Poll: Why do people think fish isn't a meat?

[PAGEToap44]

I don't classify fish as meat. It's not anything to do with cruelty to animals, it's that fish acts differently on the body when eaten. Different type of nutrition.

 

[subject_87]

Apparently, fish aren't cute enough to warrant inclusion with pigs, cows, etc.

Also, I'm reminded of the debate that raged in the Middle Ages about whether or not beavers were fish, and therefore acceptable to eat on Friday.

 

[fullbleed]

Bill Bailey "I'm sort of a post modern vegetarian, I eat meat ironicly."

 

[nuba km]

I know some vegetarians that eat fish

no you do not, you know some picky omnivores who claim to be vegetarians. god, it pisses me off when people do that! a vegetarian is someone who does NOT eat animals, someone who eats fish is not a vegetarian!

the day i figure out the answer to your question is the day i understand whats so great about football!

What is so great about football? That could be a could thread.

 

[eggy32]

I don't classify fish as meat. It's not anything to do with cruelty to animals, it's that fish acts differently on the body when eaten. Different type of nutrition.

You clearly have no idea what the word meat means then, do you?

 

[Silvver]

Something about them being more gelatinous than meaty, meat or some such..

 

[eggy32]

If a fish eats another fish, would it be considered a vegetarian?

The answer depends on whether the fish is catholic, of course.

That was hilarious.

 

[Horben]

It's a conversation thing. Meat describes the muscle and flesh of mammals. Fish are not mammals, therefore their flesh is not meat. Just like you wouldn't use the word for "three" to describe the quantity of "two", you would not use the word meat to describe the flesh of fish.

 

[eggy32]

It's a conversation thing. Meat describes the muscle and flesh of mammals. Fish are not mammals, therefore their flesh is not meat. Just like you wouldn't use the word for "three" to describe the quantity of "two", you would not use the word meat to describe the flesh of fish.

What has a conversation got to do with this?
And meat described the flesh of an animal, not a mammal, and fish are animals.

 

[The Singularity]

Its because fish aren't intelligent enough. For example you can have a cow for a pet because it will actually develop a bond with you, because its at least a little smart. On the other hand, you have a fish, that will never actually like you. The fish just don't have good enough brains. Its the same thing with reptiles, that boa constrictor will be fine hanging around your neck...until it gets hungry again. A relationship between you and a reptile can only be parasitic, as the reptile will never give you anything back. While a relationship with a mammal is symbiotic, as they return affection.
Its also because for a long time people thought fish couldn't feel pain, which they can.

According to Catholic law/mythos...God said so.

And yes...the old moldy book said so. You aren't supposed to eat meat during lent but fish is ok, therefore fish is not meat. Anyone who responds saying otherwise will now be answered with screaming and yelling about how they are going to hell, and are a worshiper of Satan.
Yay religion!

 

[alinos]

the way my GF plays it is that most animals live a life of entrapment and a born and fed to be eaten

while fish are free till just before there killed(that said the only fish she ate was what she caught herself)

 

[Gudrests]

It's a leftover thing from christianity/catholicism. The whole no meat on a friday.
It's a meat.

look up why there is no meat one fridays....its....from what i know..has nothing to do with religion and more with economics

 

[nuba km]

It's a conversation thing. Meat describes the muscle and flesh of mammals. Fish are not mammals, therefore their flesh is not meat. Just like you wouldn't use the word for "three" to describe the quantity of "two", you would not use the word meat to describe the flesh of fish.

I know someone already pointed this out that meat is the flesh of a animal but lets say you are right with the mammal thing that means chicken isn't meat and therefore vegetarian can eat it(or that chickens are really mammals).

 

[Dr Ampersand]

The "fish is not meat" thing goes further back than Catholicism. In Leviticus, when God is setting down the rules for how to keep kosher (Jewish dietary laws), he says you can't eat milk and meat during the same meal, but you can eat milk and fish during the same meal. This implies that fish is not meat. Since Christianity originated from Judaism, it makes sense that Catholics would also treat fish and meat as two different things, and it's sort of become ingrained into a lot of people that they're not the same, even though they kind of are.

