8 ms·

I like the term part-time vegetarian. As a full-time vegetarian and part-time vegan, it has always been difficult to correct the confusion caused by people that

by vertis 6y ago

I like the term part-time vegetarian. As a full-time vegetarian and part-time vegan, it has always been difficult to correct the confusion caused by people that say they're vegetarian and then eat fish or something similar. 'Part-time' encapsulates the intent nicely.

tashoecraft 6y ago
Part time is great. I'm part time vegan (probably 90% of my meals), but I still rarely have meat, dairy, everything. I dislike the idea that if you aren't always vegan/vegetarian you've "failed". Like it's some religion that if you ever strayed you have some mark against you. It's so much easier to go 90% than 100, and I bet many more people would be willing to go 90% than 100%. We'll make major strids to improving the environment, improving our populations health, and improving the well being of animals if a majority of people have a goal of 90% rather than full removal.
- godelski 6y ago
  Even just getting people to go mostly chicken over beef has a big impact. This also creates a way to ease into a more plant based diet. Personally I've found the 90% aspect easier. I don't have to worry if my vegetarian meals have something like chicken stock in them. It is about eating healthier and a lower carbon diet than being 100% perfect. Just needs to be good enough.
  - galangalalgol 6y ago
    What about pescatarian (sp?)? I like the idea of ditching dependence on land based animals. Is sane tilapia farming sustainable? I have a fairly strong intolerance for beans and pulses and getting enough protein to deadlift from other sources is hard. The best my blood work has ever been was me eating about 1.3lbs of grassfed beef a day plus greens and 4 sweet potatoes. Thats great, but not sustainable for our whole population.
    - SEJeff 6y ago
      I'm an omnivoire, but can't you get a lot of vegan protein from chickpeas and soy? Soy does have the obvious huge downside of containing a much higher amount of estrogen and causes havoc in some people, but Chickpeas aren't hard to make delicious. Ditto for lentils as well
      - vram22 6y ago
        > Chickpeas aren't hard to make delicious. Ditto for lentils as well Yes. Check out my other comment about beans in this thread. All the dishes I mentioned there are pretty tasty. And so are lentils, if by that you meant masoor or masoor dal, or even if you meant tuar dal). And all those are high in protein as you say.
        galangalalgol 6y ago
        I love Indian curries, but one serving obbeans or pulses will haunt me for a couple days. I don't know if it is sibo related, but I do have that. Cauliflower, blackberries, and mushrooms destroy me too.
        vram22 6y ago
        Tough luck. Maybe some people are more prone to such issues. >sibo A typo? An acronym?
        galangalalgol 6y ago
        Small intestine bacterial overgrowth. Often due to overuse of antibiotics in childhood. I'm not complaining, probably would have died without them.
        vram22 6y ago
        Had not heard of SIBO. Good to know. Wonder if yogurt and other fermented foods that increase good gut bacteria can help.
  - yboris 6y ago
    Depends on the reason behind being vegan / vegetarian. If it's to reduce animal suffering, eating chicken is almost certainly causing a greater amount of animal suffering than if you eat cows. https://reducing-suffering.org/how-much-direct-suffering-is-caused-by-various-animal-foods/#Results_table https://reducing-suffering.org/how-much-direct-suffering-is-...
    - srg0 6y ago
      I find the approach of the cited web page very strange. Basically, it says, the longer the animal lives, the more it suffers. Throws in some arbitrary multipliers, divides by mass, and voilà. I would not call healthy animal life as suffering. Details matter. We all have seen peaceful cows and healthy fish. What counts, IMO, is fear, stress, pain, and the way animals are dying. That's not accounted in the article. One may argue that the number of lives taken counts too. And then eating beef or whale meat will kill fewer animals than eating chicken or insects (of we don't count what whales eat). But in my opinion eating insects would cause less suffering. Overall I think that eating smaller animals more frequently is more natural and oppotunistic. And eating cheaper meat will reduce overall carbon and water footprint.
      - yboris 6y ago
        From the welfare perspective, if the cows are just out in a large pasture, they will likely have net-positive experiences across their lives. But there are animals that have overwhelmingly negative experience throughout their lives (pigs confined to a cage where they can't turn around). As for chickens, >99% of which grow up in cramped conditions, with no access to the outside, with selective breeding causing them to grow so fast they often can't move, it is better to never have been (their lives are a net negative experience). It's unfortunate, with respect to emissions, cows are worse than chickens, but with respect to suffering on sentient creatures, chickens are worse than cows. Great news! There's a solution: eating fewer of both.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- xur17 6y ago
  This is a fantastic way to look at it. It feels like a perfect application of the 80 / 20 rule -> with 20% of the effort, you can get 80% of the benefits of being vegetarian / vegan.
  - Zancarius 6y ago
