Talk:Pollotarianism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] weird unsigned mysterious comments

Q: How about products that come from red meat animals, such as lard?

A: We avoid them completely. IMHO, Pollo-vegetarianism is false - Chickens can be proven to be intelligent and feel pain. Seafood is completely debatable. Shellfish especially are akin to insects and have almost no intelligence whatsoever. So, basing this on ethical reasons, we avoid anything that can feel pain, and thus can be exploited.

Q: What's the fish's view on that?

A: We don't just eat fish, we also eat many vegatarian customisations of meat meals, although I do like a cod fillet covered in peppers and melted cheese.

From a Pesco.Hoot 20:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Saying "pollo-vegetarianism is false" is a serious value judgement, especially as not all pollo-vegetarians base their deciscions off of reasons other than concern for the bird.Emmett5 04:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, not all vegetarians base their dietary choices on ethical reasons. Someone who eats a vegetarian diet for health reasons is no less vegetarian than a person who does it out of compassion for animals. So "pollo-vegetarianism" is not false if it is done for health reasons. And "pesco-vegetarianism" can be defended on both health and ethical grounds. For example, many people (including myself) believe that catching wild animals is generally much more humane than raising animals with modern farming methods. This can lead to an ethical decision to adopt a "pesco-vegetarian" diet. 21 June 2006.

Hate to burst your bubble, but pollo-vegetarianism is false vegetarianism no matter what the motivation. The definition of a vegetarian is someone who doesn't eat animal flesh (regardless of the reason), and chicken is animal flesh. Please understand I'm not trying to say pollo-vegetarianism is wrong or not good enough, I'm just saying it's not vegetarianism. It's something similar, but it's not all the way there. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 07:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

But that's kind of my point. They're not just calling themselves vegetarian. They're calling themselves pescovegetarian. That's why the "pesco" is there, because they eat fish. Just like a lactovegetarian eats milk. I could see the problem if people were calling themselves just vegetarian and eating fish, but they're not. 22 Oct 2006

That reminds me, I have a cousin who says she's a vegetarian, but not fully vegan because she'll still eat meat as long as it's not on a bone. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 07:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, vegetarians don't eat meat at all... Even if it's "not on a bone." Not fully vegan means that she could still potentially eat eggs, dairy, and honey. Not meat. Sept 2006

I'm a semi-vegetarian: I never eat fish or fish products. I eat anything else: beef, pork, venision, chicken, turkey etc. but never fish. However, pescetarians who call themselves "vegetarian" and "semi-vegetarian" get really arsey when I say I'm a semi-vegetarian too. Someone who eats any animal flesh (including fish and chicken) is, by definition, NOT any sort of vegetarian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by March 23, 2007 81.86.138.193 (talk • contribs)
A "semi-circle" is not a type of circle; it's a non-circle that has some of the same attributes. Similarly if you described a country's form of government as "semi-democratic", it would be pretty clear that you are saying the country is not a true democracy, although it has a few of the attributes of a democracy. Therefore, if you describe someone who eats fish but no mammals as "semi-vegetarian", you are not saying the person is a type of vegetarian. Quite the contrary. --Mathew5000 08:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps a better example: if you've ever been in a "semi-private room" in a hospital, you will know that it is not a particular type of a private room; it is a non-private room, albeit more private than a ward. --Mathew5000 23:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fish/shellfish feeling pain

See Talk:Fish - surprised not to find any information on Wikipedia about this subject whatsoever. o_O --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 04:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It looks like you've found an extremely interesting avenue for research. I look forward to reading what you find out. James James 04:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Seafood

Is there a term for when people eat no seafood? I know this might not be under this category, but I don't know where else it might be...

-- A: I've never heard of such a term, but might I add that there are a plethora of sea vegetables, classed as seafoods, that enter mainstream diets (most notably the Nori used in sushi cooking, but also Hijiki and Aramae). This might confuse your definition (if it is intended to label those who don't eat sea animals) or cast extra light on it (drawing it away from an ethical dimension, towards a matter of the palate, therefore including also these sea vegetables).

I think the word "seafood" generally refers to the bodies of fish and other sea creatures (crustaceans, molluscs etc.) but not sea vegetation like nori. I'm not sure whether you would include fish roe as "seafood". --Mathew5000 00:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
There are many ethical reasons not to eat seafood
1) due to years of over-fishing, some species are at risk of extinction. Even cod!
2) If I want to eat some prawns, 20 or more lives will be taken so I can have one meal. If I want to eat some beef, I'll be eating one of the several hundred meals that came out of that one cow.
3) fishing causes international disputes over who has what right to catch how many fish in whatever waters. When was the last time the Spanish invaded the UK to steal a couple of cows?

