Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I don't understand how something like this:

 

(warning: dead fish image with fish gore, don't look if you're squeamish or offended by pictures such as this)

http://www.stanford.edu/group/ccr/blog/Dead%20Salmon.jpg

(bears killed these)

 

 

isn't an animal.

 

 

Sharks are fish, they're pretty intelligent.

 

 

Snakes, reptiles, amphibians can't learn tricks, does that make them not animals?

 

 

tomato's culture argument was much more valid than "if you can't train it, it's not an animal"

Edited by Lady_Nightfox

Share this post


Link to post

The meat. It is very different for that of lets say, a cow. Or even any other mammal.

Because fish aren't mammals. :I And neither or chickens, do you consider them meat?

 

Most fish aren't too bright either. Most animals you can teach to do tricks, or have a wide variety of behaviors.

 

You can teach a goldfish tricks.... Have you ever seen a cow do a trick? I, personally, haven't.

Share this post


Link to post
Most fish aren't too bright either. Most animals you can teach to do tricks, or have a wide variety of behaviors.

 

Fish don't have that big of a variety.

......Goldfish may have a three second attention span, but you can teach them to go through a certain door with food.

Share this post


Link to post

Sharks are the exception. Not the rule.

 

Not true, I had a friend who taught a snake how to do tricks.

 

I had a teacher teach her frogs how to do tricks, plus her salamander.

 

I was using the training reference to their learning span. And intelligence.

 

yeah, I've seen cows do tricks too.

 

maybe I should've used more animals than just a cow,

 

the only meat I find similar to fish meat is amphibian meat.

Edited by wondersueak

Share this post


Link to post

 

The meat. It is very different for that of lets say, a cow. Or even any other mammal.

 

I've heard that eating bear is like chewing on a rubber band.

Share this post


Link to post

I've heard that eating bear is like chewing on a rubber band.

It's not if you cook it properly.

 

(To which, may I remind you, that I was not always observant of kashrut, and growing up on rez, bear was yummy)

Share this post


Link to post

the animals you are referencing are extreme exceptions. You can't say because one snake learned a trick (there's some term in psychology, something about positive reinforced behavior or another- kind of like my betta has associated seeing me with food. Doesn't mean he's incredibly intelligent, he's just made an association of one thing with another) doesn't mean that all snakes therefore are the same.

 

You have to look species by species. Some reptiles, like large turtles, are incredibly intelligent, then you look at a lizard that sits out practically begging to be eaten by a bird and you wonder how the species exists.

 

there are very intelligent species of fish, and there are species of fish of very low intelligence.

 

 

Besides, I'm going with science again - the definition of an animal (again, if you're on the internet, you've been in a science class. Don't argue this with me.) is an organic eukaryote generally multi-cellular organism that lives off eating other things rather than being able to make energy itself.

 

If you look at the cell structure, it is virtually identical to all other animal cells, including ourselves other than the DNA coding. Yes, they contain organs we do not. But so do cows - they have four stomachs, we have one. And cows are meat.

 

 

I can't deny your opinion that fish aren't animals, if that makes you feel better about eating something that breathes (by filtering oxygen through it's gills), bleeds, and reproduces for survival.

 

 

But I have to use my "but science says so" card. this has been researched hundreds of years - fish were classified animals at least in the times when people such as Linnaeus came up with the category classification system and the kingdoms of organisms

Share this post


Link to post

It's not if you cook it properly.

 

(To which, may I remind you, that I was not always observant of kashrut, and growing up on rez, bear was yummy)

Who is to say somebody doesn't like eating rubber? tongue.gif

Share this post


Link to post

But I have to use my "but science says so" card. this has been researched hundreds of years - fish were classified animals at least in the times when people such as Linnaeus came up with the category classification system and the kingdoms of organisms

This times eight hundred.

 

Science. It should be exactly the same, regardless of culture or belief. Science is science. :I Wish folks would stop using the 'belief' argument. I can believe in Harry potter, doesn't make magic any more real.

Share this post


Link to post

*shrugs* scientifically, you are correct. It's just my opinion.

 

I can't stand the taste and smell of any seafood. I don't eat fish xd.png

Share this post


Link to post

  But I have to use my "but science says so" card. this has been researched hundreds of years - fish were classified animals at least in the times when people such as Linnaeus came up with the category classification system and the kingdoms of organisms

 

[Puts on scientist hat]

 

Science says so is not a good enough reason. Yes, "Animalia" is the kingdom which makes up most living creatures, but there is no scientific law that states all creatures within the animal kingdom are meat.

 

Porifera are in Animalia, but they are not considered meat.

 

Who is to say somebody doesn't like eating rubber? tongue.gif

 

I've eaten rubber before, not like eating bear.

 

Science. It should be exactly the same, regardless of culture or belief. Science is science. :I Wish folks would stop using the 'belief' argument. I can believe in Harry potter, doesn't make magic any more real.

