Hacker News Reader

Comment by Practicality | Hacker News Reader

You know that fish is a type of meat, right?

Lots of cultures don't class fish in with most meats. In traditional Catholicism the rule against meat on Fridays didn't apply to fish and likewise with Japanese Buddhist rules against meat eating. It's sort of like how most people consider tomatoes to be vegetables even though they aren't, scientifically.

Yeah, in 21st century English fish is a meat but it's non-centrally meat so the meaning is clear when you apply Gricean norms.

Woah woah woah, hold up there. Scientifically speaking, a vegetable is the edible part of a plant. Tomatos are vegetables and fruits scientifically. This is like arguing that a square isn't a rectangle! Okay, carry on <3

> In traditional Catholicism the rule against meat on Fridays didn't apply to fish

Beaver meat is also a-ok! https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/thoughtful-animal/once-...

> Yeah, in 21st century English fish is a meat

Having spent the best part of the last 17 years speaking 21st century English, this is a surprisingly strong assertion to me.

From http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/115517:

> The flesh of animals used as food, esp. excluding fish...

Likewise chicken is often not considered 'meat' despite clearly being the flesh of an animal. It's kind of weird, but not as weird as the people who think "a little bit of ham" in a salad doesn't count as meat.

When I was visiting Brazil I met a bunch of people that called themselves vegetarians who would eat chicken and bacon. Turns out "vegetarian" means not eating beef. It led to some pretty funny misunderstandings.

Judism also doesn't consider fish meat for the purposes of Kosher-ness.

I've found that "meat" is sometimes used in casual English as "Animal muscle/meat, but not fish"

I think there's a slight conceptual divide on both the hard-carnivore-against-fish and pescatarian groups.

Old world traditions tend to distinguish them separately as well.

> I've found that "meat" is sometimes used in casual English as "Animal muscle/meat, but not fish"

But also often monophylectically as "mammal muscle/meat".

True, but it's just stupid, fish are animals.

I know you're being flippant, but we'd lose a lot of what makes language beautiful if we beat the looseness and poetry out of conversational exchanges. Pendatic assertions often miss the fact that words drift in an ever-shifting consensus.

No it's more than that; perhaps you haven't discussed with some people, but a great many people actually do believe fish are not animals. It's not mere semantics, they don't actually consider them animals at all, as if animal, plant, and fish are all different categories. Don't dismiss as pedantry what is actually a very interesting topic.

Point generally taken, but that's a conceptual leap to make when talking about what "meat" means in a casual conversation. As an aside, I don't think I've encountered anyone who thinks fish aren't animals (but of course they exist)

Catholics don't consider fish meat. I'm not sure what they think it is, maybe some sort of creepily mobile mushroom?

And some Buddhist and Hindu sects consider mushrooms to be meat.

Ironically enough, fungi and animals separated later in the tree of life than plants. So, while certainly not correct, there is a kernel of truth there.

Not as meat. For some Hindus anyway mushrooms and leeks are prohibited just like meat.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com