Different name for Omnivores

[Clueless Git]

So what your saying is that we (vegetarians) by using term omnivores are trying to say that we're other than human, as all humans are omnivores?

Technicaly all humans are thieves and liars and murderers as we are ALL biologically capable of being thieves and liars and murderers.

It's still quite normal for humans who abstain from lying, thieving and murdering to refer to only humans that actively lie, thieve and murder and as liars, thieves and/or murderers though.

Omnivore/omnivorism is a biological capability of a species.

Omnivore/omnivorism is a NOT a taxanomical grouping.

I'm saying that we should have a separate term for them that doesn't by definition include us. So that when we say something outside of the vegetarian community (or to new members) about meat/veg eaters we aren't confusing them (or sounding like uneducated idiots to those that know what the term omnivore means).

Chumpkin.

 

[Mischief]

So what your saying is that we (vegetarians) by using term omnivores are trying to say that we're other than human, as all humans are omnivores?

I'm not sure where you're getting that idea.

I think that anyone who isn't a total idiot knows that a human vegetarian is vegetarian in practice, not by biology. Therefore, when we're talking about vegetarian versus everyone who is not vegetarian, we're talking about what we are/do in practice, not what our biology is. Context makes it quite easy to distinguish whether someone is talking about what people are doing, or whether someone is talking about the biology of such people.

 

[Freesia]

I think we need to pitch this Chumpkin idea to the vegan authorities.

 

[Danielle]

I think we need to pitch this Chumpkin idea to the vegan authorities.

Yeah but not me. I wouldn't know how to get in contact with them.

 

[Dropkick]

I'm not sure where you're getting that idea.

I think that anyone who isn't a total idiot knows that a human vegetarian is vegetarian in practice, not by biology. Therefore, when we're talking about vegetarian versus everyone who is not vegetarian, we're talking about what we are/do in practice, not what our biology is. Context makes it quite easy to distinguish whether someone is talking about what people are doing, or whether someone is talking about the biology of such people.

Mischief
Your taking my post out of context.
It was a reply to Clueless Git's earlier post.
You need to read the quote above my original post, paying particular attention to the part I highlighted by making the text bold.

 

[Blobbenstein]

most people in society don't even know the word 'pescetarian'.....so any new word for meat eater, might take a while to take off.

 

[Danielle]

most people in society don't even know the word 'pescetarian'.....so any new word for meat eater, might take a while to take off.

yeah they just think vegetarians eat fish o_o

 

[Dropkick]

Technicaly all humans are thieves and liars and murderers as we are ALL biologically capable of being thieves and liars and murderers.

It's still quite normal for humans who abstain from lying, thieving and murdering to refer to only humans that actively lie, thieve and murder and as liars, thieves and/or murderers though.

ALL people are biologically capable of being boat anchors. So does that make us all boat anchors?
Your thieves, liars, and murders allegory only works if the people have a choice in whether they are one or not. You don't have a choice about being or not being an omnivore so the allegory doesn't apply.

Omnivore/omnivorism is a biological capability of a species.

Calling it a biological capability is misleading, because while being omnivores is based on having the capability to eat meat and/or vegetation, it it's self isn't a capability, it is instead a biological classification.

Omnivore/omnivorism is a NOT a taxanomical grouping.

You're right, it isn't a taxonomic classification or grouping, however it is an ecological, biological, and a scientific classification.
It's based on our dentition (teeth), our ability to digest different forms of food (our intestinal track is sized halfway between that of a carnivore (short) and that of a herbivore (long), and on the fossil records of our ancestor's diet.
It is not based on what we eat, and it isn't a choice.

 

[Freesia]

Perhaps omnis do need a new name. What about "Everythingelsethatisntintentionallyvegetarianivore".

Or perhaps "meanivore".

 

[Danielle]

Meanivore it is

 

[Dropkick]

Perhaps omnis do need a new name. What about "Everythingelsethatisntintentionallyvegetarianivore".

Or perhaps "meanivore".

I was just coming over to Chumpkin. Sigh

 

[Dropkick]

Meathead

-thank you Archie Bunker

 

[Blobbenstein]

McGobblers.

 

[Freesia]

Chumpkin is still on the table as an option.

 

[Clueless Git]

ALL people are biologically capable of being boat anchors. So does that make us all boat anchors?
Your thieves, liars, and murders allegory only works if the people have a choice in whether they are one or not. You don't have a choice about being or not being an omnivore so the allegory doesn't apply.

People do have a choice to lie, thieve and murder, or not, DK.

That is why some do and some don't.

Thinking more about it though I should have gone for cannibalism as the allegory/analogy here.

The literal translation of omnivore is 'all-eater' and one who chooses not to eat their own species is definitely making a choice not to eat 'all'.

Technicaly that means that all omni's who refrain from cannibalism are already choosing to opt out of a part of their own omnivorous nature.

Omnis who opt of the cannibalistic part of their omnivorism have no problem in calling 'cannibal' on those who opt in though.

I see no reason why those of us who fully opt out of our omnivorous nature shouldn't call 'omnivore' on those who don't.

 

[Dropkick]

Latin for flesh and internal organs: Viscus
Viscusarians
?

 

[Clueless Git]

Latin for flesh and internal organs: Viscus
Viscusarians
?

That would stop any confusion arising!

 

[Dropkick]

People do have a choice to lie, thieve and murder, or not, DK.

That is why some do and some don't.

Thinking more about it though I should have gone for cannibalism as the allegory/analogy here.

The literal translation of omnivore is 'all-eater' and one who chooses not to eat their own species is definitely making a choice not to eat 'all'.

Technicaly that means that all omni's who refrain from cannibalism are already choosing to opt out of a part of their own omnivorous nature.

Omnis who opt of the cannibalistic part of their omnivorism have no problem in calling 'cannibal' on those who opt in though.

I see no reason why those of us who fully opt out of our omnivorous nature shouldn't call 'omnivore' on those who don't.

Clueless, you need to read my posts closer.

I did say people have a choice to lie, thieve and murder, or not.
But I also said that it had nothing to do with what we were talking about, because they have no choice in whether they are or aren't omnivores.

Also I pointed out again: What people eat or don't eat has absolutely no bearing on their being
omnivores.

You're right, it isn't a taxonomic classification or grouping, however it is an ecological, biological, and a scientific classification.
It's based on our dentition (teeth), our ability to digest different forms of food (our intestinal track is sized halfway between that of a carnivore (short) and that of a herbivore (long), and on the fossil records of our ancestor's diet.
It is not based on what we eat, and it isn't a choice.

People are omnivores because they are people.

 

[Blobbenstein]

if one really wanted to have a word, then the best word, that would take off, would be a word that meat eaters actually liked, then you might gave 90% of the population who want to use the word, rather than just 10%.

 

[Clueless Git]

Clueless, you need to read my posts closer.

I seem to be the only one here responding to your posts with any degree of serious interest, DK.

Don't mean that rudely and your point is technicaly correct, of course.

Thing is that you are trying to solve a near to non existent problem by causing a potentialy massive problem.

99.9% of people understand that the use of redundant terms, omni/cannibal/whatever, flags up that the user differs from the norm.

99.9% of people are highly likely not to understand a brand new entirely superfluous word.

Basicaly you seem to be trying to eliminate a 0.01% chance of confusion by replacing it with 99.9% confusion guaranteed.