How can fish & sea-food eaters claim to be Vegetarians? Pescatarians are NOT vegetarian on ANY level !

Views: 3917

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

good point stacey...I like your thoroughness on terms.

but I think the only basis in this discussion for calling a vegetarian a hypocrite is because one vegetarian was calling a pescatarian wrong for being on this site. so some relevant points were brought up to show that this assessment was hypocritical, and not that all vegetarians were hypocrites.

I guess I should've mentioned that I'm an aspiring vegan. This is definitely a goal for me and I have been reducing my dairy and egg intake for some time, trying to find alternatives, etc.

Regarding my previous post--I guess my wording was kinda off--What I meant was that people who are aware of the factory farming abuse and cruelty and continue to eat animal products thereby choosing to support the cruelty and horrendous conditions where they say they love animals would make them a hypocrite. And I know you're going to say that can be applied to me as well which I agree with but like I said I am an aspiring vegan and trying to work out some things so that I can convert 100%.

What you call a more "thorough" definition I call a more expanded one. Vegetarian originally meant one who consumes a plant based diet. When some people decided they didn't want to go with out milk, eggs, ice cream, cheese etc... terms were invented and expanded to include those food products. This caused Vegans to have to invent their own word to describe one who eats a plant based diet. These terms and their definitions are all rather silly if you ask me.

I'm Pescatarian but consume no animal products or bi products other than fish on occasion, and yet I'm still considered more radical than a vegetarian whose diet contributes to much more death and torture than mine. Whatever.

I am an Acceptatarian. I just try to accept what I want to do in my diet and I accept what others choose. Some discussion takes place but I like to keep it on a more intellectual platform and not get emotions too involved. been there and done that already twenty years ago. I can't imagine not understanding my own diet well enough after twenty years to need to attack others with labels etc.

but we live in funny times. its all very interesting.

I like that, I shall like to be called an acceptatarian also :)

"I'm Pescatarian but consume no animal products or bi products other than fish on occasion, and yet I'm still considered more radical than a vegetarian whose diet contributes to much more death and torture than mine."

Fish suffer greatly due to horrendous over-fishing and not mention the suffering of non-target marine life aka as by-catch. How can you compare the amount of suffering? What do you think about this?

As I said in my earlier posts, I'm Pescatarian (with strict guidelines) for dietary reasons first. I do not consume eggs or dairy of any kind and except for the occasional consumption of wild caught fish (2 or 3 times per month) I'm Vegan. I have actually been Vegan in the past but struggled with it. I'm predisposed to Alzheimer's disease which has been established through my DNA and I have Multiple Sclerosis which has caused me to have plaque on my brain and my spine. I figure I can follow the diet given to me by my neurologist and nutritionist or I can take 5 or 6 other meds (which I've chosen not to take) some of which contain animal parts and / or are tested on animals.

Im answering your question, not excusing my consumption of fish. As discussed in earlier posts to this thread Vegetarians who consume meds and vitamins, many processed foods, eggs and dairy are also consuming fish (even if they choose not to understand why). For example, many processed foods contain white sugar, made from fish bone char. When asked how they feel that compares, they usually say they can't control everything. Additionally they're consuming products that are as detrimental to the torture and slaughter of animals as meat eaters. It's not up to me to call them out but there is no shortage of them trying to call me and other Pescatarians out (see OP) which is the only reason I jumped on to this thread in the first place.

This is exactly right. I realize I still have room to grow and tough decisions to make but like I said earlier, If I eat a piece of wild caught fish over a two week period of time I have contributed to the death of one fish.  If I eat processed foods containing sugar for example I've eaten probably hundreds of which were farmed in horrendous conditions with no quality of life ever. I've asked Vegetarians to post for me how this is better and not one has. I'm not trying to be provocative, I really want to  know why that is better?

that is interesting about that the origin of sushi?

Not quite Fruitfly. =) Japan marketed sushi to the western society and made it into a popular, healthy food.

If you wanted to talk about the origin of sushi, it's commonly believed that it was originated around 2nd century AD in south-east Asia (probably along Mekong river) where it's found that wrapping cured meat in rice will keep the food's freshness for longer than just curing the meat. (It's called nare-zushi or cooked sushi.) It's around the 8th century when sushi was introduced to Japan from China. It's only in 1820's were raw meat is used to make (Edo-style) sushi that are usually seen in restaurants nowadays.

Oh, I don't know the difference between nare or edo sushi, though the names are familiar. I haven't eaten sushi much in the past, but I have tried it in restaurants. I make veg rolls and use sea weed to wrap. they call it Nori...any relation to Nare?

But I don't understand the part about cured meat staying longer in rice, because  rice itself doesn't stay fresh very long, so how would that be a good combination?

Somehow there's only message option on your response below, so I'll doodle my response here.

So usually when we think about the curing the meat, we would think of coating it with a layer of salt and hang it up to be air dried in some cool sheather, which works well and will keep the meat for long period of time provided that the temperature is dry and hot. While around south-east Asia, the weather in general is hot and humid with monsoons, which doesn't bod well with drying out the meat, so what they do is salt the fish and wrap it in fermented rice and put them in clay pots. The rice will continue on breaking down and adding the flavour to the fish and also keep the flesh for longer (due to its pH level.) People then just eat the fish and discard the rice.

The usual next question will be: why those people wouldn't just use fish in their pickling? If they only use fish and salt then they will need a large quantity of salt to pickle the fish. If they don't use enough salt the fish will rot away even if they are sealed in clay pots. Mekong river provides the residence around it clean water. Unless the resident is living near where the river flows into the sea, they won't have access to large quantity of salt. Salt in the past is a highly prized item. There were stories of daughters were traded for a pinch of salt.

In the 18th century (the latter part of Edo period), there were much development in Japanese sushi, especially how it is made and what ingredients. Due to the smell of narezushi (kind of like blue cheese, fish, and rice vinegar in smell according to Westerners) and the time needed to ferment the fish, the use of the meat progressed into using raw meat instead. The new types of sushi that are developed during this dynasty and in Tokyo (which used to be called Edo) is usually termed as Edo sushi.

The type of sushi where you use nori to wrap rice-vinegared rice and other ingredients are maki sushi. It can then break it down into different types like uramaki, temaki, hosomaki, and etc.


Support Us


© 2021   Created by Xiao Kang.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service