[edit] Food For Thought

While there seems to be quite a few reasons listed for people not eating red meat, I feel the most obvious, overlooked one isn't there: some people just don't like the taste of it (like myself). While it may seem brain-dead, I'm sure quite a few people follow this same philosophy, simply because the quality of red meat is typically so poor that it simply tastes bad to us. Or at least that's how I feel about the issue. 70.35.222.158 06:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds likely, I stopped eating turkey when I decided that it tasted disgusting.Emmett5 04:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm with you two. The texture of meat is what turns me off most of all. It's so dense and fibrous. Fish and seafood, a couple chomps and it's good to go. I've never choked on seafood; beef and chicken, dozens of times. Vranak

[edit] NPOV

The main page says that NPOV here is disputed, but I don't see any discussion of it. For my part, I think it's fairly clear that the one paragraph regarding "terminology" is NPOV, but I don't really have a stake in the matter, so I'm not going to elaborate. 68.80.111.166 18:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I have edited that section and removed the NPOV tag as I do not believe it is any longer necessary. --Splitpeasoup 01:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why do some vegetarians have such a hang up about other people's eating habits?

This comment is inspired by the amazingly un-neutral "objections to terminology" section (now removed from the page)...

I never understand why many vegetarians seem to hate people who occasionally eat fish but no other meat more than people who eat all kinds of meat, all day every day. Surely the less animals that are consumed the better? It always comes back to the argument that these people are trying to pose as something that they are not, as if the reason for excluding certain foods from their diets would be to adopt some kind of false image, or get some kind of "aren't I great, I'm a vegetarian" badge. This seems to me to be a competely ridiculous accusation - I can't believe that anyone would bother to exclude all meat except fish from their diet because they thought it was cool to be a vegetarian or wanted some kind of pat on the back. The fact that so many vegetarians seem to think this, and defend their own superior moral status so defensively, makes me doubt these people's reasons for being vegetarian - is it a private moral judgement or just a way of looking down on other people? If anything, being a fish-seafood-vegetable-beans-pulses-grains-dairy-but-not-sheep-cows-pigs-&-chicken-a-tarian (or whatever other long winded term wouldn't cause objections) just makes life difficult, if you try to explain your eating habits using any term other than "vegetarian" you end up being served pork by someone who thinks pork is white meat or something similar (this is a very common), but if you get tired of this and pretend to be a vegetarian for a few moments purely for the sake of not being served meat you risk getting your head bitten off. Provided that people don't go around preaching about the merits of vegetarianism whilst still eating fish (which I agree is rather hypocritical) does it really matter what people's reasons for their eating habits are - isn't this their own business?


I'm going to say that one of the big reasons is that everywhere WE as vegetarians go, we often get served fish. As you have stated, it is not all that much fun to be told that something that you do not eat has been prepared especially for you. Not to mention that people will openly argue with each other over whether fish is an animal. (I'm thinking this one isn't too tough...) 64.114.168.45 02:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I, too, found the biased tenor of this article shockingly preachy and unprofessional. However, I'm sure if we recruited some vegans to write about vegetarians we'd get a similarly biased article. Many vegans regard vegetarians as hypocrites, just as vegetarians regard Pesco-vegetarians as hypocrites.

As a vegetarian, I have to say that I regard vegans as the hypocrites - they regard mankind as being vastly superior to all other animals and wish to impose some kind of apartheid - it's OK for the lower animals to interact with each other in a mutually beneficial way, but man is far too highly evolved for that sort of thing, right? Bees don't consent to being kept? Please. 81.79.184.39 19:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Vegetarians get hung up on fish-eaters calling themselves vegetarians because it cuases much comfusion, devalues the vegetarian diet, and is blatently wrong. We have no hangup with people eating fis, do what you like, but do not call yourself a vegetarian. Show me any moderated ( not a link on the web - thats unmoderated ) defintion of a vegetarian that includes eating fish. See vegetarian socity and international vegetarian union for the internationally recognised definitions.......there is no room for fish eaters in the vegetarian diet. -

