Talk:Pescetarianism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Ethics Neutrality
I feel the ethics section of this article is poorly written. I don't believe the reasons cited for ethics are well stated and would like to see some real quotes with good sources or a summarized list that sounds intelligent. --Agent 2000 00:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree - i find this section entirely problematic. There is little ethical value in pescatarianism, it is just a food preference. If ethics were a big issue then they would be vegetarians. Much of the so-called references are little more than the personal opinion of one contributor. If someone is a fussy eater, why cant they say "Im a fussy eater" without trying to mae out it is an ethical choice about global warming or agressively farmed animals.Breed3011 11:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually thats the exact opposite point I was trying to make. I don't intend to argue the point but I believe it is an ethical choice often, for example me, one reason being avoiding factory farmed animals. While your opinion is probably common as well I believe the current wording makes it sound as it has no moral standing because it is worded in a skeptics point of view. I feel it should be worded from the view of someone who does feel it has ethical roots and then state that that viewpoint is disputed by others. Also, the article states that most eat only fish because they feel less attachment to non-land creatures. I do not agree that is the reason and the couple of other pescetarians I do know wouldn't either, I would definately like to see a source on that and see the "most" removed.--Agent 2000 22:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
but the fact if the matter is that the current ethics section is just a platform for one persons opinions - on this we agree. Wikipedia does not provide a platform for theorists or personal opinions - "balance" comes well behind "facts". Facts need to be sourced, not merely attributed to "most people" or "a possible reason". If it cant be attributed to a reliable source it is an opinion and must be removed. Breed3011 09:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I do not agree that its one persons opinion, the primary reason for pescetarianism, it least in myself and the few pescetarians I have met, is ethics. While you and some may believe that its unfounded and that view should be represented it should not be portrayed as fact. I do agree with you that there needs to be sources. The main thing that I think should be changed would be convert it from non-source quotes to a summarized form..--Agent 2000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.85.66.53 (talk) 04:02, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
sorry to labour the point... but when you say "the primary reason for pescetarianism, at least in myself and the few pescetarians I have met, is ethics" you are stating your opinion, not a sourced fact. The pescetarians I have met have no such ethical basis, they wear leather and don't care one bit about farming methods - If it was about ethics, then surely you would be a vegetarian (someone against the slaughter of animals for food) or you would eat organically farmed meat (someone who is opposed to intensive factory farming). The ethical basis is flawed. While I have no problem with a well sourced version of the paragraph being written, I feel it highly unlikely that you will find such sources as I believe it to be flawed reasoning. Good luck though!! Breed3011 11:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Possible resolution - perhaps the ethics section could be retitled "Ethical diet?" (with a question mark) or "Ethics and criticisms" or something of that nature. Breed3011 08:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree that I think that stating the main reason for pescetarianism has to do with ethics is flawed. As stated by another, many pescetarians, such as myself, do wear leather and don't have an opinion as to the ethics of widely accepted farming methods. Rather, it is a health-based choice to not expose oneself to the unsanitary methods used in commercial meat processing (i.e., exposure to e-coli), the steroids used in commercial farming, the cannabalistic nature of many animal feeds (in that many farm animals are fed ground up vesions of their same genus and species along with grains) and the saturated fat and cholesterol found in most commercially available mammals. Simply put, pescetarianism is viewed by many that practice it as a healthier way of providing protein in their diet. Madison360 12:34 02 December 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madison360 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] A vegetarian diet?
This article seems to have been going back and forth a bit concerning its relation to vegetarianism. Some people think that pescetarianism is a vegetarian diet, some don't. Personally I'm one of the latter. I think I'm in the majority there, but I don't have anything to back me up on that besides personal experience.