    Definitely. Not the OP you were replying to, but I love meat of all types. I also love vegetables. I also really like some vegetarian foods. Actually, I just like food, but I can't each much of it at one sitting. I think the other proposition is that, for whatever reason, there's this push to market vegetarian foods as substitutes to lure in traditional meat eaters rather than putting effort toward convincing them that they're alternatives that taste just as good. Like bean burgers. I absolutely love bean burgers because regular burgers just don't sit right with me half the time. But I don't treat them as a substitute--I treat them as an alternative that is delicious and unique in its own right AND to be enjoyed as such. I mean, let's be honest: There's so many different varieties of beans, and so many things you can do with them, that even speaking as a meat eater, it's almost impossible to get bored with how many different dishes you can make (with no meat)! One example that comes to mind that's semi-vegetarian is a black bean enchilada recipe I make from time to time. Just beans. Only non-vegetarian item is the cheese (and sometimes the corn tortillas because of lard, if you get them fresh). Doesn't feel heavy, tastes amazing, and it's super filling. Have a side of refried beans (I like beans)[1], Spanish rice, a salad, and it's like a restaurant-style meal. Err. Didn't mean to make this reply so long. Sorry. I guess I just love cooking, too. And yes, it's not that much effort to at least cut out red meat from your diet. Way healthier too. [1] The people around you probably won't like the side effects.
    - vram22 6y ago
      If by your [1] you mean flatulence, Indians (and some other Asians) eat many kinds of legumes (including many kinds of beans, like rajma, lobia, French beans, etc.), on a regular basis, and I, at least, have not heard of flatulence as a common thing among them due to that. Only if you indulge a bit too much in say chana (chickpeas, as in chana masala or puri chole or bhature chole), do you sometimes get gas. Possibly the Indian masala's spices used in those dishes help with digesting the beans, in fact they probably do, since they are the common ones used in Indian cooking, some of which have known digestive benefits, such as cumin, ginger, coriander, asafoetida, etc. (BTW, tip: just a pinch of asafoetida a.k.a. hing, really improves a dish; the zing of hing :) Also, I saw a video about nutrition by some scientist, who said that peoples (i.e. nations) who eat beans regularly, develop, over time, the ability (maybe via better gut flora) to digest them more easily, without gas being generated.
- Gibbon1 6y ago
  I have a friend that is mostly a vegetarian because he thinks a) the meat industry is often cruel. b) very destructive environmentally. I'm okay with that. I don't eat veal or fish for the same reasons[1]. Veal is cruel. And fishing is horribly destructive. Where someone draws a line isn't as important as they do. [1] Don't get me started though with Hippie Brahmans that won't eat chicken or beef but eat fish for 'heath reasons'
- seanwilson 6y ago
  > I dislike the idea that if you aren't always vegan/vegetarian you've "failed". In the case you're vegan because you think it's unethical to kill for food, why should you get a break here? I can't think of other ethical issues where you wouldn't be looked down for going against your firmly held beliefs. "Mostly plant-based diet" sounds like a better term if you're less concerned about the animal suffering aspect. Vegan would also include not wearing leather for example so it might be a case of you not using the right word.
  - tashoecraft 6y ago
    And I disagree with the leather part because leather production isn’t causing animals to be killed. It’s a by product of the, mostly beef industry. It would take a massive decline in beef production to cause cows to be killed purely for their leather. Leather goods also last decades. I believe more in a overall balance. You can’t get everyone to be vegan, the earth simply can’t support that.
    - seanwilson 6y ago
      > It’s a by product of the, mostly beef industry. You're supporting and putting more money into the beef industry by buying leather though. You don't kill cows directly by buying milk either, but the milked cow will eventually be slaughtered for meat too and its male offspring used as veal. > I believe more in a overall balance. You can’t get everyone to be vegan, the earth simply can’t support that. Fair enough, but "vegan" isn't the term to use to describe your beliefs then.
    - luckman212 6y ago
      You can’t get everyone to be vegan, the earth simply can’t support that. Genuinely curious, why can't Earth support everyone eating vegan? I thought it took more land, water, soil, and resources in general to produce meat? Is it about transportation, or Arctic climates where fresh fruit and veg is not available?
      - seanwilson 6y ago
- goda90 6y ago
  And honestly, animals will play an important role in sustainable agriculture, so animal products will still be part of our lives. I was watching a presentation about soil health by a farmer. They don't use fertilizers, pesticides, irrigation, etc because of a system of cover crops, free range animals, and mob grazing(a dense herd moved through the field quickly to trample and poop all over) to build healthy soil. The problems we have are from factory farms, monocultures, and destroying old growth ecosystems so more people can consume in excess, instead of moderation.
dheera 6y ago
I also wish people would stop thinking of vegetarianism as a black-and-white concept. Moreover, the people who are quickest to point out that "you're not really vegetarian" are the ones who eat meat regularly :( Especially for someone who is vegetarian to reduce carbon emissions, 90%, 95%, and 100% aren't that different, and hell even 50% is a tremendous reduction especially if it means that it's easier to convince 5 people to do 50% than 1 person to do 100%. Occasional indulgence was never the problem for the environment, and people should know that's okay to occasionally indulge, it doesn't need to be black and white.