 

I don't see how science even enters into this discussion. "Meat" is not something defined by science.

Edited by NobleOwl

Share this post


Link to post

I personally an a Pescetarian, simply because I have never been fond of the taste of red/bird meats. I don't have a problem with other people eating meat, because I know our bodies are designed to be omnivorous.

 

What bugs me is when people eat too much meat. I believe in small portions at every meal and that the amount of food we eat today is too big. My father for example, eats meat for breakfast, lunch and supper. He uses a large plate and often goes back for seconds. I on the other hand, use small dessert plates and make sure I never overdo the recommended amount. (5 servings of grains, 5 servings of fruit/veggies, 2 servings of meat alternatives and 3 servings of dairy. happy.gif)

 

If you think of food as fuel to get you through the day, and not something that brings pleasure or a pastime, you can easily maintain a healthy relationship with food (meats in particular).

Share this post


Link to post

 

I've eaten rubber before, not like eating bear.

I meant as in "being cooked properly." Someone could like the rubber texture.

Share this post


Link to post

[Puts on scientist hat]

 

Science says so is not a good enough reason. Yes, "Animalia" is the kingdom which makes up most living creatures, but there is no scientific law that states all creatures within the animal kingdom are meat.

 

Porifera are in Animalia, but they are not considered meat.

 

 

 

I've eaten rubber before, not like eating bear.

I try and trust science until it starts making no sense. This rarely happens outside of too many big words in confusing sentences which I know they do just to make use lame man thinkers feel stupid. xd.png

 

 

As you say even in science it isn't clearly classified so then wouldn't it just boil down to POV?

*not retorical*

Share this post


Link to post

I meant as in "being cooked properly." Someone could like the rubber texture.

True, but someone *cough*Talalitha*cough* can like the texture of burned turkey skin, but you're not supposed to burn it that way.

 

As you say even in science it isn't clearly classified so then wouldn't it just boil down to POV?

 

Yes. And for me, it boils down to halakha. Does it have to boil down to that for other people? No.

Edited by NobleOwl

Share this post


Link to post

[Puts on scientist hat]

 

Science says so is not a good enough reason. Yes, "Animalia" is the kingdom which makes up most living creatures, but there is no scientific law that states all creatures within the animal kingdom are meat.

 

Porifera are in Animalia, but they are not considered meat.

 

I don't see how science even enters into this discussion. "Meat" is not something defined by science.

However, all vertebrates (containing the classes Agnatha (jawless fish), Chondrichthyes (cartilaginous fishes), Osteichthyes (bony fishes), Amphibia (amphibians), Reptilia (reptiles), Aves (birds), and Mammalia (mammals)) do have what is considered meat:

 

Meat is animal flesh that is used as food. Most often, this means the skeletal muscle and associated fat, but it may also describe other edible tissues such as organs, livers, skin, brains, bone marrow, kidneys, or lungs.

 

And I think the agricultural scientists (biologists and geneticists especially) would have to disagree with you. After all, without science, we wouldn't have animals yielding higher amounts of meat at the right tenderness and muscle to fat ratios.

 

-K-

Share this post


Link to post

But of course, it doesn't mean that they are meat. However, you could still eat one in some scenario if needed. Crazier things have happened.

 

They're also creating vitro meat, supposedly grown in laboratories. Without science, we wouldn't have that, too.

Share this post


Link to post

Meat is amazing.

Not just beef and pork, but the more exotic stuff, like horse, bison, seal, etc. Also, fish are good too.

I don't think I could be a vegetarian. Meat is just too healthy, and tasty.

Share this post


Link to post

......Goldfish may have a three second attention span, but you can teach them to go through a certain door with food.

Thats an urban myth, goldfish have been proven to remember things 1 month and beyond. Annnnywayyys;

 

I could never eat horse, seal or bear. Seals and bears because I feel that anything that is carnivorous would:

a - Taste terrible

b - Is a slap in the face to nature. We shouldn't be able to eat an animal that would be able to kill us if we lived in the wild. I never buy takeaway fish because a large percent of that is shark (which is usually marketed as 'Flake').

 

And horses because i grew up with them for my whole life. Though, in a life in death situation i may eat any animal, as long as i could slaughter it humanely.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Seals and bears because I feel that anything that is carnivorous

Seals are carnivorous?!

What?

 

And since I didn't grow up with any animals, or work with them very much, theres just no emotional connection. Though they are tasty.

 

EDIT:

Just googled it, and they are.

Wow.

Edited by zyxw121

Share this post


Link to post

I wish a bunch of scientists could get together and proved that so we could have it set in stone but as it is it is a flexible subject. How we ever got the thought they weren't  IDK but it really needs to be fixed.

*facepalm* It *has*, Crazy. Fish is a meat. Vegetarians don't eat meat. So if you eat fish, you're not vegetarian.

