| What I mean is that I eat 90% less meat than I used to as an average omnivore. A can of sardines or tuna per week and beef once in a long while is far from 10% of my diet, in terms of calories or mass or whatever metric you choose. > I eat meat at every opportunity, but if I were to calculate a number such as yours then I'd be say "65% vegetarian" just due to the volume difference between meat and the rest. Most people, who don't try to take my words in the least charitable way possible as you are here, understand just fine what 'mostly vegetarian' means. I don't describe myself as vegetarian (without qualifiers). > That's because there's no such thing as 90% vegetarian, it's a binary option which you've re-purposed into a scale. Words are meant for communicating. Arguing by definition is a losers' game. Note that meateaters give me more crap than full on vegetarians/vegans. If the issue was really that I'm coopting the word, you'd think it'd be the opposite. My experience is that, at least among my circles, vegetarians can appreciate that reduced meat consumption = reduced animal suffering and environmental impact, even if you're not 100% pure; it's meateaters, who feel you are trying to take a moral high ground, who will try to take you down. Actually my problem is probably that I did use to be strictly vegetarian, vegan at one point, for a few years, and slipped back for various reasons. I don't claim it anymore but it's not like I made a public announcement that I am no longer strictly vegetarian. |