"Vegetarian"

It's interesting to see how the concept "vegetarianism" is beginning to be emptied out of all substance. Therefore, from now on, vegetarian should be placed in quotes and accompanied by a qualification: real vegetarians (Good for you!) and those pretending for effect (Keep it to yourself!). 

As an aside, has it become politically correct to proclaim your vegetarianism? If yes, please remember, this concept isn't hollow; it has an ethical foundation that demands action. If you are unwilling to take such action, please say, with all do respect, as Jen argued in the past: "No thanks (to cow, for example), I'd rather masticate somebody less cute."      

Note: "Meat," as commonly used, is defined as: "The flesh of an animal". While some dictionaries parenthetically qualify this with "especially mammals" (e.g., a cow), the substance of the word 'meat', its core, is "the flesh of an animal". Therefore, as fish are animals, it make's very little sense to argue that a "vegetarian" - by definition, a person who does not eat meat - can validly eat the flesh of fish. If you eat fish, you are not a vegetarian lest we redefine the word. Indeed, by consuming the flesh of cows and pigs, for example, you are doing the right thing by refusing to force a being to experience that much more unnecessary suffering. However, you are not a vegetarian. You are participating in selective ethical reasoning that begs many, many questions.  

Furthermore, ethical vegetarianism is traditionally derived from a concern over suffering, i.e., reducing the aggregate level of suffering; therefore, as fish suffer, why would their suffering be discounted?      

Will be crossposted @ Vegan Soapbox