Someone brought this editorial to my attention :up:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/heckler/some-vegetarians-are-queer-fish/2005/08/03/1122748695506.html?oneclick=true


Some vegetarians are queer fish
August 4, 2005

Michael O'Reilly has a message for all you fish-eaters out there.

Most writers like to build up to the point they're trying to make, but what I've got to say is so important that I'm just going to bung it into the second paragraph so you don't miss it. Are you ready? Here goes.

Vegetarians don't eat fish.

There. I've said it. And most readers are now going, "what's the big deal, I knew that". But an annoying percentage of you are saying, "well, SOME vegetarians eat fish ..."

Sure, and some teetotallers drink beer and wine. Look it up in the Macquarie dictionary. The entry goes on about vegetable and farinaceous matter, before stating "refusing meat, fish, etc" - because, and I'll whisper it here, a fish is not a vegetable.

Now it's true that, by the dictionary's definition, the true vegetarian is a vegan, someone who eschews all animal products. Many vegos stray towards dairy or even eggs.

But a fish, which you catch with a hook, which fights to remain in its environment, and which then flaps and gasps its last in a layer of bloody water at the bottom of the boat? Not very vegetarian.

Read more... (http://www.smh.com.au/news/heckler/some-vegetarians-are-queer-fish/2005/08/03/1122748695506.html?oneclick=true)

Argh. I hate having to register just to read an article.

username nofish1
password nofishimveg

I want to have Michael O'Reilly's baby.

:D

I'm sorry. I didn't have to register, I wonder why you did?

Thank you. I wanted to see if I could send an e-mail to the author but I didn't want to register. :)

I want to have Michael O'Reilly's baby.

:D

No! I'm going to have Michale's baby!:hump:

Vegetables or not, fish will always taste disgusting.

Vegetables or not, fish will always taste disgusting.
True dat.

I know a few self-proclaimed "vegetarians" who need to read this editorial.

Like my brother's roommate, whom I met while on vacation last week. He was thrilled that I'm veg*n, but got all peeved when I told him I wouldn't join the two of them for fish and chips. :rolleyes:

the catholic church has held that fish isn't meat for spiritual purposes and that's really relevant to some of the religion based vegetarians. But I've also had goat cheese as part of dinner served by a jain so why the big push for orthodoxy?

Fish isn't as intensive on the earth's resources, they also don't have much of a nervous system (this doesn't excuse all seafood like marine mamals and cephlopods which are intelligent). We're all free to make our own choices and shouldn't be afraid of being denounced by our peers in the veg*n cult of the soybean.

now perhaps thats confusing as to what veg*nism means but there's so many variations and reasons that it shouldn't be so label oriented anyway, you're just going to have to get to know someone.

Fish isn't as intensive on the earth's resources

Fishing as it is practiced is very bad for the environment... http://www.eurocbc.org/page221.html

I feel free to denounce whomever I so choose, and couldn't care any less who denounces me.

Fishing as it is practiced is very bad for the environment... http://www.eurocbc.org/page221.html
yeah environmental groups reversed their opinion of fish farming, see Patrick Moore. Your link just describes a few issues mentioned in just about all modern animal husbandry, innefficiency (they're working on veggie salmon and using other species which eat more phytoplanton), heavy metals magnified through the food chain, big agricorps. But there are less problems and many would prefer dealing with these problems compared to fishing nets or raising animals with feathers or fur.
I feel free to denounce whomever I so choose, and couldn't care any less who denounces me.We must sacrifice the unveg*n Scratch to the great soybean, the stomach pit of which keeps its prey alive for a thousand years, slowly dissolving its meal into needed nutrients, while the hapless victim is kept alive in searing, endless agony!

That only worked with the pit creature cos' nobody could climb out.

the catholic church has held that fish isn't meat for spiritual purposes and that's really relevant to some of the religion based vegetarians. But I've also had goat cheese as part of dinner served by a jain so why the big push for orthodoxy?

Fish isn't as intensive on the earth's resources, they also don't have much of a nervous system (this doesn't excuse all seafood like marine mamals and cephlopods which are intelligent). We're all free to make our own choices and shouldn't be afraid of being denounced by our peers in the veg*n cult of the soybean.

now perhaps thats confusing as to what veg*nism means but there's so many variations and reasons that it shouldn't be so label oriented anyway, you're just going to have to get to know someone.


If the only meat people want to eat is fish, thats fine with me, :nana: for them, as long as they know they're not vegetarians. They have their very own word, why do they need to steal ours? Also, I'm not at all convinced that fish don't feel pain, or desire me to eat them anymore than pigs and cows desire me to eat them.