 

I really don't understand how you keep arguing this point. Read the definitions. There is no 'personal interpretation,' a vegetarian doesn't eat meat, and that includes fish. End of argument.

*bangs head*

 

POV POV POV POV POV POV POV POV POV POV POV POV POV POV

 

 

HOW MANY TIMES DO I SAY IT!

 

 

*calms*

 

Definitions are very shaky things and can be interpreted completely wrong sometimes. Which is why I wish a bunch of scientists could get together and proved that so we could have it set in stone but as it is it is a flexible subject. How we ever got the thought they weren't IDK but it really needs to be fixed. Nothing less will get people to see it that way.

 

Stupid I KNOW but that is how we are.

Say it til you run out of breath for all I care - YOU ARE WRONG.

 

Definitions are not shaky in this matter. It's like saying 'oh, a metre is defined as one hundred centimetres, but some people think it's ninety centimetres, so it's a shaky definition.' No, those people are morons. End of. It is set in stone, it is considered by the *entire scientific community* that fish is a meat. Fishes are animals. Meat comes from living animals. So fish flesh is meat. You can't make it any simpler. There is no flexibility. How many times do we have to say this?

 

Fish is a meat. No 'shaky definition.' It is an animal, it is ergo a meat.

This times eight hundred.

 

Science. It should be exactly the same, regardless of culture or belief. Science is science. :I Wish folks would stop using the 'belief' argument. I can believe in Harry potter, doesn't make magic any more real.

+1

 

Science is science for a reason. Science deals with facts backed up by evidence, or theories and hypotheses that are suggested due to reasonable observations or current theorems that are to be later backed up by evidence. It is blind to culture when in it's purest form as it deals with what is tangibly there - if it was culture sensitive, then it would be religion.

 

A metre is a metre, if you're American, Australian, Hindu or Buddhist. The Moon orbits the Earth whether you're from a pygmy tribe in Africa or living in an igloo in the Arctic Circle. And a fish is an animal, ergo its flesh is meat, whether you believe in God, Allah, Jehovah, Shiva, Thor or Zeus.

Edited by Kestra15

Share this post


Link to post

I have to agree with you on that one- most animals do have the thing we call meat inside them, including animals that are not considered "in the meat variety."

 

Science can be wrong, and it is itself. Not anything else. It tries to make sense of the world even in impossible times.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

I eat meat. Now about two weeks ago we went on a fishing trip, and we had to see the fish get killed. One second the fish was moving, the next, it had no head. If we had the right amount of fish, I would be happy. They would have been all eaten. but we had 3 huge bags of fish, like 30 pounds for a dozen people plus given a bit away to friends. In the end we had to throw some away. We could have gone with two less fish, and these would have been over a foot long each, and thats what I diddnt like. Why kill when you dont need to? It makes me mad.

Share this post


Link to post
A metre is a metre, if you're American, Australian, Hindu or Buddhist. The Moon orbits the Earth whether you're from a pygmy tribe in Africa or living in an igloo in the Arctic Circle. And a fish is an animal, ergo its flesh is meat, whether you believe in God, Allah, Jehovah, Shiva, Thor or Zeus.

+ 1,000

Share this post


Link to post

Read the definitions. There is no 'personal interpretation,' a vegetarian doesn't eat meat, and that includes fish. End of argument.

 

 

Yes, let's read definitions, shall we?

 

1 the flesh of an animal (esp. a mammal) as food : rabbit meat | [as adj. ] meat sandwiches | assorted meats.

• the flesh of a person's body : this'll put meat on your bones!

• the edible part of fruits or nuts.

• ( the meat of) the essence or chief part of something : he did the meat of the climb on the first day.

2 food of any kind.

 

____

 

meat n. --- the flesh of mammalian species, raised and prepared for human consumption, to the exclusion of fish and poultry.

_____

 

meat: n. --the clean flesh derived from slaughtered mammals and poultry and is limited to the part of the striate muscle which is skeletal of that which is found in the tongue, in the diaphragm, in the heart, or in the esophagus; with or without that accompanying and overlying fat.

 

___

 

 

pescetarian n. --- one whose diet includes fish but no meat.

 

___

 

THERE ARE MULTIPLE DEFINITIONS OF MEAT. "MEAT" IS A MEANINGLESS TERM THAT HAS NO STANDARDIZED MEANING.

 

A metre is a metre, if you're American, Australian, Hindu or Buddhist. The Moon orbits the Earth whether you're from a pygmy tribe in Africa or living in an igloo in the Arctic Circle. And a fish is an animal, ergo its flesh is meat, whether you believe in God, Allah, Jehovah, Shiva, Thor or Zeus.

 

By this definition, you're saying sponges and coral are "meat" because they are animals. Sponges are used in soup recipes, but I've never heard anyone consider them "meat." If you go with the idea that "all animals are meat," please account for these, and mind that you cannot change your definition, midway through.

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.