The difficulties involved in gradations of dietary restrictions are hilarious to me. I guess it comes down to people's need to put themselves and each other in boxes for the sake of convenience. For my part, I tend to describe myself as 'more-or-less vegan'; I have no objection to honey, and occasionally eat very small amounts of blue cheese, and in India I ate milk products because my usual problems with the dairy industry don't apply. I've been frustrated by being offered things with fish after telling someone I'm vegetarian, and it'd be nice if fish-eaters would stop calling themselves vegetarians and just say they don't eat meat, but honestly, it doesn't seem to happen all that much - I really can't see why it's a particularly big deal, but maybe that's just because Britain has so many vegetarians that people have more of a clue here than some other parts of the world? I note that atheists have similar vicious internecine conflicts, and I expect many other groups do too - the fear of being misunderstood is perhaps universal.
Anyway... I removed this particularly class bit of shameless npov from the article:
This has led to widespread speculation among vegetarians that people who use such terms are either terribly ignorant of basic biology, pretentious, or simply trying to create a particular image (thinking that calling themselves "vegetarian" is trendy but not having the consistency to actually follow through on the diet).
...but I thought I'd preserve it here for posterity/comedy. There's more chopping to be done here, I think.
--Oolong 18:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Different people have entirely different reasoning's for cutting certain things out of their diet; there is no rule that says you have to want to save every animal on the planet to be a Vegetarian (which some of the strict veggies don't seem to understand, due to reasons which they personally do not eat meat) some people do it purely due to what food's they enjoy the taste of...

Also, a Pescetarian for example; may just have moral obligations against eating land dwelling animals such as cows, chickens, or pigs... but don't have the same emotional attachment to sea creatures of fish.

For example; if you had a pet dog and a pet fish, and both died... I'm sure most people would be more emotionally distressed at the death of their dog.

Its more a close mindedness than anything, people's own dieting habits should be their own business, Vegetarians shouldn't have a problem with Pescetarians and vica-verca. - Deathrocker 01:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me first say, I'm playing Devil's advocate to some extent (though I do believe this sort of)--Let's rephrase your last comment a bit and use a different scenario. "People's own choices should be their own business, other's shouldn't have a problem with murderers and vica-verca." Most people would agree that it is our business to get involved in other people's habits if those habits are downright murdereous. Why do you think people protest against wars? It's a touchy subject, and for some people (like many of the people I know), it really is their business if someone is going out and propping up and industry that enslaves, tortures and kills countless sentient beings, mainly to please the taste-buds of humans. At the same time, I don't think being preachy and putting people down is the usually best way to really solve the problems with the animal industry, so I try to avoid it. Plus I'm not vegan (yet) so I really have no place to put people down for their eating habits. But I don't think it's hard to understand why some people would. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 07:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I think its a categorical thing rather than a moral viewpoint. A vegetarian is someone who abstains from eating meat - be it cattle, poultry, fish, crustaceans, insects etc. The term semi vegetarian seems unnecessary to me as omnivore explains it more succinctly than a nitpicking semi this or semi that. CiaranD 14:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, an omnivore is a person or animal who eats both animal protein (i.e. any type of meat) and vegetation, so this term wouldn't be suitable for a "pollo-vegetarian" or "pesco-vegetarian". Also, in response to "Ungovernable Force"'s comment, I agree that it is understandable that someone who believes meat is murder would feel justified in voicing objections to other people eating meat. What is not so clear is why many vegetarians seem to have a particular problem with pesco-vegetarians rather than meat-eaters in general. To borrow your analogy, that seems to be like objecting to murderers who only murder on Tuesdays more than murderers who murder on every day of the week! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.40.26.83 (talk • contribs) .