- vertis 6y ago
  Indeed. I'm not a big fan of militant vegetarianism/veganism. I think it creates a barrier to entry. It's one of the reasons that a lot of products now describe themselves as 'plant-based' rather than vegan. As someone who grew up vegetarian, things have changed drastically in the last 30 years. I grew up eating some truly niche meat-replacement products[1][2]. Things like 'Impossible Burgers' and 'Beyond Meat' have changed the experience significantly. There is still a long way to go, and it's not just about taste, but also nutrition. However it has made it much more appealing to use those alternatives, and reduce the use of meat. My own vegetarian/vegan mix is also occasionally broken when people don't know that I'm vegetarian, and serve meat. I have long decided not to make a scene. One of my of ex-colleagues never found out I'm vegetarian, because of an incident where they invited everyone out to dinner and it turned out to be at a fancy sushi restaurant (share-plates, yay). [1]: https://www.vegiedelights.com.au/products/nutmeat/ https://www.vegiedelights.com.au/products/nutmeat/ [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textured_vegetable_protein https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textured_vegetable_protein
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jimbokun 6y ago
> and then eat fish or something similar pescatarian
- vertis 6y ago
  Yes. 'Non self-describing pescatarian' :)
citizenpaul 6y ago
Vertis people like you are a cancer. "You are only trying so you failed" Go die already so the world can be a better place.
personlurking 6y ago
I've heard the term 'flexitarian', which I understand to be mostly vegetarian but sometimes eats meat.
- rtkaratekid 6y ago
  Yea, I use this and I’ve heard it as well. I’m about 90% vegetarian currently.
- Zenbit_UX 6y ago
  I prefer non-practicing vegan
wortelefant 6y ago
vegan preference with occasional pizza lapses, I'd describe my diet as 'vegetarian with ambitions'
- alisonatwork 6y ago
  This is similar to me. I prefer to eat vegan, but won't be absolutist about it when i'm eating out or if someone gives me food for free. Now i describe my diet as "aspirationally vegan".
  - vertis 6y ago
    Both great terms. I think I will borrow them for my own use. I definitely struggle most with the cheeses. I've never really been a big milk drinker, and growing up (both parents are vegetarian) I disliked eggs, so almost never ate them if I could taste them. I've tried a bunch of the vegan cheeses and they just don't scratch the itch. I live in hope though.
bliss 6y ago
Don't be me - at work c. 2001 - heard about a colleague who was "vegetarian" but ate fish and sometimes chicken... I wanted to create a pseudo-scientific name for this way of eating. I was thinking something along the lines of eats some meat but predominantly vegetarian. So I opened up google and typed "Latin meat" - the results did not translate to the latin for meat!
- bliss 6y ago
  btw - Caro Numquam is what I came up with
- nunchuck 6y ago
  Yes. The scientific name for eating vegatables and sometimes fish and chicken. It's called "healthy"
jb1991 6y ago
> correct the confusion caused by people that say they're vegetarian and then eat fish The confusion can be corrected by using the right term: pescatarian, not vegetarian.
- vram22 6y ago
  Right: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism
- vertis 6y ago
  Sure, this is one solution. But I suspect the 'culprits' use vegetarian because pescatarian isn't a well known term and invites more questions than it answers. Vegetarian sums up a large chunk of their preferences, even if it isn't accurate.
  - jb1991 6y ago
    If people just use the right word, and when someone asks "what does that mean?" they tell them, this exchange of 5 seconds is enough to bring awareness, if everyone who is a pescatarian took that short moment.
yboris 6y ago
I like to describe myself as "mostly vegan". When talking to others I urge them to see, like I do, a long continuum between eating 100% only meat and consuming 0% of animal products. I recommend people reflect on their values (causing pollution and animal suffering) and aim to decrease consumption of animal products to whatever level they are comfortable with. It can be a long process, and we all should be more supportive in helping people align their actions with their values. Needless to say these kinds of conversations are better when the person is receptive and interested, not when you first meet them.
sonicggg 6y ago
Does not make any sense. It is like saying you're part-time gay because you only suck dick on Fridays.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
SEJeff 6y ago
Could you not refer to as a "Part-time" vegetarian who eats fish as simple a Pescatarian? My sister tried the fully vegan diet for a year and ended up with a lot of health problems. So she now will eat eggs from her neighbor (who raises the chickens responsibly and free range) along with fish for the omega threes and iron.
- vertis 6y ago
  Yep, agreed. The problem, minor though it is, is that there are a bunch of people that should refer to themselves as Pescatarian, but don't. I suspect that they refer to themselves as vegetarians because it's simpler and encapsulates a large chunk of their preferences. It just causes confusion when they go to the waiter. "I'm vegetarian....Oh, I'll have the fish" In any case I was simply trying to explain why I liked the 'part-time' thing.

