- 1
- 2
Blood-slayer666 [16]
Sunday, August 21st 2016, 6:40pm
Is fish filet considered meat?
Hello faeoens, a very important topic has sparked a rather large discussion in our clan recently, I've been classifying Salmon filet as meat and there seem to be about 50% agreeing with that and 50% of people saying fish is not meat. What do you think?Sidenote: This is not only directed to Salmon but also other fish like tuna, we are inclusive.
-Blerta- [14]
KrazyNerd [20]
SilentWater [10]
Dzaack [18]
Sunday, August 21st 2016, 8:09pm
Alright, let me write a full report on this one because i take every online discussions very seriously and i cannot let people to have a different opinion than mine, since im always right. Therefore everyone with a different opinion than mine is wrong. *sarcasm* but lets do this!
If you quote wikipedia, make sure to read everything. Wikipidea does say this " Meat is sometimes also used in a more restrictive sense – the flesh of mammalian species (pigs, cattle, lambs, etc.) raised and prepared for human consumption, to the exclusion of fish, other seafood, poultry or other animals."
So SIDE NOTE: everyone that wants to put a source, make sure to read your whole source, otherwise you're providing a fallacy where you only show the part of your source that shows your point, and not showing the whole information of it.
Scientifically, fish is meat. You do eat it, it is flesh, is has protein. DONE nothing more there.
In the Culinary World, fish requires a different preparation and a different process of cooking, therefore it has to be put under a different food category than "regular" meat. Therefore, Fish is not meat. Fish is a food category and not an animal category in this context.
TL;DR version:
If you tell a scientist on why fish is meat, you will hear "You're right
"
This is what happens when you try to tell the same to Gordon Ramsey:
So it depends on how you see this topic: in the literal/scientific way, or the cultural/how-it-should-be-reffered-on-your-daily-basis way
The first sentence of the Wikipedia page for "Meat":
"Meat is animal flesh that is eaten as food."
Therefore eaten fish flesh is meat.
Of course my logic depends on Wikipedia being right, but there are other places that also define meat as animal flesh so I will take it as reliable information.
If you quote wikipedia, make sure to read everything. Wikipidea does say this " Meat is sometimes also used in a more restrictive sense – the flesh of mammalian species (pigs, cattle, lambs, etc.) raised and prepared for human consumption, to the exclusion of fish, other seafood, poultry or other animals."
So SIDE NOTE: everyone that wants to put a source, make sure to read your whole source, otherwise you're providing a fallacy where you only show the part of your source that shows your point, and not showing the whole information of it.
Scientifically, fish is meat. You do eat it, it is flesh, is has protein. DONE nothing more there.
In the Culinary World, fish requires a different preparation and a different process of cooking, therefore it has to be put under a different food category than "regular" meat. Therefore, Fish is not meat. Fish is a food category and not an animal category in this context.
TL;DR version:
If you tell a scientist on why fish is meat, you will hear "You're right
"This is what happens when you try to tell the same to Gordon Ramsey:
So it depends on how you see this topic: in the literal/scientific way, or the cultural/how-it-should-be-reffered-on-your-daily-basis way
Sunday, August 21st 2016, 10:20pm
As someone who knows a little more about cooking than you do, you'd prepare meaty fish like Salmon and Tuna steaks actually very much like you would prepare a beef or pork steak. The spices used are simular, its often roasted, grilled and sometimes backed, it does have a different texture due to how the muscle tissue is build but even the taste of all kinds of meat isn't uniform, just like not every fish tastes the same, not every mammel/reptilian meat tastes even close to the same. I get where you are coming from especially in regard to the textural difference that Fish has but then so does beef tenderloin differ greatly from white and brown meat of birds. Every meat is different depending on the adaptation of its host animal. Bird meat / Mammel meat / Reptilian meat(krokodil) and Fish.In the Culinary World, fish requires a different preparation and a different process of cooking
Sunday, August 21st 2016, 10:24pm
Alright, let me write a full report on this one because i take every online discussions very seriously and i cannot let people to have a different opinion than mine, since im always right. Therefore everyone with a different opinion than mine is wrong. *sarcasm* but lets do this!
The first sentence of the Wikipedia page for "Meat":
"Meat is animal flesh that is eaten as food."
Therefore eaten fish flesh is meat.
Of course my logic depends on Wikipedia being right, but there are other places that also define meat as animal flesh so I will take it as reliable information.