"why many vegetarians seem to have a particular problem with pesco-vegetarians rather than meat-eaters in general" ... It's because they call themselves "vegetarian" when they are not. Think of it like dilution of a trademark. Vegetarians have a vested interest in informing the public (and thus potential soon-to-be vegetarians) that vegetarianism means no meat, including fish. That's why the vocal opposition. If some people were promoting "bovo-vegetarianism" to mean "vegetarian except we eat cows" then you would see similar objections. — Coelacan | talk 23:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I've never understood that, though. To me, "vegetarian"= "eats veggies" (well, and some eat dairy and eggs and animal products like honey, but you know). Pescevegetarian= "eats fish and veggies". Pescepollovegetarian="eats fish, chicken, veggies" Similar to how androgyny refers to having characteristics of male (andro) and female (gyn). And "pescetarian" makes no sense at all, because it sounds like it you ONLY eat fish, and that's not a diet I've ever heard of (nor would it probably be all that healthy, considering how little fiber you'd probably get, for one, or vitamin C, or... you get the idea). To me, it's not any different from saying "vegepescetarian", except that "pescevegetarian" rolls off the tongue just slightly better. I have never understood how something silly like that gets to be such a big deal with some people, to be honest. As pointed out, they can't very well call themselves an "omnivore", since they don't eat pork or cattle (and possibly not duck, goose or turkey, considering "pollo" means "chicken", specifically), so it wouldn't 100% be accurate in the way that anyone saying "pescepollovegetarian" is intending to be. I don't get why people see this as a "modifying the word vegetarian" thing, when it seems to me that they're just stringing the primary components of their diet in front of the suffix "-tarian", which isn't exactly unique to the word "vegetarian" ('course, I also don't get how people can hear "I'm a vegetarian" and assume that fish is acceptable for that person to eat. I mean, what the fuck?? "fish isn't an animal"!? Salmon and trout aren't animals? Explain what kind of plant it is, then, because it's definitely freaking alive! :P Idiots. I'm not even vegetarian, and I know that "vegetarian" means "only fruits and veggies, and MAYBE select animal-derived things like milk and honey." Sheesh!) :\ 63.21.58.85 04:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly it! As a vegetarian, I've got no problem with "pescetarianism", because it's just a new word using a similar suffix. That and it puts a stop to the ridiculous notion that vegetarians eat fish. I just wish that there was a different term to refer to poultry-eaters instead of pollo-vegetarianism... because as opposed to pescetarianism, it isn't an entirely new word. And really, it's all about the public having the right idea of what a vegetarian is. There aren't different "types" of vegetarianism, which I think is what the term "pollo-vegetarianism" leads people to believe. - September 29 2006

[edit] Different articles for Pescetarian and Pollotarian.

The two are not the same thing... just as vegetarian and vegan aren't the same thing, so why don't they have seperate articles? - Deathrocker 04:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Why ? We are waiting for someone like you, Deathrocker, who knows the difference between the two to write the articles. -- PFHLai 19:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The two are very similar when you think about it. Both are carnivores that limit only certain animals from their diet, while adopting a term derived from the word "vegetarian". Both groups eat meat that they prefer to not think of as meat. Both make questionable claims about ethical, biological, and environmental issues - usually allowing for the the eating of their preferred food. It would be useful to see pollotarians and pescetarians debate each other on their respective claims regarding ethics, pain, health, ecology, etc. 74.79.150.93 (talk) 08:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] disappearing comment

"Noteworthy is that not a single vegetarian organization considers the term a valid one. This is biased information."

That was an html comment at the end of the first paragraph of the article. It was removed today, and I agree it doesn't so much belong there as it does here. If the first part ("not a single...") of this claim can be substantiated then that does belong in the article. — Coelacan | talk 23:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

That's backwards. There are thousands of vegetarian groups out there- how many will suffice to stifle your impulse to remove accurate definitional information? If you find the statement to be invalid Coelacan, then by all means, show us a single vegetarian group that considers the term pollotarian (or pollo-vegetarian, or pescetarian) to be valid. You won't find any. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.150.93 (talk) 07:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just a minor edit I made

A moment ago, the article said "In fact most people's fish consumption causes no health concerns, since most do not get enough fish in their diet." I changed "enough" to "much" as fish is not needed in a human diet. --PsychoCola 01:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

And pray tell, what is "enough fish" for a human diet anyway? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.150.93 (talk) 08:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Subject title should be changed?

"Pesco/pollo vegetarianism" is an Oxymoron since vegetarians don't eat meat and by combining it with either of those prefixes suggests that they do. You can no more have a Pesco-vegetarian than you could a carni-vegetarian, being a vegetarian that will eat any meat.

Pescetarianism would be a more appropriate title and doesn't - as has been suggested earlier - mean that the diet purely involves fish just as vegetarianism doesn't mean that the diet purely involves vegetables.

Also, as suggested earlier, I do think that Pollotarian should also be a seperate article.

86.14.2.130 00:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with this. Not only that, but "pescetarian" is simply a more commonly used word. Doing a quick google search for "Pescetarian" returns 21,400 results, where as "Pesco-vegetarian" returns 15,200 results. Technically, this article has nothing to do with vegetarianism aside from the name that some people like to use. In the end, it is confusing for non-vegetarians, and makes life difficult for vegetarians (when people assume that they must eat fish, because other 'vegetarians' do). Cpoupart 17:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should the article be split?

It has been asked above if the article should be split. I am of the opinion that it should be, since they are two different things topics (though, with some similarities). However, it is possible that there is not enough subject matter to split them.

