Why should I conform to what’s expected of me? If I choose to become a vegetarian, who is to say I can’t still eat meat if I want to?
I can still be celibate and fuck?
You choose to be a vegetarian by not eating meat. If you continue to eat meat, then you are not choosing to be a vegetarian.
The action defines the choice, not some mental state.
Is that difficult to understand?
I am choosing to not eat meat right now. In fact I’m not hungry and am choosing to not eat anything. Does that make me a vegetarian until my next meal?
It’s not what’s expected of you. It’s what’s inherent in the terms.
See there are propositions that are analytically necessary, and then there are some that must refer to other propositions in order to determine truth value.
It’s really long winded and complicated and hard to explain how we define words. BUT, some words are defined. That’s a fact. Part of how we define them, in one simple sense, is by self reference.
So analytically necessary propositions are those which are true by self reference and that do not require reference to other propositions in order to determine their truth value.
So here we go…
If we define “vegetarian” as “a person who cannot still eat meat”, then we’re getting somewhere. We’ve gotten past all the hard, boring philosophy stuff about how we define words, or at least some of it. And now that we’ve agreed on a definition, or now that we have an axiom, or now that there’s a foundation from which we can reason, we can go about determining whether or not as a vegetarian you can still eat meat.
I think it’s interesting that the question arises as to whether social convention should be a factor in whether or not a vegetarian can eat meat.
I believe, that like most problems, that this is a problem of language.
Let’s analyze for a moment.
-
If we agree that a vegetarian is a person who cannot eat meat, then we agree that a person who eats meat is not a vegetarian.
-
If a person who eats meat is not a vegetarian, then it’s possible that a person who does not eat meat is a vegetarian.
-
If all people who do not eat meat are vegetarians, and all people who do eat meat are not vegetarians, then it is impossible to eat meat and be a vegetarian, or to not eat meat and not be a vegatarian.
I could probably make more of these, but I’ll await your response.
To summarize, at this point, and until I’m convinced otherwise, I’m denying that social convention has anything to do with whether vegetarians can eat meat, and I’m asserting that by nature of the definition of vegetarian, so long as we agree on what it means, that no person can eat meat and be a vegetarian, and that all people who do not eat meat are vegetarians, and that there’s just no way within the limits of our reason that it could be otherwise.
A lot of vegetarians eat fish, and I’ve heard of some that eat chicken.
Then you’re gonna have to do the whole problem of definition thing. Good luck with it. Socrates showed it couldn’t be done under certain conditions. Science does it by removing those conditions. It’s really philosophical and not even really worth understanding to tell you the truth.
I would eat whatever you want, and call yourself whatever you want. I mean, that’s kind of something that people do, so it’s not bad either way.
No. Just because I will not die in the next 5 minutes does not make me immortal. Not even for 5 minutes.
A word is a label attached to you for some purpose. The universe does not need the word. You do not need the word. You may feel that you need the word to interact with others - so that others praise you or respect you or give you value.
I do. I have no intention of becoming a vegetarian.
uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/in … 533AAGiTJV
I think Maia’s just having a laugh, watching people contort their minds to explain something like this.
I’m a vegetarian until I eat again. Because I’m not eating vegetables now. I’m also a non-smoker almost all the time if you really add it all up and do the math.
And how about those Vegans? Why don’t they f-off back to their own star-system?
Hmm. What did you do with the old Maia? 
It’s not new. People want to have the benefits of the label without actually having to alter their behavior.
You have Christians who don’t actually do anything that Jesus suggests.
You have environmentalists who buy minivans which they don’t need.
Pacifists who support war.
In a nutshell, it’s called hypocrisy.
This is a question I’ve been asking for years.
Phyllo, you’re right. It’s the essence of all human activity. I’ve seen it.
Am I a non-smoker? I’ve never bought any cigarettes, have no craving for them and might go for weeks or months without one. But occasionally, if I’m with a friend who offers me one, I might accept it.
Then you smoke occasionally.
Forget about veg/non-veg issue, this definition suits Maia perfectly. 
Well done, Smears.
with love,
sanjay
If you want to confuse the fuck out of most people, then yes.
However philosophers will see through your deceitful and cunning tactics, and call a spade a spade.
You are what you eat.
Of course someone who says they are a vegetarian can eat meat. But the answer to your question is no. Ýou can eat meat and be a vegatarian, but you can claim to be one as much as you want.