If you quote wikipedia, make sure to read everything. Wikipidea does say this " Meat is sometimes also used in a more restrictive sense – the flesh of mammalian species (pigs, cattle, lambs, etc.) raised and prepared for human consumption, to the exclusion of fish, other seafood, poultry or other animals."
So SIDE NOTE: everyone that wants to put a source, make sure to read your whole source, otherwise you're providing a fallacy where you only show the part of your source that shows your point, and not showing the whole information of it.
Scientifically, fish is meat. You do eat it, it is flesh, is has protein. DONE nothing more there.
In the Culinary World, fish requires a different preparation and a different process of cooking, therefore it has to be put under a different food category than "regular" meat. Therefore, Fish is not meat. Fish is a food category and not an animal category in this context.
TL;DR version:
If you tell a scientist on why fish is meat, you will hear "You're right
This is what happens when you try to tell the same to Gordon Ramsey:
So it depends on how you see this topic: in the literal/scientific way, or the cultural/how-it-should-be-reffered-on-your-daily-basis way
I can assure you I read the whole thing, but why would I also quote the part of my source that weakens my point? That doesn't sound like a good idea at all if I were trying to convince people. Not that I was, most people are firm in their beliefs on the fish-meat war. I'd have better luck convincing people that scone is pronounced scone not scone.
As far as I'm concerned most people that say fish isn't meat are vegetarians who are trying to cheat their way into gorging on glorious meaty goodness. Can't blame them, but it's a cheeky move for sure.
To me it's no matter how it's cooked, it is what it is, doesn't matter. Toilet paper is toilet paper whether I wipe my nose with it or wipe my arse with it (Disclaimer: I never do both with the same piece).
It's like if 2 guys look at The Thinker and one says "That's bronze and marble" and the other says "That's a statue". Neither of them are wrong they just have different views.
P.S. Yeah you might be able to tell I'm a sciency person not a pansy cook.
P.P.S. I'm not serious at all
P.P.P.S Please no yellow card for writing "arse"
Monday, August 22nd 2016, 3:31pm
well i can tell what is opinion in my country,and that is fish is fish and meat is meat,so nope,fish is not meat
how do they got to that idea? I'm very curious on how such a contradiction may occur on such a trivial information... I mean, do you agree with my point of view that flora is flora and from there you create a sub cathegory for fish or how does it work?
Evolution cannot avoid bringing intelligent life ultimately to an awareness of one thing above all else and that one thing is futility.
Monday, August 22nd 2016, 5:06pm
I can assure you I read the whole thing, but why would I also quote the part of my source that weakens my point?
Maybe because it can be seen as lying? How can you say "hey my source says A" and at the end of the source it says B? If it weakens your point, then the source doesnt say the same as you and you have two things to do: get another source that shows your point or change your opinion.
@Silentwater, this is how i see your comment: "People think that wikipedia is always right and trust it without questioning themselves, therefore it should not be trustworthy by any means"
Is wikipedia totally useless as a source? Think about it. And im pretty sure that Wikipedia does not say Vaccines= autism
Monday, August 22nd 2016, 5:47pm
dzaack he said its like in his country like that, as he said... on serbian orthodox fish is not meat, its fish do not ask me why i think that, i ll tell u same answer then zen, because in our country and religion fish is fish 
and as i know christs eat on "good friday" fish too, but its said they should not eat met, but fish allowed same on orthodox
do not ask me why i think that, i ll tell u same answer then zen, because in our country and religion fish is fish and as i know christs eat on "good friday" fish too, but its said they should not eat met, but fish allowed
same on orthodox
Monday, August 22nd 2016, 5:47pm
It's not acceptable as a source for any respected research published in journals
Are you really comparing WoD forum with scientific research papers? xD
Also, everyone seemed to agree here that scientifically fish is meat. My point here was trying to show why separating Fish from meat makes sense on a daily basis conversation about food, which has no scientific dimension. Most things we say in a normal conversation can be scientifically inaccurate, and we may even be aware of that, but that doesnt stop from making sense in a normal conversation, if it has nothing to do with science. One of the very first things that i learned in philosophy was "Common sense VS cientific knowledge" and in a non scientific conversation, the common sense takes dominance of the conversation and that doesnt have to be necessarly wrong if it is scientifically inaccurate. You just have to know if there is any need to be scientifically accurate or if it can be ignored, because there are other factors on why somethings can make sense even though they arent scientifically correct, such as history, culture and the language itself.
Other than that, i do agree with pretty much everything that people said here.
- 1
- 2
Similar threads
-
Off Topic »-
This or That
(Apr 24th 2012, 6:34pm)