by vertis 6y ago

tashoecraft 6y ago

Part time is great. I'm part time vegan (probably 90% of my meals), but I still rarely have meat, dairy, everything. I dislike the idea that if you aren't always vegan/vegetarian you've "failed". Like it's some religion that if you ever strayed you have some mark against you. It's so much easier to go 90% than 100, and I bet many more people would be willing to go 90% than 100%. We'll make major strids to improving the environment, improving our populations health, and improving the well being of animals if a majority of people have a goal of 90% rather than full removal.

godelski 6y ago
Even just getting people to go mostly chicken over beef has a big impact. This also creates a way to ease into a more plant based diet. Personally I've found the 90% aspect easier. I don't have to worry if my vegetarian meals have something like chicken stock in them. It is about eating healthier and a lower carbon diet than being 100% perfect. Just needs to be good enough.
- galangalalgol 6y ago
  What about pescatarian (sp?)? I like the idea of ditching dependence on land based animals. Is sane tilapia farming sustainable? I have a fairly strong intolerance for beans and pulses and getting enough protein to deadlift from other sources is hard. The best my blood work has ever been was me eating about 1.3lbs of grassfed beef a day plus greens and 4 sweet potatoes. Thats great, but not sustainable for our whole population.
  - SEJeff 6y ago
    I'm an omnivoire, but can't you get a lot of vegan protein from chickpeas and soy? Soy does have the obvious huge downside of containing a much higher amount of estrogen and causes havoc in some people, but Chickpeas aren't hard to make delicious. Ditto for lentils as well
    - vram22 6y ago
      > Chickpeas aren't hard to make delicious. Ditto for lentils as well Yes. Check out my other comment about beans in this thread. All the dishes I mentioned there are pretty tasty. And so are lentils, if by that you meant masoor or masoor dal, or even if you meant tuar dal). And all those are high in protein as you say.
      - galangalalgol 6y ago
        I love Indian curries, but one serving obbeans or pulses will haunt me for a couple days. I don't know if it is sibo related, but I do have that. Cauliflower, blackberries, and mushrooms destroy me too.
        vram22 6y ago
        Tough luck. Maybe some people are more prone to such issues. >sibo A typo? An acronym?
        galangalalgol 6y ago
        Small intestine bacterial overgrowth. Often due to overuse of antibiotics in childhood. I'm not complaining, probably would have died without them.
        vram22 6y ago
        Had not heard of SIBO. Good to know. Wonder if yogurt and other fermented foods that increase good gut bacteria can help.
- yboris 6y ago
  Depends on the reason behind being vegan / vegetarian. If it's to reduce animal suffering, eating chicken is almost certainly causing a greater amount of animal suffering than if you eat cows. https://reducing-suffering.org/how-much-direct-suffering-is-caused-by-various-animal-foods/#Results_table https://reducing-suffering.org/how-much-direct-suffering-is-...
  - srg0 6y ago
    I find the approach of the cited web page very strange. Basically, it says, the longer the animal lives, the more it suffers. Throws in some arbitrary multipliers, divides by mass, and voilà. I would not call healthy animal life as suffering. Details matter. We all have seen peaceful cows and healthy fish. What counts, IMO, is fear, stress, pain, and the way animals are dying. That's not accounted in the article. One may argue that the number of lives taken counts too. And then eating beef or whale meat will kill fewer animals than eating chicken or insects (of we don't count what whales eat). But in my opinion eating insects would cause less suffering. Overall I think that eating smaller animals more frequently is more natural and oppotunistic. And eating cheaper meat will reduce overall carbon and water footprint.
    - yboris 6y ago
      From the welfare perspective, if the cows are just out in a large pasture, they will likely have net-positive experiences across their lives. But there are animals that have overwhelmingly negative experience throughout their lives (pigs confined to a cage where they can't turn around). As for chickens, >99% of which grow up in cramped conditions, with no access to the outside, with selective breeding causing them to grow so fast they often can't move, it is better to never have been (their lives are a net negative experience). It's unfortunate, with respect to emissions, cows are worse than chickens, but with respect to suffering on sentient creatures, chickens are worse than cows. Great news! There's a solution: eating fewer of both.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
xur17 6y ago
This is a fantastic way to look at it. It feels like a perfect application of the 80 / 20 rule -> with 20% of the effort, you can get 80% of the benefits of being vegetarian / vegan.
- Zancarius 6y ago
