The left do like to pigeonhole people without actually understanding what people want.
Pissed off with being told what I should think or 'believe in'. And extremely pissed off with someone half my age telling me what I should believe in.
When I was bought up, this kind of brainwashing was known as nazism not socialism.
So you're 124 years old then. You might think it ok for a "socialist" to take honours from the crown but you're wrong. At best if you do you believe in some sort of equality but you're not a socialist. Socialists do not accept that a single family inherits the right to be head of state. Again read the philosophy.
You're 62? There's no fool like an old fool...
Some things are black and white, some are more nuanced. In my, long held opinion, honours from the crown have a tarnished value. Especially if you believe in republican politics rather than monarchical ones. Honours from the people, from your peers well earned would mean much more. At the end of the day my opinion might not be agreed by most but as with all opinions it has it's own validity. I do think there sometimes is a group think pack mentality here that licences personal attacks rather than a considered discussion. Which is why I largely ignore the political threads. If I have personally offended anyone that was not my intention and I apologise for that. But this old fool won't be swayed unless there is an argument that trumps mine. And I'll leave it at that. For now.
The defining aspect of socialism is collective ownership of the means of production.
A monarchial socialist ideology views the monarch as the embodiment of the proletariat. The means of production are collectively owned by the people, in whom sovereignty resides; however, that sovereignty is delegated to the monarch, who holds the means of production in trust for the people and manages the economy for the greater good.
As I said, I'm a socialist monarchist and your view is an outdated political dogma.
The left do like to pigeonhole people without actually understanding what people want.
Pissed off with being told what I should think or 'believe in'. And extremely pissed off with someone half my age telling me what I should believe in.
When I was bought up, this kind of brainwashing was known as nazism not socialism.
So you're 124 years old then. You might think it ok for a "socialist" to take honours from the crown but you're wrong. At best if you do you believe in some sort of equality but you're not a socialist. Socialists do not accept that a single family inherits the right to be head of state. Again read the philosophy.
You're 62? There's no fool like an old fool...
Some things are black and white, some are more nuanced. In my, long held opinion, honours from the crown have a tarnished value. Especially if you believe in republican politics rather than monarchical ones. Honours from the people, from your peers well earned would mean much more. At the end of the day my opinion might not be agreed by most but as with all opinions it has it's own validity. I do think there sometimes is a group think pack mentality here that licences personal attacks rather than a considered discussion. Which is why I largely ignore the political threads. If I have personally offended anyone that was not my intention and I apologise for that. But this old fool won't be swayed unless there is an argument that trumps mine. And I'll leave it at that. For now.
Finally you get it. It's your opinion not ipso facto as you started out stating.
Oh well that's 50 years of my life wasted. And all of those thinkers over the last 100 years or more who have defined socialism as being something separate from a monarchy. It's a bit like people who eat fish but insist they are vegetarian.
Or just they haven't heard of Pescetarianism.
Which is not vegetarianism.
Again that's not right. pesco-vegetarian is a branch of vegetarianism, just the same as a vegan, lacto, ovo, lacto-ovo etc.
Again, things aren't as black and white as you make out, that's the beauty of life in a way.
If you eat fish you are not a vegetarian.
I think you need a bit more education before making statements on here.
Oh well that's 50 years of my life wasted. And all of those thinkers over the last 100 years or more who have defined socialism as being something separate from a monarchy. It's a bit like people who eat fish but insist they are vegetarian.
Or just they haven't heard of Pescetarianism.
Which is not vegetarianism.
Again that's not right. pesco-vegetarian is a branch of vegetarianism, just the same as a vegan, lacto, ovo, lacto-ovo etc.
Again, things aren't as black and white as you make out, that's the beauty of life in a way.
If you eat fish you are not a vegetarian.
I think you need a bit more education before making statements on here.
I'd like a bit more education then, if you're prepared to give it. As someone who is married to a pescatarian I just don't see how it is vegetarian at all. I am supportive of my wife; it's her free choice to eat what she wants (or not), but I just don't understand how you can eat animals and claim to be veggie. It seems to me that there's some unconscious decision making going on that fish are a lower form of life because they're not cute and furry.
Oh well that's 50 years of my life wasted. And all of those thinkers over the last 100 years or more who have defined socialism as being something separate from a monarchy. It's a bit like people who eat fish but insist they are vegetarian.
Or just they haven't heard of Pescetarianism.
Which is not vegetarianism.
Again that's not right. pesco-vegetarian is a branch of vegetarianism, just the same as a vegan, lacto, ovo, lacto-ovo etc.