So anyway, until there's a good source that proves which is "right", I've deleted the mention of it being a vegetarian diet. Now there's nothing saying it's a vegetarian diet, and nothing saying it's not, or even that it's "similar" (which would imply not). People can infer on their own what they think the relationship to vegetarianism is. At least, until someone wants to write a NPOV, all-inclusive statement about it. Or until someone reverts me. -kotra 10:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Following two vandal edits by 80.189.226.45, I tried my hand at rewriting to Comparison to Other Diets sections. I'm not sure it's the all-inclusive statement we'd like, but I would like to think it's NPOV and fair. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find any good sources on the issue. Trevor Bekolay 15:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
it might be worth noting that catholics eat fish on fridays and lent because they don't consider fish to be meat. —Pengo 04:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Good point Pengo. The story of how the Catholic church came to proclaim fish to not be meat is a *very* interesting one, full of politics, CYA and precious little biological science. The historical, biological and political aspects of that resonate even today. 74.79.150.218 (talk) 13:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think that's really applicable here because we're talking about a lifestyle diet choice, not a sometimes thing. If I shave my head once a year, I'm not "bald".
- Could you get a cite-able reference for that? While I don't think it's significant enough to argue pescetarianism can be considered a vegetarian diet, I think it's interesting enough to add into the article somewhere. Trevor Bekolay 05:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
The website VeganPorn.org (not actually a porn site) had an exhaustive section on the history and veracity of vegetarian sound-alike me-too words like pescetarian/pescotarian/pesce-vegetarian/flexitarian, etc. To the dismay of users and researchers alike, Jason "Herman" Doucette pulled the site down without leaving any historical record behind. And that's a real loss given the amount of information that was up there. On that forum, there was a scan from a magazine that actually said "you can still eat some kinds of meat (like fish) and still be a vegetarian". As laughable as that magazine's claim was, it's worth noting -- because it demonstrates the utter confusion and non-functionality of the word. It's also worth noting that the term pescetarian is suspiciously close to "vegetarian".
I think there should be an entry on why the term came about, and why it still manages to persist despite not being a very functional term (in part because "pescetarians" have far more in common with the likewise-unpopular "flexitarians" and popular carnivores, and almost nothing in common with vegetarians). No vegetarians like the term because it muddies the waters (no pun intended), and the only people who like it seem to be people people who can't bring themselves to go vegetarian but feel a need to distinguish themselves even though they're still carnivores. It's also interesting that many "pescetarians" also eat crustaceans, mollusks, etc., though there's no sound scientific reason to think that the rules of biology are different underwater.
My friend, who is a linguist, said that the word fails on biological, scientific, ecological and ethical grounds. I tend to agree, but think that the word should remain on Wikipedia only because of what it can tell us about human nature. That is, that it's a verbal consequence of either cognitive dissonance, wanna-be-ism, marketing, or utter scientific ignorance. 74.79.150.218 (talk)
- I am a roman catholic, and does not consider fish a meat. I eat fish on fridays of the lent. I have heard that fish and chips (in England normally served every Fridays) was invented for lent when England was still a catholic nation. It might be worth noting that most catholic becomes pescetarian on Fridays of the lent, but the problem is that you are allowed to choose something else besides meat, like abstaining from sugar, etc--w_tanoto 18:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- As said above, eating fish for Fridays of lent does not make someone a pescetarian, it's not something you can be on occasion. Muleattack (talk) 21:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Tanoto you're mostly correct about the Pope miraculously re-defining fish to no longer be "meat" (I don't know yet how crustaceans fit in here historically). The pope knew more about CYA politics than biology. 74.79.150.218 (talk) 13:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
(response to first comment)Kotra, How the bleep can you say there's nothing claiming pescetarianism to be an aspect of vegetarianism? You are correct in that the two are totally, factually and historically unrelated, but that doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of confused people of there conflating the two. Poseurs especially. 30 seconds on Google will find you an endless bounty of vegetarians complaining about pescetarians who claim they're vegetarians, or about articles or restaurants confusing the two.