  Definitely. Not the OP you were replying to, but I love meat of all types. I also love vegetables. I also really like some vegetarian foods. Actually, I just like food, but I can't each much of it at one sitting. I think the other proposition is that, for whatever reason, there's this push to market vegetarian foods as substitutes to lure in traditional meat eaters rather than putting effort toward convincing them that they're alternatives that taste just as good. Like bean burgers. I absolutely love bean burgers because regular burgers just don't sit right with me half the time. But I don't treat them as a substitute--I treat them as an alternative that is delicious and unique in its own right AND to be enjoyed as such. I mean, let's be honest: There's so many different varieties of beans, and so many things you can do with them, that even speaking as a meat eater, it's almost impossible to get bored with how many different dishes you can make (with no meat)! One example that comes to mind that's semi-vegetarian is a black bean enchilada recipe I make from time to time. Just beans. Only non-vegetarian item is the cheese (and sometimes the corn tortillas because of lard, if you get them fresh). Doesn't feel heavy, tastes amazing, and it's super filling. Have a side of refried beans (I like beans)[1], Spanish rice, a salad, and it's like a restaurant-style meal. Err. Didn't mean to make this reply so long. Sorry. I guess I just love cooking, too. And yes, it's not that much effort to at least cut out red meat from your diet. Way healthier too. [1] The people around you probably won't like the side effects.
  - vram22 6y ago
    If by your [1] you mean flatulence, Indians (and some other Asians) eat many kinds of legumes (including many kinds of beans, like rajma, lobia, French beans, etc.), on a regular basis, and I, at least, have not heard of flatulence as a common thing among them due to that. Only if you indulge a bit too much in say chana (chickpeas, as in chana masala or puri chole or bhature chole), do you sometimes get gas. Possibly the Indian masala's spices used in those dishes help with digesting the beans, in fact they probably do, since they are the common ones used in Indian cooking, some of which have known digestive benefits, such as cumin, ginger, coriander, asafoetida, etc. (BTW, tip: just a pinch of asafoetida a.k.a. hing, really improves a dish; the zing of hing :) Also, I saw a video about nutrition by some scientist, who said that peoples (i.e. nations) who eat beans regularly, develop, over time, the ability (maybe via better gut flora) to digest them more easily, without gas being generated.
Gibbon1 6y ago
I have a friend that is mostly a vegetarian because he thinks a) the meat industry is often cruel. b) very destructive environmentally. I'm okay with that. I don't eat veal or fish for the same reasons[1]. Veal is cruel. And fishing is horribly destructive. Where someone draws a line isn't as important as they do. [1] Don't get me started though with Hippie Brahmans that won't eat chicken or beef but eat fish for 'heath reasons'
seanwilson 6y ago
> I dislike the idea that if you aren't always vegan/vegetarian you've "failed". In the case you're vegan because you think it's unethical to kill for food, why should you get a break here? I can't think of other ethical issues where you wouldn't be looked down for going against your firmly held beliefs. "Mostly plant-based diet" sounds like a better term if you're less concerned about the animal suffering aspect. Vegan would also include not wearing leather for example so it might be a case of you not using the right word.
- tashoecraft 6y ago
  And I disagree with the leather part because leather production isn’t causing animals to be killed. It’s a by product of the, mostly beef industry. It would take a massive decline in beef production to cause cows to be killed purely for their leather. Leather goods also last decades. I believe more in a overall balance. You can’t get everyone to be vegan, the earth simply can’t support that.
  - seanwilson 6y ago
    > It’s a by product of the, mostly beef industry. You're supporting and putting more money into the beef industry by buying leather though. You don't kill cows directly by buying milk either, but the milked cow will eventually be slaughtered for meat too and its male offspring used as veal. > I believe more in a overall balance. You can’t get everyone to be vegan, the earth simply can’t support that. Fair enough, but "vegan" isn't the term to use to describe your beliefs then.
  - luckman212 6y ago
    You can’t get everyone to be vegan, the earth simply can’t support that. Genuinely curious, why can't Earth support everyone eating vegan? I thought it took more land, water, soil, and resources in general to produce meat? Is it about transportation, or Arctic climates where fresh fruit and veg is not available?
    - seanwilson 6y ago
goda90 6y ago
And honestly, animals will play an important role in sustainable agriculture, so animal products will still be part of our lives. I was watching a presentation about soil health by a farmer. They don't use fertilizers, pesticides, irrigation, etc because of a system of cover crops, free range animals, and mob grazing(a dense herd moved through the field quickly to trample and poop all over) to build healthy soil. The problems we have are from factory farms, monocultures, and destroying old growth ecosystems so more people can consume in excess, instead of moderation.