Did it actually say "fish isn't a meat" or that "you can't eat meat with milk but fish is the exception among meat". Because that would give 2 different results in what it defines as meat.

 

[asinann]

A lot of people don't consider it meat unless it comes off of a mammal or fowl. Then again, most people aren't that bright.

 

[Horben]

Words describe things. Couches, benches, stools, thrones, sofas, ottomans, recliners and other similar words all describe specific forms of chairs, but you would not use the word "stool" to describe a "couch"; your partner in communication would feel confused.

Meat describes something other than fish. When people in general use the word meat, they mean the flesh of mammals; the flesh of fish is part of another definition. Thus, in general communication, "meat" and "fish" are a specific, mutually exclusive types of edible flesh.

Sometimes people use the words to communicate specific attributes of a diet, sometimes they use the words to rationalize personal preferences. Either way, fish is not a type of meat because contemporary English differentiates between the two types of flesh.

 

[eggy32]

Words describe things. Couches, benches, stools, thrones, sofas, ottomans, recliners and other similar words all describe specific forms of chairs, but you would not use the word "stool" to describe a "couch"; your partner in communication would feel confused.

Meat describes something other than fish. When people in general use the word meat, they mean the flesh of mammals; the flesh of fish is part of another definition. Thus, in general communication, "meat" and "fish" are a specific, mutually exclusive types of edible flesh.

Sometimes people use the words to communicate specific attributes of a diet, sometimes they use the words to rationalize personal preferences. Either way, fish is not a type of meat because contemporary English differentiates between the two types of flesh.

General communication and colloquialisms have nothing to do with the actual, correct definition of meat, which is the flesh of any animal.

 

[CopperBoom]

I

i hate when vegetarians say they eat fish.

I think in general vegetarians are dumb, but I am a vegan.
Omnivores make sense, as do vegans; but vegetarians are complete bullshit.

 

[Horben]

It's a conversation thing. Meat describes the muscle and flesh of mammals. Fish are not mammals, therefore their flesh is not meat. Just like you wouldn't use the word for "three" to describe the quantity of "two", you would not use the word meat to describe the flesh of fish.

I know someone already pointed this out that meat is the flesh of a animal but lets say you are right with the mammal thing that means chicken isn't meat and therefore vegetarian can eat it(or that chickens are really mammals).

I always thought chicken was excluded from the definition of meat as well? I mean, when I speak to nutritionists they typically say "meat, fish or poultry".

 

[nuba km]

Its because fish aren't intelligent enough. For example you can have a cow for a pet because it will actually develop a bond with you, because its at least a little smart. On the other hand, you have a fish, that will never actually like you. The fish just don't have good enough brains. Its the same thing with reptiles, that boa constrictor will be fine hanging around your neck...until it gets hungry again. A relationship between you and a reptile can only be parasitic, as the reptile will never give you anything back. While a relationship with a mammal is symbiotic, as they return affection.
Its also because for a long time people thought fish couldn't feel pain, which they can.

According to Catholic law/mythos...God said so.

And yes...the old moldy book said so. You aren't supposed to eat meat during lent but fish is ok, therefore fish is not meat. Anyone who responds saying otherwise will now be answered with screaming and yelling about how they are going to hell, and are a worshiper of Satan.
Yay religion!

fish aren't stupid only fish in captivity don't learn how to self provide and become retarded (literally) fish in the wild has a perfect memory a fish in a bowl has a five second memory. also mammals don't form a bond it's just that most mammals live in pack and therefore follow the alpha if you are the alpha a dog or cow is loayle to you. cats for example don't live in packs and just go around getting food the only reason it comes back is because it knows you are save you will protect it and you give it food. while reptiles are natural hunters that eat what is available to preserve energy and keep there body warm and because they don't live in a pack and you aren't it's child it doesn't care about you.

edit: I hope your not it's child