animal flesh.

Nature Boy

cozmik wrote: »

lmao, You think it's ok for vegetarians to eat fish and chicken !? and then you accuse me of being picky lol


It's more a pity that some people think fish and chicken do not count as animal flesh.

You completly missed my point. Of course I don't think it's ok for vegetarians to eat fish and chicken, I was simply pointing out that the dictionary thinks it is. You said that you feel frustrated "when people try to muddy up definitions to make them suit whatever they're comfortable with" so I was just pointing out what the definition of vegetarianism actually is, which I don't think anyone here would aggree with so I guess we have to "muddy" up our own definitions.

oblivious

Its finings (isinglass), from fish swim bladders they used, so do lot of brewers. It does not stay in the beer as it binds to proteins and precipitates them out, thus clarifying the beer,which does not come through in the final product.

rockbeer

Nature Boy wrote: »

Yeah it is a pity that we need labels. If only everyone was a vegetarian, then everything would be easier...

But with the greatest respect, why do you think we 'need labels'?

Tar.Aldarion

It is a needed convention in society.
If there is not a vegetarian label on food, it is more complicated to order, and to know if something is vegetarian. If there are no such people as vegetarians, companies will not mke products aimed at them, there would not even be food labeled as such. Without labels things can't fuction well. They make life simpler.

cozmik

cozmik wrote: »

Defining yourself as "vegetarian" while still consuming products such as Guinness that are known to be not vegetarian friendly has more than a whiff of hypocrisy about it, but I guess that doesn't matter since it's all about drawing our own lines :P

It is impossible to know if your veg have been grown without the use of fertilizers containing bone and fishmeal, unless you can grow your own.
The calves that were needed to produce the dairy veggies consume will be killed for the favour. etc.
So if you want to look at it that way being a hypocrite is part and parcel of being of veggie.

sweet-rasmus

i though we had this 'labels' argument already!! ah well...

meglome

meglome wrote: »

I can respect vegetarians for their principled stance but I've found the majority of vegetarians I know have issues with food that goes beyond just animal welfare. Although that’s a discussion for another time.

I assume you are hinting at anorexia here?
Vegetarianism is a common tactic to allow teenage anorexics to allow them to take control over their calorific intake.
It simply a guise.

In fact I would go so far as to say the opposite. Young Veggie's are much more likely to have a healthy balanced diet, because the choice encourages people to learn to cook and think about their nutrition.

cozmik

Nature Boy wrote: »

You completly missed my point. Of course I don't think it's ok for vegetarians to eat fish and chicken, I was simply pointing out that the dictionary thinks it is.

Well you should find a better source to make you're point understood because the dictionary is talking out of it's ass.

kind regards

cozmik

cozmik

Moonbaby wrote: »

It is impossible to know if your veg have been grown without the use of fertilizers containing bone and fishmeal, unless you can grow your own.

Maybe so , but as far as Guinness goes it's a known fact that they use fish finings in production.

rockbeer

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

It is a needed convention in society.

It's a convention, but I'd take issue with it being needed.

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

If there is not a vegetarian label on food, it is more complicated to order, and to know if something is vegetarian.

Indeed, as I said above I can see value in the use of vegetarian as an adjective applied to food. This use isn't a label but a description. But even this causes confusion. How many times have people complained on this board about restaurant menu items being marked vegetarian that they don't think should be.

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

If there are no such people as vegetarians, companies will not mke products aimed at them

That's quite scary, but possibly true in modern society.

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

there would not even be food labeled as such. Without labels things can't fuction well. They make life simpler.

Maybe, but onions and oranges don't need to be marked "vegetarian" - people manage to work it out for themselves. I'd like to think they could manage the same for other foods. And does the world really need pre-fabricated veggie food? But you're still talking about the food, and descriptions of it, not the people. Why do people need to label themselves as vegetarian?

cozmik wrote:

Well you should find a better source to make you're point understood because the dictionary is talking out of it's ass.

He could hardly have found a better source to make his point, which is that the definition is not a fixed thing. You seem to to think you're in possession of the true definition of 'vegetarian'. The trouble is, everybody else thinks the same, even when they disagree with you. No definition is ever as black and white as you seem to think.

This is why labels serve to obfuscate at least as often as they clarify. I'm sure if we dig deep enough, cozmik, we'll find some behaviour of yours that would justify an accusation of hypocrisy. Not that I would want to do that, but I can't help wondering why you seem to feel the need to point the finger at others. Seems like you are defined by your vegetarianism. Why do you have such a problem with other people viewing things differently?