If the page is not split, it should certainly be re-named. Neither Pesco-vegetarian isn't nearly as commonly used "pescetarian". Pollotarian and pollo-vegetarian are hardly used at all (this is just going by results turned up by google searches). In fact the "hardly used 'semi-vegetarian' term returns the most results at 45,900. Cpoupart 03:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I've created a partial split and given Pescetarianism its own article. I suppose this one could be turned into an article on Pollotarianism or a disambiguation (though a disambiguation wouldn't make much sense as these are entirely different dietry patterns). - The Daddy 17:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

OK I've got it done and this is a Pollotarianism article, it doesn't have quite as much information as pesce, as I'm not as familar with the rationale, ethics, etc behind this one. Perhaps a pollotarian can expand it? - The Daddy 17:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pescetarian and Pollotarian vs Pesco-vegetarian and Pollo-vegetarian

I reverted a large change to the terminology of these sections. While I agree that some changes should be made for consistency and information reasons, the changes as made were too sweeping. While we all know that you can't eat animal products and be a vegetarian at the same time, there are well established groups (almost exclusively restricted to the USA), such as the American Heart Association who includes "semi-vegetarian" as a vegetarian diet where people consume poultry and fish. [1]. I would suggest changing all titles and wording to "pescetarian" and "pollotarian", with a note that they are also sometimes called other things. As well as a note that these are not types of vegetarianism as recognized by any established vegetarian society, but rather only by some American organizations (unless someone can turn up similar reputable sources for outside of the US. I have been unable to, looking through the UK, France, Canada and Australia). --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 16:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

CPoupart, you perhaps misunderstand the AHA link you provided. They were simply referring to people who are not quite vegetarian, not defining a new term. Further, they are not the definitive authority on vegetarianism.

It's neither honest nor historically-minded to remove terms like pollo-vegetarian, nor pesce-vegetarian. While these are indeed blatant oxymorons, they show the derivation of the shortened-form of the words from "vegetarian". It also illuminates the basic problems with these terms, and demonstrates why the terms are controversial, for ethical and scientific reasons. I do however wholeheartedly agree with you that these are words not related to vegetarianism, but we must also not ignore that the words are themselves problematic precisely because they make the fatal mistake of malappropriating whole or part of the word "vegetarian". These people should just consider calling themselves what they are: carnivores. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.150.93 (talk) 08:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rationale for Pescetarianism section edit and content removal

I removed content describing pescetarians not implying vegetarianism due to redundancy. The terminology section already says "...restricted diets that do not meet the definition of more restrictive diets such as vegetarianism or veganism" which in my opinion already establishes that pesco/pollo vegetarians are not implying strict vegetarianism. Also, it would probably be good to avoid "should not" or "no such thing as" if one chooses to put the comment back, due to POV issues. Thanks! Xantres 00:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be more clear if the adherents of the diet stopped using words based on "vegetarian". 74.79.150.93 (talk) 08:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rationale for Rationale section edit and content removal

I edited toxin-concerns to read "careful selection" instead of "right selection" due to POV concerns; we cannot tell people what kind of fish is right or wrong but we can advise what would be most careful or careless in terms of ingesting toxins. Also, I removed the portion listing fish not being a health concern because "most people don't eat it;" this changes based on who you talk to, what country, what culture, et cetera. It seemed POV to say that everyone worldwide does not eat much fish; if they didn't, we wouldn't have the environmental problems listed further down on the article. Just a thought, change it if you want -- thanks! Xantres 00:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] scientific terminology for these dietary restrictions?

Surely there are academic journals on nutrition, food science, medicine, and so forth that have developed terminology better than that used in this article? Part of the problem with a word like "pescetarian" is that it suggests the individual only eats fish, when in fact the person might well have a diet that consists largely of fruit, vegetables, grain, and dairy, with only a small amount of fish. On the other hand, a word like "pescevegetarian" is too much of a mouthful to say, and in addition it pisses off vegetarians because it implies that this type of diet is a form of vegetarianism.

What about using terms along the lines of:

  • "nonmammalivore" (abbreviated NMV) for someone who eats chicken etc. but not beef, pork or other mammal meat
  • "nonamniovore" (abbreviated NAV) for someone who eats fish, shellfish, etc. and perhaps frogs, but not mammals, birds, or reptiles (see amniote)
  • "nontetrapodivore" (abbreviated NTPV) for someone who does not eat mammals, reptiles, birds, or amphibians (see tetrapod).

--Mathew5000 00:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Some standardised terms like this would be useful.
I never realised birds were tetrapods! This must be the "Animal Farm" definition (a wing facilitates motion) ;-)

--User:unregistered 18:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

These terms are really good. I am a nonmammalivore and I thank you for the term.