Again, things aren't as black and white as you make out, that's the beauty of life in a way.
If you eat fish you are not a vegetarian.
I think you need a bit more education before making statements on here.
I'd like a bit more education then, if you're prepared to give it. As someone who is married to a pescatarian I just don't see how it is vegetarian at all. I am supportive of my wife; it's her free choice to eat what she wants (or not), but I just don't understand how you can eat animals and claim to be veggie. It seems to me that there's some unconscious decision making going on that fish are a lower form of life because they're not cute and furry.
It's classed as vegetarian due to the many differently branches and types of vegetarian. As said, it's the same as a vegan, they fall under the vegetarian bracket. Almost the same as the autism spectrum, so much is classed and falls under it. After doing nutrition at university, there's a lot that we wouldn't class as something but it is.
I don't think it's really got anything to do with people thinking about they're a lower form of life, just people who only eat specific things such as no red meat or whatever still falls under the bracket of vegetarian.
Oh well that's 50 years of my life wasted. And all of those thinkers over the last 100 years or more who have defined socialism as being something separate from a monarchy. It's a bit like people who eat fish but insist they are vegetarian.
Or just they haven't heard of Pescetarianism.
Which is not vegetarianism.
Again that's not right. pesco-vegetarian is a branch of vegetarianism, just the same as a vegan, lacto, ovo, lacto-ovo etc.
Again, things aren't as black and white as you make out, that's the beauty of life in a way.
If you eat fish you are not a vegetarian.
I think you need a bit more education before making statements on here.
I'd like a bit more education then, if you're prepared to give it. As someone who is married to a pescatarian I just don't see how it is vegetarian at all. I am supportive of my wife; it's her free choice to eat what she wants (or not), but I just don't understand how you can eat animals and claim to be veggie. It seems to me that there's some unconscious decision making going on that fish are a lower form of life because they're not cute and furry.
It's classed as vegetarian due to the many differently branches and types of vegetarian. As said, it's the same as a vegan, they fall under the vegetarian bracket. Almost the same as the autism spectrum, so much is classed and falls under it. After doing nutrition at university, there's a lot that we wouldn't class as something but it is.
I don't think it's really got anything to do with people thinking about they're a lower form of life, just people who only eat specific things such as no red meat or whatever still falls under the bracket of vegetarian.
No they don't. If you eat fish, fowl or animals you are not a vegetarian.
Oh well that's 50 years of my life wasted. And all of those thinkers over the last 100 years or more who have defined socialism as being something separate from a monarchy. It's a bit like people who eat fish but insist they are vegetarian.
Or just they haven't heard of Pescetarianism.
Which is not vegetarianism.
Again that's not right. pesco-vegetarian is a branch of vegetarianism, just the same as a vegan, lacto, ovo, lacto-ovo etc.
Again, things aren't as black and white as you make out, that's the beauty of life in a way.
If you eat fish you are not a vegetarian.
I think you need a bit more education before making statements on here.
I'd like a bit more education then, if you're prepared to give it. As someone who is married to a pescatarian I just don't see how it is vegetarian at all. I am supportive of my wife; it's her free choice to eat what she wants (or not), but I just don't understand how you can eat animals and claim to be veggie. It seems to me that there's some unconscious decision making going on that fish are a lower form of life because they're not cute and furry.
It's classed as vegetarian due to the many differently branches and types of vegetarian. As said, it's the same as a vegan, they fall under the vegetarian bracket. Almost the same as the autism spectrum, so much is classed and falls under it. After doing nutrition at university, there's a lot that we wouldn't class as something but it is.
I don't think it's really got anything to do with people thinking about they're a lower form of life, just people who only eat specific things such as no red meat or whatever still falls under the bracket of vegetarian.
No they don't. If you eat fish, fowl or animals you are not a vegetarian.
Thanks very much for your answer Sage, but I'm afraid I'm still not getting it. Your argument sounds absolutely circular to me: it is vegetarian because somebody says it is vegetarian. Sorry, but that's not good enough for me. What is it about seafood that gives it that classification? Why can I still be considered a vegetarian if I eat winkles, but not if I have a liking for escargot? Why is bass ok, but beef isn't? Surely there's got to be some deeper reasoning. Things don't 'fall under the vegetarian bracket' by accident, they are put there by people who have reasons and motives. I want to know what those reasons and motives are. At the moment, I can't see that reasoning beyond some people wanting a convenient half way house for not giving up meat completely.