I dropped the veggie label and have never been happier. Still live a largely vegan life, but no one can start shouting the odds if I drink a Guinness once in a while. If you don't brand yourself, no-one can call you a hypocrite... and I got bored with all that relentless accusation and self-defence. In the end it's about what I do, not how I label myself, or what anyone else thinks about it.

oblivious

cozmik wrote: »

Maybe so , but as far as Guinness goes it's a known fact that they use fish finings in production.

Supposably so, but it does not end up in the beer

cozmik

cozmik wrote: »

Maybe so , but as far as Guinness goes it's a known fact that they use fish finings in production.

What you are saying there is that if you don't want to know about it is alright.

cozmik

rockbeer wrote: »

You seem to to think you're in possession of the true definition of 'vegetarian'.

No I don't think that at all.

rockbeer wrote: »

No definition is ever as black and white as you seem to think.

It is as far as Guinness is concerned, tbh.

Seems like you are defined by your vegetarianism.

Who said I was a vegetarian?



best,

cozmik

cozmik

Moonbaby wrote: »

What you are saying there is that if you don't want to know about it is alright.

Nope, I did not say that.

You said

It is impossible to know if your veg have been grown without the use of fertilizers containing bone and fishmeal

Which is a fair point, but with Guinness we DO know and yet some will still consider themselves to be vegetarians while drinking it.

Nature Boy

cozmik wrote: »

Well you should find a better source to make you're point understood because the dictionary is talking out of it's ass.

I conpletely agree, hence my point; we need to have our own definition!

rockbeer

cozmik wrote: »

Who said I was a vegetarian?

You're not?
So you're one of those carnivores who enjoys accusing vegetarians of hypocrisy :rolleyes:

And people wonder why I don't have much time for labels.

The Chessplayer

It's outlandish to say that vegans can't drink guinness. How do vegans manage to get through the day worrying about all this nonsense?

I imagine it must take vegans a whole day to do a grocery shop - inspecting the labels on everything they buy, and harrassing the young spotty-faced assistant manager in Dunnes as to why they don't stock some obscure artichoke-based sausages.

Personally, I have no beef with vegans, but I think there are more important things to worry about in this life than whether or not a pint of guinness contains traces of fish oil. If I had a vegan girlfriend I could be willing to make concessions such as a "go vegan" day on wednesdays or something.

By the way, do vegans have a beef with drinking milk as well - seeing as milking cows doesn't actually kill them?

Nature Boy

The Chessplayer wrote: »

It's outlandish to say that vegans can't drink guinness. How do vegans manage to get through the day worrying about all this nonsense?

I imagine it must take vegans a whole day to do a grocery shop - inspecting the labels on everything they buy, and harrassing the young spotty-faced assistant manager in Dunnes as to why they don't stock some obscure artichoke-based sausages.

Personally, I have no beef with vegans, but I think there are more important things to worry about in this life than whether or not a pint of guinness contains traces of fish oil. If I had a vegan girlfriend I could be willing to make concessions such as a "go vegan" day on wednesdays or something.

By the way, do vegans have a beef with drinking milk as well - seeing as milking cows doesn't actually kill them?

I think you're mixing up vegans with vegetarians, there's a difference...

The Chessplayer

Nature Boy wrote: »

I think you're mixing up vegans with vegetarians, there's a difference...

Eh no, I'm not mixing them up Nature Boy. How dare you!?!! :eek:

cozmik

cozmik wrote: »

But with Guinness we DO know and yet some will still consider themselves to be vegetarians while drinking it.

Given the sheer volume of veg that people consume it is reasonable to assume that you definitely have consumed something that has been fertilized with Bone/Fish meal or the faeces of factory farmed animals. And often if you strive to eat organic.

So to me it seems like the same difference.

Personally I feel that the animals weren't killed so that they could be made into glue/fertilzer/shoes and since these byproducts are already out there. I don't see the benefit of tossing billions of tonnes of them into landfill.

cozmik

rockbeer wrote: »

You're not?
So you're one of those carnivores who enjoys accusing vegetarians of hypocrisy :rolleyes:

You assume wrongly, I don't enjoy accusing people of hypocrisy but it's hard to ignore it when it's so glaringly obvious.

EOT for me.

regards

cozmik

Nature Boy

The Chessplayer wrote: »

Eh no, I'm not mixing them up Nature Boy. How dare you!?!! :eek:

Ummmm, you asked do vegans 'have a beef' with drinking milk. Milk is very much not suitable for vegans. Veggies don't eat animal flesh, vegans don't eat anything that comes from an animal

The Chessplayer

Nature Boy wrote: »

Ummmm, you asked do vegans 'have a beef' with drinking milk. Milk is very much not suitable for vegans. Veggies don't eat animal flesh, vegans don't eat anything that comes from an animal

Chap it's a pint of guinness. For god's sake, get it into you and relax!