The only people i've ever seen consider "pescetarians" to be vegetarians are carnivores and "pescetarians" themselves. The use of "etarian" was an unwise move. The linguistic misappropriation deserves emphasis in the entry, as vindicated by the back-and-forth debates made here for some time. It's a controversial word on three different levels and so we should point out that it's contentious. 74.79.150.218 (talk) 13:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- I never said there was nobody claiming pescetarianism to be an aspect of vegetarianism. I specifically mentioned that there were people who believe it is. We appear to be in agreement in that area. My point was that, without any sources to back it up, discussing the "debates" in this article would be declaring existence of a debate that probably doesn't actually exist on any notable level. As far as I can tell, there are simply people who misunderstand the nature of the word "vegetarian", and everyone else. I think how it's worded right now (pointing out that officially, it's not a vegetarian diet) is enough. Unless, of course, some reliable sources can be found that describe an actual debate. -kotra (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
What would you consider "reliable sources" then? There's not a single vegetarian group that supports the term, and virtually every vegetarian site online has hostile comments about fish-eaters who feel they need to distinguish themselves with a word that is based upon "vegetarian". As a vegetarian since about 1986, I can tell you that it is indeed a very big fat hairy deal for at least ethical/religious/ecological vegetarians. Those looking to lose weight or stay healthy don't care as much that fish-eaters want to ride coattails, other than of course, that it creates cultural confusion, IE., the waitress to whom you tell you're a vegetarian, who brings you some a dish with fish in it (because she's been confused by terms like pesco-vegetarian/pescetarian). 74.79.150.93 (talk) 06:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think we are in agreement. Neither of us knows of any reliable sources that describe pescetarianism as a vegetarian diet. And in the absense of such a source, it shouldn't be described as a vegetarian diet here. -kotra (talk) 23:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] ethics
ive removed large chunks from this section - it was all original research... stuff like:
Many pescatarian believe that...
or
Due to the advent of global warming pescatarians think that...
well who says that is what they all think? It certainly isnt mentioned in ANY of the refs provided which merely state that the existence of aggressively farmed animals or the existence of wild fish farms but no link to pescatarians using this as an ethical basis for their diet - that connection comes from the writer - and that is Original Research - Breed3011 18:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- I looked at what you blanked, and I'm going to mark it up so it can be improved, and put it back in. —RVJ 16:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Stupid question. Ultimately, isn't all research "original"? Odds are i've dealt with a hell of a lot more pescetarians/pesce-vegetarians than 99.9% of the writers out there. I believe my own expert experience more than what hacks who write for magazines say. I've hounded one editor on this definition, only to find out her avoidance was because she was also the author. Her writing was "original research" yet her article would no doubt be accepted on Wikipedia as a reference. I may dig up her article to show what a mess the term is. 74.79.150.218 (talk) 13:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Please be civil. You may trust your own experience better than that of published sources, and you are free to make your own judgements about the sources' veracity, but Wikipedia's policy is "verifiability, not truth". The best Wikipedia, like any encyclopedia, can do is present the sources of every controversial statement clearly and objectively, and allow readers to make their own informed conclusions of the truth (or truthiness). As for "original research", in Wikipedia that term has a slightly different meaning than its literal meaning (see WP:NOR). -kotra (talk) 00:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Who is being uncivil? There's no way in hell that a clueless carnie who writes for a promo-instore-rag on this topic (she's neither vegetarian nor "pesco/pesce*.* either) is more of a expert than I am. The absurdity here is that I could easily have my words published in print, and then magically, it's as if my "verifiability" means something more. That is, my statement is somehow more credible when it's put on paper. And, I am something of an expert, having been involved in two related court cases. 74.79.150.93 (talk) 06:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Environmental Ethics
There have been some edits regarding the Environment Ethics section, and I can't say that I disagree with them. The two references in the section don't adequately show verifiability. If anyone can find some more links, that would be appreciated. I've added an OR template for the section for now. Trevor Talk 00:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Mention Pesce-Pollotarianism?
I want to make suggestion to add (at least a sentence) regarding Pesce-Pollotarianism. I am one of them, but mainly I am a pescetarian.--w_tanoto 18:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Most PESCO-VEGETARIANS are so for Ethical Reasons
I AM A PESCO-VEGETARIAN FOR ETHICAL REASONS. You will find the majority of Pesco-vegetarians are Pesco-vegetarians for ethical reasons, not health reasons. I like most other pesco-vegetarians differentiate between animals with a high level of sentience and animals with minimal or no sentience. I do not eat primate, mammals and fowl.