Thanks very much for your answer Sage, but I'm afraid I'm still not getting it. Your argument sounds absolutely circular to me: it is vegetarian because somebody says it is vegetarian. Sorry, but that's not good enough for me. What is it about seafood that gives it that classification? Why can I still be considered a vegetarian if I eat winkles, but not if I have a liking for escargot? Why is bass ok, but beef isn't? Surely there's got to be some deeper reasoning. Things don't 'fall under the vegetarian bracket' by accident, they are put there by people who have reasons and motives. I want to know what those reasons and motives are. At the moment, I can't see that reasoning beyond some people wanting a convenient half way house for not giving up meat completely.
Maybe the only way I can describe it better would be to refer you to the Wikipedia page and I am not being disrespectful, just try to show how you can be classed as a vegetarian even if the only animal you eat is fish.
Along with this are all the different types and varieties of vegetarians, pesco included.
Thanks very much for your answer Sage, but I'm afraid I'm still not getting it. Your argument sounds absolutely circular to me: it is vegetarian because somebody says it is vegetarian. Sorry, but that's not good enough for me. What is it about seafood that gives it that classification? Why can I still be considered a vegetarian if I eat winkles, but not if I have a liking for escargot? Why is bass ok, but beef isn't? Surely there's got to be some deeper reasoning. Things don't 'fall under the vegetarian bracket' by accident, they are put there by people who have reasons and motives. I want to know what those reasons and motives are. At the moment, I can't see that reasoning beyond some people wanting a convenient half way house for not giving up meat completely.
Maybe the only way I can describe it better would be to refer you to the Wikipedia page and I am not being disrespectful, just try to show how you can be classed as a vegetarian even if the only animal you eat is fish.
Along with this are all the different types and varieties of vegetarians, pesco included.
Thanks very much for your answer Sage, but I'm afraid I'm still not getting it. Your argument sounds absolutely circular to me: it is vegetarian because somebody says it is vegetarian. Sorry, but that's not good enough for me. What is it about seafood that gives it that classification? Why can I still be considered a vegetarian if I eat winkles, but not if I have a liking for escargot? Why is bass ok, but beef isn't? Surely there's got to be some deeper reasoning. Things don't 'fall under the vegetarian bracket' by accident, they are put there by people who have reasons and motives. I want to know what those reasons and motives are. At the moment, I can't see that reasoning beyond some people wanting a convenient half way house for not giving up meat completely.
Maybe the only way I can describe it better would be to refer you to the Wikipedia page and I am not being disrespectful, just try to show how you can be classed as a vegetarian even if the only animal you eat is fish.
Along with this are all the different types and varieties of vegetarians, pesco included.
No, I clearly said above that I learnt a lot more about it at university, and I clearly said above that maybe the only way I can describe it better would be to refer you to the Wikipedia page.
I also said you can't education the ignorant. Thank you for proving my point further.
Thanks very much for your answer Sage, but I'm afraid I'm still not getting it. Your argument sounds absolutely circular to me: it is vegetarian because somebody says it is vegetarian. Sorry, but that's not good enough for me. What is it about seafood that gives it that classification? Why can I still be considered a vegetarian if I eat winkles, but not if I have a liking for escargot? Why is bass ok, but beef isn't? Surely there's got to be some deeper reasoning. Things don't 'fall under the vegetarian bracket' by accident, they are put there by people who have reasons and motives. I want to know what those reasons and motives are. At the moment, I can't see that reasoning beyond some people wanting a convenient half way house for not giving up meat completely.
Maybe the only way I can describe it better would be to refer you to the Wikipedia page and I am not being disrespectful, just try to show how you can be classed as a vegetarian even if the only animal you eat is fish.
Along with this are all the different types and varieties of vegetarians, pesco included.
No, I clearly said above that I learnt a lot more about it at university, and I clearly said above that maybe the only way I can describe it better would be to refer you to the Wikipedia page.
I also said you can't education the ignorant. Thank you for proving my point further.
Go and look at the vegetarian society web site. I think they might know a bit more about this than you.
What does "can't education the ignorant mean". It baffles me, but I suppose that's to be expected given my state of ignorance.
If somebody tells me they are a vegitarian but they eat fish I think I understand what they are. I don't see the need to spend time arguing what they are.