dheera 6y ago

I also wish people would stop thinking of vegetarianism as a black-and-white concept. Moreover, the people who are quickest to point out that "you're not really vegetarian" are the ones who eat meat regularly :( Especially for someone who is vegetarian to reduce carbon emissions, 90%, 95%, and 100% aren't that different, and hell even 50% is a tremendous reduction especially if it means that it's easier to convince 5 people to do 50% than 1 person to do 100%. Occasional indulgence was never the problem for the environment, and people should know that's okay to occasionally indulge, it doesn't need to be black and white.

vertis 6y ago
Indeed. I'm not a big fan of militant vegetarianism/veganism. I think it creates a barrier to entry. It's one of the reasons that a lot of products now describe themselves as 'plant-based' rather than vegan. As someone who grew up vegetarian, things have changed drastically in the last 30 years. I grew up eating some truly niche meat-replacement products[1][2]. Things like 'Impossible Burgers' and 'Beyond Meat' have changed the experience significantly. There is still a long way to go, and it's not just about taste, but also nutrition. However it has made it much more appealing to use those alternatives, and reduce the use of meat. My own vegetarian/vegan mix is also occasionally broken when people don't know that I'm vegetarian, and serve meat. I have long decided not to make a scene. One of my of ex-colleagues never found out I'm vegetarian, because of an incident where they invited everyone out to dinner and it turned out to be at a fancy sushi restaurant (share-plates, yay). [1]: https://www.vegiedelights.com.au/products/nutmeat/ https://www.vegiedelights.com.au/products/nutmeat/ [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textured_vegetable_protein https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textured_vegetable_protein