There is zero physical evidence that fish are conscious and feel pain, just as there is zero physical evidence that humans are conscious and feel pain. We only surmise humans feel pain, because we are human and we feel pain. Since pain is generated in the brain, and most humans brains are analogous in structure, it is likely most humans feel pain. The truth is not all humans feel pain. There is a medical condition where some humans do not feel pain. Since humans are mammals and evolved from primates, it is very likely most primates and mammals feel pain. The more distant a specie is from human beings the less likely it is they feel pain or for that matter feel anything.
It is very unlikely that insects and worms feel pain. It is more likely they are organic robots capable of reproduction. Pain and consciousness are called "emergent properties." Most experts in the field of emergent properties believe there must exist a certain level of complexity before the possible existence of emergent properties.
Some people ask, how do we know fish, insects, worms, single-celled animals, plants and rocks are not sentient. The answer is we don't know. But science works the other way, in science things are not generally accepted unless there is significant evidence for their truth.
I am aware of research that has found that fish have pain receptors. Some have jumped to the conclusion from this that fish feel pain. I have no doubt that fish have receptors that can detect various different conditions. The question remains if they have a brain that is able to convert the electrical impulses from these receptors into sentient pain and consciousness, It is quite possible and even likely that fish feel no pain, but merely react in accordance with some evolutionary neural net program. Fish may not feel pain, any more than a robot feels pain. There are robots with receptors and detectors. That does not mean they are sentient or conscious.
A sea-horse is not a type of horse. Likewise, a pesco-vegetarian is not a type of vegetarian. I discussed this at length with a top editor at Merriam-Webster. They said they have no problem with the word "Pesco-vegetarian." They do not find it contradictory. They pointed out to me dozens of compound words like sea-horse, where the first part of the compound word did not simply limit the class expressed by the second compound word. They said the meaning of the word was clear as it stood. Hence, there is really nothing controversial about the word pesco-vegetarian when it comes to neutral experts on the English language. Only vegans and vegetarians have trouble with the world.
Since there are more vegans and vegetarians than pesco-vegetarians this entry will be forever distorted. This is a good example why Wikipedia doesn't always work. I have had vegans and vegetarians call me and those like me murderers, because we eat fish.
By the way, even though I eat fish, I don't eat seafood for aesthetic reasons. If you go to any restaurant and it lists a meal as coming with seafood, you can bet they are not talking about fish with fins and scales, but clams, oysters, crabs, lobsters, squid and/or octopus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.61.232 (talk) 15:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- You might find this wikipedia page interesting - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance Muleattack 19:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you there Muleattack. 66.229.61.232 is full of AfI. However it is a typical example of those who embrace the term. I also am surprised that a Merriam Webster editor cannot spot the difference between sea-horse and "pesco-vegetarian", the latter being mutually exclusive terms, much like astronaut-FlatEarther. Also lost on them is the fact that squid and octopus may well be more intelligent than fish, cows, chickens and dogs. And many pescetarians do use intelligence or "sentience" (whatever that really is) as a criteria to support their distinction without difference. 74.79.150.218 (talk) 13:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] HOW WIKEPEDIA FAILS.
People will read this article and think most Pesco-vegetarians are pesco-vegetarians for health reasons, when in fact this is not true. I've met hundreds of pesco-vegetarians in my life, and the vast majority were Pesco-vegetarians for ethical reasons. These are people I met randomly all over the world. You are letting vegans and vegetarians define pesco-vegetarian.