Overfishing is a genuine problem, creating a ripple effect throughout the entire ecosystem of the oceans.

yeah environmental groups reversed their opinion of fish farming, see Patrick Moore.

That is incorrect. And Patrick Moore is a shill for industry, he is not embraced by environmentalists

http://www.fanweb.org/patrick-moore/bio.html
http://www.fanweb.org/patrick-moore/quotes.html
http://www.seashepherd.org/editorials/editorial_050801_2.html

That is incorrect. And Patrick Moore is a shill for industry, he is not embraced by environmentalists

http://www.fanweb.org/patrick-moore/bio.html
http://www.fanweb.org/patrick-moore/quotes.html
http://www.seashepherd.org/editorials/editorial_050801_2.html
Trees are a renewable resource, of those companies I know for one Weyerhaeuser is a very responsible company and very generous too with it's contributions to the Pacific Rim Bonsai Collection (if you're in the seattle area, it's a little bit of a drive but a good alternative to the traditional gallery on a datenight). No Patrick Moore is not embraced by bitter old colleagues and he has an emphasis on sustainable development.

Moore lobbies on behalf of industry - salmon farming (factory farming), forestry, plastics, and biogenetic engineering (he's pro genetically modified crops). Say what you want, but the dude ain't an environmentalist, and that's not just the opinion of a couple of his old colleagues. He's an industry lobbiest. I can call myself an astronaut but that doesn't make it so.

Moore lobbies on behalf of industry - salmon farming (factory farming), forestry, plastics, and biogenetic engineering (he's pro genetically modified crops). Say what you want, but the dude ain't an environmentalist, and that's not just the opinion of a couple of his old colleagues. He's an industry lobbiest. I can call myself an astronaut but that doesn't make it so.He accepts money, it doesn't influence what he has to say, he is a supporter of sustainable development and believes some industries have been unfairly targeted. I thought your own link had a very good comparison with both Watson and Moore essays http://www.seashepherd.org/editorials/editorial_050801_2.html
He's got a good point and I see more environmentalists seeing things Moore's way, for example there was a recent article The Economist about the renewed interest in nuclear power from environmentalists.

That's fine. He's a person who has some ideas about the way that the world should be. Somewhere along the way, there will be some intersection with what "environmentalists" think (and fish farming is not one of them, re. your statement "environmental groups reversed their opinion of fish farming"). You can promote and agree with his platform, but it's not one that is largely embraced by environmentalists, and I think it's a dishonesty to promote it as such.

You can promote and agree with his platform, but it's not one that is largely embraced by environmentalists, and I think it's a dishonesty to promote it as such.and the thread turns full circle to again enforcing orthodoxy.

Patrick Moore is an environmentalist. The environmental movement wouldn't be the first to suffer from infighting, deal.

Yeah, factory farming of fish, genetically modified crops, and clearcutting are embraced by environmentalists (like Moore); and vegetarians eat fish. I suppose anything can be anything, if you state it with enough unsupported bravado.

Anyway, the fact that your self-proclaimed industry lobbiest "environmentalist" stands *alone* in his platform - find some major accepted environmental groups who embrace much of what he stands for - must be revealing to those who actually find any use in terms such as "environmentalist." I just saw someone on this board take something that one self-proclaimed AR person said - but no AR organization or any serious AR activist that I've ever seen has ever claimed, in fact they claim the opposite - and insist on calling it an AR platform. Conversation is really useless when people insist on engaging in some form of doublespeak.

I just saw someone on this board take something that one self-proclaimed AR person said - but no AR organization or any serious AR activist that I've ever seen has ever claimed, in fact they claim the opposite - and insist on calling it an AR platform.That's your problem then, "environmentalism" and "animal rights" aren't just organizations, they're ideas. I was also into the ideas of Camilla Paglia for a while yet 3rd wave feminism isn't as entrenched as 2nd wave in organizations like NOW. There are mavericks within movements, just because Watson wants to hunt him down and stab him with icepick all Trostky style that doesn't mean he's not an environmentalist.

Riiight. The mavericks of environmentalism support factory fish farming, GMOs, and clearcutting... (And especially when that "maverick" makes his living lobbying for those industries. Notice the single "maverick," because he is not embraced by other "environmentalists").

And I claim that the mavericks of civil rights support going back to Jim Crow laws. Is that the case because I say it is?

You take the opposite of something, and claim it's that thing. Like I said, conversation is really useless when people insist on engaging in some form of doublespeak.