Pesco-vegan wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
> > Pesco-vegan wrote:
> > > Rudy Canoza wrote:
> > >
> > > > Pesco-vegan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > usual suspect wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >>Pesco-vegan wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>First of all, there is no such thing as a pesco-vegan. You may be
> > > > >>pesco-vegetarian, but not -vegan.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Pesco-vegan is a term I coined to describe my unusual dietary choice.
> > > > > Do you have a problem with it?
> > > >
> > > > It's bullshit. "vegan" means consumes NO
> > > > animal-derived products at all, and not just limited to
> > > > food, either: no leather, no wool, no lanolin in hand
> > > > lotion, no products that were tested on animals, no
> > > > standard refined sugar.
> > > >
> > > > If you eat fish, you are not "vegan": PERIOD.
> > >
> > > If you eat fish, you are not "vegetarian": PERIOD.
> > > Yet the term "Pesco-vegetarian" is in common usage.
> >
> > I wouldn't call it "common" at all. As far as its use by
> > pseudo-vegetarians who eat some fish, they're simply trying to wrap
> > themselves in what they see as the glorious mantle of vegetarianism
> > while cheating. Fish is not even in the *spirit* of any kind of
> > vegetarianism, let alone actually being vegetarian. Fish are animals.
> > If you consume *any* animal-based product, you aren't vegetarian.
> >
> > > > But more to the point, if you eat fish, you are
> > > > engaging in some kind of stupid *rationalization* and
> > > > sophistry in how you justify the deviation from "veganism".
> > >
> > > Unlike birds and mammals, fish lack the brain structures
> > > that are associated with the processing of emotions in
> > > humans.
> >
> > Fish are animals, no matter how you want to rationalize it away.
>
> Your point being?

You aren't a "vegan" if you eat them, *and* your attempt to rationalize
why you eat them is crap.


> > They
> > attempt to escape if you try to catch them. They have an experiential
> > welfare.
> >
> > > If I am to be honest I don't believe that fish
> > > are really devoid of emotions
> >
> > They are all BUT devoid of emotions; but that isn't the point.
>
> You can not be serious! The whole rationale behind animal
> rights is built upon the premise of animals being emotional
> entities.

No, and your having said that demonstrates conclusively that you don't
know your ass from your face about "animal rights". It is NOT about
their emotional capacity AT ALL. You are simply, and utterly, wrong.


> > > but there is certainly more
> > > room for debate and the level of consciousness is likely
> > > to be lower for fish than for birds and mammmals.
> >
> > You are not competent to get into a discussion of animal
> > mental/emotional ability, and you know it. Fish are sentient animals.
> > Your attempt to rationalize eating them, while trying to wrap yourself
> > in glory as some kind of not-quite "vegan", is reprehensible.
>
> Thank you for your input.

I'm always glad to help.


>
> > > Other considerations: Consumption of fish is recommended by
> > > nutrition experts who don't have a vegetarian agenda.
> >
> > So is the consumption of limited amounts of lean meat, and dairy
> > products. But they aren't vegetarian, and sure as hell aren't "vegan".
>
> Lean meat is often presented as having a place in a healthy balanced
> diet

It has one.


> and some sources advise against red meat without noting
> exceptions.

They're wrong.


> It is not generally specifically recommended in the same way that
> fish is. Dairy products are rather controversial, recommended by some,
> frowned upon by others.

*None* of them are "vegan", including fish.


> > > In general it takes more land and more energy to grow meat
> > > than it does to grow vegetables.
> >
> > That's an utterly irrelevant point.
>
> It is a standard argument used by vegetarians

It is utterly irrelevant.


> and it is hard
> to argue against the idea that more efficient use of the
> planet's limited resources is desirable.

It's a total misrepresentation of what "efficiency" is. There is
NOTHING "inefficient" about using land and other resources to produce
meat.


> > > This argument is widely
> > > used to justify vegetarian diets but doesn't apply to fish.
> >
> > Of course it applies to fish, you dummy.
>
> Is it possible to have a conversation on this newsgroup
> without insults being thrown around like confetti?

Stop saying absolutely and unequivocally silly and stupid things, and
then check to see if it's possible.


> > Most fish are "farm raised".
>
> Not the fish I eat!

Baloney. If you ever eat salmon or catfish, you're most likely eating
farm-raised fish. But your earlier boyishly enthusiastic endorsement
of fish didn't specify wild or line-caught fish; it was just "fish".


> > There is environmental damage (perhaps worth the result; it depends)
> > from any kind of farming. Those fish that aren't farm raised are being
> > *seriously* depleted through overfishing.
>
> Again, not the fish I eat!

Yes.


> > Goddamn, you are wriggling around like crazy trying to justify your
> > consumption of sentient animals, aren't you?
>
> Doesn't feel that way to me.

Oh, of course it doesn't! Sophistry *never* feels or sounds like
sophistry to the sophists who spew it. They fabricate and dissemble
entirely naturally.


> > > The male calves born as a direct result of the dairy
> > > industry are either raised for meat or killed shortly
> > > after birth. If you drink milk, you are therefore
> > > necessarily responsible for the slaughter of cattle,
> > > regardless of whether or not you eat the meat. The same
> > > argument also applies to chickens. It is my contention
> > > that ethical justifications for ovo-lacto-vegetarian diets
> > > require far more sophistry than do pesco-vegan diets.
> >
> > You're up to your earlobes in sophistry trying to justify your fish
> > eating.
>
> Are you arguing from the perspective of an omnivore, vegetarian or
> vegan?

What difference does it make? The truth of what I say doesn't depend
on my "perspective"; either it's true, or it isn't.