- I am one of them.--w_tanoto 18:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Tanoto, if you "pesco-vegetarians" (your words) didn't cling to a word that borrows from "vegetarian", or the former, which actually includes the word "vegetarian" then you wouldn't have any problems- the vegetarians would happily lump you in with the rest of the carnivores (and leave you alone since you're no longer doing anything to confuse the public about biology or ethics). And you are a carnivore. You're making a distinction but there's really no difference. I suggest either coming up with a better word, or just stop trying to distinguish yourself from all the other omnivores/carnivores. Next thing you know, people who fancy themselves as more "ethical" because they eat "local" might start calling themselves locavores. :-) 74.79.150.218 (talk) 13:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Who the blazes is this Cometstyles person? I'm an expert on this topic, and have followed it's tortuous evolution over the years and this bleep goes an keep reverting all of my edits! 74.79.150.218 (talk) 13:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I removed ""Some health websites also state that a pescetarian diet is healthier than vegetarian and vegan ones."" because only one web site was listed. And it was non-authoritative to say the least. It also ignores all the other sites (FWIW) that say eating fish isn't a good idea. I also deleted it because any web site can say anything it wants- like the ones that endorse homeopathy and crystal healing. 74.79.150.218 (talk) 14:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Pescetarianism is not a form of vegetarianism, it's a form of dietry choice, nothing more and nothing less
Urm, seafood of all kinds are meat. Now I eat all kinds of meat, in no way am I ethical regarding vegetarianism etc... But a sea-horse is known as such because it has an appearance similar in ways to a horse and when the name was coined people believed they were an aquatic form of horse. Anyone that eats the flesh of an animal is not a vegetarian. My friend calls herself a "vegetarian that eats fish" to me, thats not a vegetarian. In reality, a human is just as robotic as a fish and as much as any artificial intelligent creature createable. All "pain" is is the feeling that something endangers the organism. Saying the pain a fish feels is any less important than the pain a mammal feels is, in short, ignorant. Jacobshaven3 01:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
While i'm on the opposite end of the spectrum Jacobs, you are of course correct on this. Well-said. Our values may differ but at least we are both intellectually honest about the science. 74.79.150.218 (talk) 13:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Health Benefits
It struck me as odd that the citation needed tag was attached to a statement saying that no data was available to support the claimed health benefits. On the other hand, "there is no data" is a clear statement. But it still looked odd. So I've tweaked it slightly - scientifically speaking I would expect those claiming the benefits to provide the cites, so I've moved the tag to that statement instead, and removed the other. - Shrivenzale (talk) 13:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey now this is *funny*! The bit about claiming benefits of fish- that goes down to Reference # 8? It currently is called "Get Hooked on Fish! by Sue Gilbert, MS, Nutritionis" (sic) and links to http://health.ivillage.com/eating/ewmeat/0,,79sxz0k6,00.html Well that site currently redirects to a page that just happens to have a front page story lead called "The truth about fish food" that links to "Don't Go Fish?" at http://yourtotalhealth.ivillage.com/dont-go-fish.html
That's so ironic, i'll let Cometsyles deal with it.
74.79.150.218 (talk) 14:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Red meat
The article fails to differentiate between white meat such as chicken and red meat and instead appears to treat all land based animals including birds such as chickens as red meat which doesn't agree with most definitions (indeed neither wikipedia articles include chickens as red meat). The appliciability of some of the arguments is unclear and in any case, by concentrating on red meat which is generally considered a bigger risk health-wise then white meat the article can hardly be NPOV Nil Einne (talk) 07:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Color of meat is of course, an absurd fascination with these people. It's meaningless. As if color of flesh is some ethical or health benchmark. Now if the pesky-tarians had any foundation in science they would talk about mammals, avians, vs. all the various underwater forms of life like fish, crustaceans, cephalopods, etc., etc. But they don't. The Pretendetarians should address the issue of dark and light meat in birds. It would be very interesting to see that one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.150.93 (talk) 06:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Websites
Certain websites are "saying" that eating fish is part of a vegetarian diet. Looking strictly to the word "Pesco-vegetarianism" on these websites they are not saying that at all. All they are saying is that Pesco-vegetarians are eating fish in an other wise vegetarian diet. Just as they at "ovo" to imply they eat eggs and eggproducts.
Like (exception)-(diet). Just a member (talk) 20:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