Thanks very much for your answer Sage, but I'm afraid I'm still not getting it. Your argument sounds absolutely circular to me: it is vegetarian because somebody says it is vegetarian. Sorry, but that's not good enough for me. What is it about seafood that gives it that classification? Why can I still be considered a vegetarian if I eat winkles, but not if I have a liking for escargot? Why is bass ok, but beef isn't? Surely there's got to be some deeper reasoning. Things don't 'fall under the vegetarian bracket' by accident, they are put there by people who have reasons and motives. I want to know what those reasons and motives are. At the moment, I can't see that reasoning beyond some people wanting a convenient half way house for not giving up meat completely.
Maybe the only way I can describe it better would be to refer you to the Wikipedia page and I am not being disrespectful, just try to show how you can be classed as a vegetarian even if the only animal you eat is fish.
Along with this are all the different types and varieties of vegetarians, pesco included.
No, I clearly said above that I learnt a lot more about it at university, and I clearly said above that maybe the only way I can describe it better would be to refer you to the Wikipedia page.
I also said you can't education the ignorant. Thank you for proving my point further.
What does "can't education the ignorant mean". It baffles me, but I suppose that's to be expected given my state of ignorance.
Odd that you remark you don't contribute to political threads yet start one that is nothing but. Your comment about 'pack mentality' is risible: you got exactly what you wanted. You're not ignorant as quoted above, but come across as a simple attention seeker; undignified in a man of your age.
Thanks very much for your answer Sage, but I'm afraid I'm still not getting it. Your argument sounds absolutely circular to me: it is vegetarian because somebody says it is vegetarian. Sorry, but that's not good enough for me. What is it about seafood that gives it that classification? Why can I still be considered a vegetarian if I eat winkles, but not if I have a liking for escargot? Why is bass ok, but beef isn't? Surely there's got to be some deeper reasoning. Things don't 'fall under the vegetarian bracket' by accident, they are put there by people who have reasons and motives. I want to know what those reasons and motives are. At the moment, I can't see that reasoning beyond some people wanting a convenient half way house for not giving up meat completely.
Maybe the only way I can describe it better would be to refer you to the Wikipedia page and I am not being disrespectful, just try to show how you can be classed as a vegetarian even if the only animal you eat is fish.
Along with this are all the different types and varieties of vegetarians, pesco included.
Did you actually read that Wiki page Sage or are you on a wind up? I'll give you two quotes from it (the highlights are my emphasis). First the opening definition of vegetarianism: Vegetarianism /vɛdʒɪˈtɛəriənɪzəm/ is the practice of abstaining from the consumption of meat (red meat, poultry, seafood, and the flesh of any other animal), and may also include abstention from by-products of animal slaughter.
Second what the article says specifically about pescetarianism : The common use association between such diets and vegetarianism has led vegetarian groups such as the Vegetarian Society to state that diets containing these ingredients are not vegetarian, because fish and birds are also animals.
So far from 'educating us' as you loftily claimed you would do, you have given us a reference to a page that puts the counter argument to the one you wanted. If there is anyone out there who does have the ability to 'educate us' please do. Otherwise, I'll stick to my belief that pescatarians (as well meaning as they may be) are not vegetarians.
Anyway for the purists who don't like thread-themes changing, Billy Connelly did once do a set about a vegetarian dinner party, so were on quite safe ground here.
Thanks very much for your answer Sage, but I'm afraid I'm still not getting it. Your argument sounds absolutely circular to me: it is vegetarian because somebody says it is vegetarian. Sorry, but that's not good enough for me. What is it about seafood that gives it that classification? Why can I still be considered a vegetarian if I eat winkles, but not if I have a liking for escargot? Why is bass ok, but beef isn't? Surely there's got to be some deeper reasoning. Things don't 'fall under the vegetarian bracket' by accident, they are put there by people who have reasons and motives. I want to know what those reasons and motives are. At the moment, I can't see that reasoning beyond some people wanting a convenient half way house for not giving up meat completely.
Maybe the only way I can describe it better would be to refer you to the Wikipedia page and I am not being disrespectful, just try to show how you can be classed as a vegetarian even if the only animal you eat is fish.
Along with this are all the different types and varieties of vegetarians, pesco included.
Did you actually read that Wiki page Sage or are you on a wind up? I'll give you two quotes from it (the highlights are my emphasis). First the opening definition of vegetarianism: Vegetarianism /vɛdʒɪˈtɛəriənɪzəm/ is the practice of abstaining from the consumption of meat (red meat, poultry, seafood, and the flesh of any other animal), and may also include abstention from by-products of animal slaughter.
