Originally posted by dadudemon
I posted about that in another thread a while ago:Whadduya think? You like the idea or think it's still too confusing?
Of course, as long as you admit you aren't a "real" vegetarian, I suppose there's no problem.
Originally posted by King Kandy
Something always just bugged me about the phrase "Vegetarian except for fish". It's like saying, you're "Heterosexual, except for all the gay sex". Which some people do identify themselves as, but idk...Of course, as long as you admit you aren't a "real" vegetarian, I suppose there's no problem.
Yeah, seriously, you expect me to give up ALL the gay sex?!
😐
Realistically, there are "levels" of vegetarianism. "Only eats fish" is just one of them. There isn't just one set thing that it either is or isn't. We just don't have enough socially accepted or well-known terms to call them by. So it's a linguistic phenomenon more so than anything.
Originally posted by Digi
Yeah, seriously, you expect me to give up ALL the gay sex?!😐
Realistically, there are "levels" of vegetarianism. "Only eats fish" is just one of them. There isn't just one set thing that it either is or isn't. We just don't have enough socially accepted or well-known terms to call them by. So it's a linguistic phenomenon more so than anything.
There is levels of vegetarianism...eating fish is not one of them, that's a level of NOT BEING A VEGETARIAN ANYMORE!!!
Originally posted by King Kandy
Something always just bugged me about the phrase "Vegetarian except for fish". It's like saying, you're "Heterosexual, except for all the gay sex". Which some people do identify themselves as, but idk...Of course, as long as you admit you aren't a "real" vegetarian, I suppose there's no problem.
Well, there's guys who are "gay-4-pay". In other words; they're straight but do gay porn and/or gay prostituting for the money.
And mainstream sociology (and psychology) maintains that there's a big difference an action/activity and how an individual self-identifies.
Originally posted by King Kandy
Something always just bugged me about the phrase "Vegetarian except for fish". It's like saying, you're "Heterosexual, except for all the gay sex". Which some people do identify themselves as, but idk...Of course, as long as you admit you aren't a "real" vegetarian, I suppose there's no problem.
I assume its the same logic that makes fish not a sort of meat.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Well, there's guys who are "gay-4-pay". In other words; they're straight but do gay porn and/or gay prostituting for the money.And mainstream sociology (and psychology) maintains that there's a big difference an action/activity and how an individual self-identifies.
Re: How do Christians justify eating pork and other "Unclean Foods"?
Originally posted by long pigIf God isn't actually talking about foods when he talks about foods, what makes you think pork and bacon were on the sin list to begin with?
Anyway, if you're a christian and believe it's ok to eat that crap, tell me where you get it from. And don't try to pass off the vision peter had on the roof in which God told him to eat unclean foods. That was clearly stated later to have meant nothing about food and only about gentiles not being unclean.
That's like saying, "Give me one equation that results in the number twenty-five. And don't try to pass off 5x5 or 100/4. That clearly has nothing to do with numbers and only to do with arithmetic."
Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
I argee if you don't eat meat but you eat fish or any kind of seafood it is still a living sea creature.So people who do not eat meat should not eat that as well.
Only if they aren't eating meat for humanitarian reasons. Saying they "shouldn't" is a bit presumptive, eh? If it's for environmental or health reasons, there are valid reasons for eating fish but not other animals.
Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
I guess but most of them eat it because they don't want to eat animals but they are doing that when they eat sea creatures.
The ones that don't eat meat for humanitarian reasons likely aren't eating fish. Thus my point. I know dozens of vegetarians in some capacity. If they happen to eat fish, it's not to save animals. If they don't eat fish, they're doing it for humanitarian reasons (perhaps among other reasons, but that is one of them). You seem to be making up a demographic of vege's and ascribing motivations to them without having anything to back it up. I may be wrong, but my personal experience tells me you're looking for hypocrisy where it rarely exists.
Common sense should also dictate that there won't be too many of these people because, Catholic decrees aside, it doesn't take a genius to realize that fish are animals. I can't imagine many people saying they don't want to kill animals, then eating salmon with a straight face. Realistically, such people do exist, but just as realistically, not many of them do.
Also, along the same lines, what is "most" of them? Do you have statistics of vegetarian breakdowns? And what percentage of these "most" are eating fish?
Originally posted by King Kandy
Like I said, people DO identify that way, and I said i didn't know how they related to this case. So what exactly was this supposed to teach me?
It was supposed to teach you that you can take shaft up the ass and still be straight, as long as you're being paid to bend and spread cheek.
Originally posted by DigiYeah, for health reasons. I could also say I'm mainly vegetarian but I eat fish as well. 😄
Only if they aren't eating meat for humanitarian reasons. Saying they "shouldn't" is a bit presumptive, eh? If it's for environmental or health reasons, there are valid reasons for eating fish but not other animals.
Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
I guess but most of them eat it because they don't want to eat animals but they are doing that when they eat sea creatures.
Maybe they see clams, shrimp, fish and such as lesser animals?
Kind of like how most people won't advocate abusing mammals, even those slated for slaughter, but won't balk at squashing an insect or wiping out an entire nest...