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

jimbokun 6y ago

> and then eat fish or something similar pescatarian

vertis 6y ago
Yes. 'Non self-describing pescatarian' :)

citizenpaul 6y ago

Vertis people like you are a cancer. "You are only trying so you failed" Go die already so the world can be a better place.

personlurking 6y ago

I've heard the term 'flexitarian', which I understand to be mostly vegetarian but sometimes eats meat.

rtkaratekid 6y ago
Yea, I use this and I’ve heard it as well. I’m about 90% vegetarian currently.
Zenbit_UX 6y ago
I prefer non-practicing vegan

wortelefant 6y ago

vegan preference with occasional pizza lapses, I'd describe my diet as 'vegetarian with ambitions'

alisonatwork 6y ago
This is similar to me. I prefer to eat vegan, but won't be absolutist about it when i'm eating out or if someone gives me food for free. Now i describe my diet as "aspirationally vegan".
- vertis 6y ago
  Both great terms. I think I will borrow them for my own use. I definitely struggle most with the cheeses. I've never really been a big milk drinker, and growing up (both parents are vegetarian) I disliked eggs, so almost never ate them if I could taste them. I've tried a bunch of the vegan cheeses and they just don't scratch the itch. I live in hope though.

bliss 6y ago

Don't be me - at work c. 2001 - heard about a colleague who was "vegetarian" but ate fish and sometimes chicken... I wanted to create a pseudo-scientific name for this way of eating. I was thinking something along the lines of eats some meat but predominantly vegetarian. So I opened up google and typed "Latin meat" - the results did not translate to the latin for meat!

bliss 6y ago
btw - Caro Numquam is what I came up with
nunchuck 6y ago
Yes. The scientific name for eating vegatables and sometimes fish and chicken. It's called "healthy"

jb1991 6y ago

> correct the confusion caused by people that say they're vegetarian and then eat fish The confusion can be corrected by using the right term: pescatarian, not vegetarian.

vram22 6y ago
Right: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism
vertis 6y ago
Sure, this is one solution. But I suspect the 'culprits' use vegetarian because pescatarian isn't a well known term and invites more questions than it answers. Vegetarian sums up a large chunk of their preferences, even if it isn't accurate.
- jb1991 6y ago
  If people just use the right word, and when someone asks "what does that mean?" they tell them, this exchange of 5 seconds is enough to bring awareness, if everyone who is a pescatarian took that short moment.

yboris 6y ago

I like to describe myself as "mostly vegan". When talking to others I urge them to see, like I do, a long continuum between eating 100% only meat and consuming 0% of animal products. I recommend people reflect on their values (causing pollution and animal suffering) and aim to decrease consumption of animal products to whatever level they are comfortable with. It can be a long process, and we all should be more supportive in helping people align their actions with their values. Needless to say these kinds of conversations are better when the person is receptive and interested, not when you first meet them.

sonicggg 6y ago

Does not make any sense. It is like saying you're part-time gay because you only suck dick on Fridays.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

SEJeff 6y ago

Could you not refer to as a "Part-time" vegetarian who eats fish as simple a Pescatarian? My sister tried the fully vegan diet for a year and ended up with a lot of health problems. So she now will eat eggs from her neighbor (who raises the chickens responsibly and free range) along with fish for the omega threes and iron.

vertis 6y ago
Yep, agreed. The problem, minor though it is, is that there are a bunch of people that should refer to themselves as Pescatarian, but don't. I suspect that they refer to themselves as vegetarians because it's simpler and encapsulates a large chunk of their preferences. It just causes confusion when they go to the waiter. "I'm vegetarian....Oh, I'll have the fish" In any case I was simply trying to explain why I liked the 'part-time' thing.