Second what the article says specifically about pescetarianism : The common use association between such diets and vegetarianism has led vegetarian groups such as the Vegetarian Society to state that diets containing these ingredients are not vegetarian, because fish and birds are also animals.
So far from 'educating us' as you loftily claimed you would do, you have given us a reference to a page that puts the counter argument to the one you wanted. If there is anyone out there who does have the ability to 'educate us' please do. Otherwise, I'll stick to my belief that pescatarians (as well meaning as they may be) are not vegetarians.
Anyway for the purists who don't like thread-themes changing, Billy Connelly did once do a set about a vegetarian dinner party, so were on quite safe ground here.
Not on any wind up at all, I've never been that kind of poster. Just trying to express what I have learnt and how it's not this is vegetarian or this is not, there is a lot that comes under the spectrum which pesco and vegan for example fall under.
Essentially what I am trying to say is that if you were to say to someone who is a vegan or pesco or lacto or whatever, that they're not a vegetarian, they're likely to argue they are. Vegetarianism is a subject that science has come round to expand the meaning and bracket. I mentioned the ignorance to say people would do well to have an open mind instead of stating things as fact rather than being willing to be educated. Obviously I am not totally clued up on it at all, and I apologise if I come across that way, but all I was trying to say is it's not as clear cut as what people say.
Thanks very much for your answer Sage, but I'm afraid I'm still not getting it. Your argument sounds absolutely circular to me: it is vegetarian because somebody says it is vegetarian. Sorry, but that's not good enough for me. What is it about seafood that gives it that classification? Why can I still be considered a vegetarian if I eat winkles, but not if I have a liking for escargot? Why is bass ok, but beef isn't? Surely there's got to be some deeper reasoning. Things don't 'fall under the vegetarian bracket' by accident, they are put there by people who have reasons and motives. I want to know what those reasons and motives are. At the moment, I can't see that reasoning beyond some people wanting a convenient half way house for not giving up meat completely.
Maybe the only way I can describe it better would be to refer you to the Wikipedia page and I am not being disrespectful, just try to show how you can be classed as a vegetarian even if the only animal you eat is fish.
Along with this are all the different types and varieties of vegetarians, pesco included.
No, I clearly said above that I learnt a lot more about it at university, and I clearly said above that maybe the only way I can describe it better would be to refer you to the Wikipedia page.
I also said you can't education the ignorant. Thank you for proving my point further.
What does "can't education the ignorant mean". It baffles me, but I suppose that's to be expected given my state of ignorance.
Odd that you remark you don't contribute to political threads yet start one that is nothing but. Your comment about 'pack mentality' is risible: you got exactly what you wanted. You're not ignorant as quoted above, but come across as a simple attention seeker; undignified in a man of your age.
Comments
If people have contributed and made a positive impact that should be enough.
I don't think it's really got anything to do with people thinking about they're a lower form of life, just people who only eat specific things such as no red meat or whatever still falls under the bracket of vegetarian.
Along with this are all the different types and varieties of vegetarians, pesco included.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism
I also said you can't education the ignorant. Thank you for proving my point further.
What does "can't education the ignorant mean". It baffles me, but I suppose that's to be expected given my state of ignorance.
It's turned into another vegetarian vegan thread ffs
Your comment about 'pack mentality' is risible: you got exactly what you wanted.
You're not ignorant as quoted above, but come across as a simple attention seeker; undignified in a man of your age.
Second what the article says specifically about pescetarianism : The common use association between such diets and vegetarianism has led vegetarian groups such as the Vegetarian Society to state that diets containing these ingredients are not vegetarian, because fish and birds are also animals.
So far from 'educating us' as you loftily claimed you would do, you have given us a reference to a page that puts the counter argument to the one you wanted. If there is anyone out there who does have the ability to 'educate us' please do. Otherwise, I'll stick to my belief that pescatarians (as well meaning as they may be) are not vegetarians.
Anyway for the purists who don't like thread-themes changing, Billy Connelly did once do a set about a vegetarian dinner party, so were on quite safe ground here.
How much would a ticket there cost....
Essentially what I am trying to say is that if you were to say to someone who is a vegan or pesco or lacto or whatever, that they're not a vegetarian, they're likely to argue they are. Vegetarianism is a subject that science has come round to expand the meaning and bracket. I mentioned the ignorance to say people would do well to have an open mind instead of stating things as fact rather than being willing to be educated. Obviously I am not totally clued up on it at all, and I apologise if I come across that way, but all I was trying to say is it's not as clear cut as what people say.
There you go
Ive started to have feelings for you!
:-)