There is no such thing as a dietary vegan

[treehugga]

well i totally agree, but if it's impossible to get vegan tyres, or to get 100% correct information about them then there's little point in wasting energy worrying too much about them is there? :confused:
Of course not, which is why I said 'do the best we can', I think most of us do avoid the obvious, it's the not caring re the ethics around it that bother me. If people do it for dietry reasons that's a good start, but when people say but I'm not worried re the ethics - that bothers me because I thought that's what vegans were all about.

[Korn]

Kinda O.T. but I'm yet to see any supporting evidence of these claims.







[Edit: The part of the thread about that particular topic is now here (http://www.veganforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19786). Korn]

[cobweb]

Of course not, which is why I said 'do the best we can', I think most of us do avoid the obvious, it's the not caring re the ethics around it that bother me. If people do it for dietry reasons that's a good start, but when people say but I'm not worried re the ethics - that bothers me because I thought that's what vegans were all about.


sorry, yes, we are 100% in agreement, i don't see how anyone can be a vegan just for their health or even for the environment when veganism involves a lot of commitment, usually spurred on by compassion, or at least a wish for some kind of 'equality'.

[RubyDuby]

^however, I can see how somebody would go vegan for just health, or just the animals or just the environment. I wonder how many start off with not eating animals and their products, and then find out about the other stuff later?

[cobweb]

^however, I can see how somebody would go vegan for just health, or just the animals or just the environment. I wonder how many start off with not eating animals and their products, and then find out about the other stuff later?

i can't see that - would someone really be prepared to change everything they eat, stop using leather and wool, possibly rethink their health provision (e.g avoiding animal tested drugs etc), and generally avoiding all cruelty (as in the original vegan society definition of veganism) purely for their health? :confused:

[RubyDuby]

avoid animals and animal products and drugs for their health, yes. maybe not leather and fur, but for the first year of being vegan I still had non-vegan belts and shoes. I could see why a health-centered vegan could take that long to see the other reasons for going vegan.

Environmental- giving up animals, animal products and leather, yes. I don't really think it's possible to give up drugs not tested on animals???

Maybe I should re-state that as I can see why somebody would start off as a 'dietary vegan' (or I should say I understand why someone would avoid eating animals and their products) and then later turn into a real vegan.

[DiaShel]

I started for health reasons but very soon after I realized all the other great reasons, which are now just as important to me.

[cobweb]

ok, rubes, got you there, i suppose that is the whole point of this thread really.

[cobweb]

I started for health reasons but very soon after I realized all the other great reasons, which are now just as important to me.


aha, well you can be my test subject then if you don't mind? :D
was it veganism you started for health reasons or strict vegetarianism?
(e.g the difference being the avoidanc eof all cruelty including leather, etc)
i'm genuinely interested.

[Dizzycow]

aha, well you can be my test subject then if you don't mind? :D
was it veganism you started for health reasons or strict vegetarianism?
(e.g the difference being the avoidanc eof all cruelty including leather, etc)
i'm genuinely interested.

I'm going to stick my nose in here if you don't mind cobweb ;)

I started as vegetarian but always felt wierd about drinking milk and I have 'always' felt wierd about eggs.

It seemed like a natural progression for me to become vegan, the animal tested products I've always tried to avoid but more so now.
Avoiding leather is a new one for me that has come along wiith the veganism.

However, I do have a friend who has been vegetarian for years who never buys leather but does drink milk and eats eggs.

I think there will always be variations. :D

[cobweb]

^ sure, but it's where and when it becomes veganism that interests me, as opposed to vegetarianism.

to be honest i am doing craply with avoiding animal tested meds at the moment and sometimes wonder if i should call myself vegetarian instead of vegan but then people would assume i will eat eggs, etc, which i won't. If you see what i'm rambling about?.

[treehugga]

I think good on people who have a meat and dairy free are fantastic, but I wouldn't refer to them as vegan as they haven't taken on the whole ideology. However, if they do the dietry thing first with the intent to learn re ethics etc I'd consider them more vegan minded. Clear as mud? I'm not trying to be judgmental-it's just everything I've read & heard re being vegan includes honey, leather and avoiding cruelty, Including the founding member's views.

[DiaShel]

aha, well you can be my test subject then if you don't mind? :D
was it veganism you started for health reasons or strict vegetarianism?
(e.g the difference being the avoidanc eof all cruelty including leather, etc)
i'm genuinely interested.

Good question! Honestly, the change of heart took place over like a day or two. I really dove into buying every book I could find about veganism for health but some, like skinny bitch and food revolution focus a lot on nutrition, but also the other aspects. It so maybe I was strict vegetarian for a day when I completely emptied my kitchen of anything with animal products and then mostly vegan a few days after, though some of you wouldn't consider me a vegan because I still shampoo and I haven't used up and shoes with leather. Hey, I'm a poor college student and shoes are expensive. I do what I can though and I hope people will understand that. I don't want to feel like a can't call myself a vegan because of these things but I also don't feel like it's helping the animals/environment/or myself to get rid of them because the damage is done. The only reason right now would be so I could call myself a vegan without guilt and the way it would look to others and I don't think I should have to do that.:o

[cobweb]

I think good on people who have a meat and dairy free are fantastic, but I wouldn't refer to them as vegan as they haven't taken on the whole ideology. However, if they do the dietry thing first with the intent to learn re ethics etc I'd consider them more vegan minded. Clear as mud? I'm not trying to be judgmental-it's just everything I've read & heard re being vegan includes honey, leather and avoiding cruelty, Including the founding member's views.


again i totally agree with you, treehugga, and also with diashel - it's the intention which is all important in veganism, to try your best, but that for me is certainly avoiding the use of leather/wool/honey, etc - the other stuff like meds has to be doing the best we can on a 'need to use' basis i s'pose.

i still can't see how anyone would be vegan in the real, Donald Watson sense of vegan, for their own health reasons only though :confused:

[Dizzycow]

Good question! Honestly, the change of heart took place over like a day or two. I really dove into buying every book I could find about veganism for health but some, like skinny bitch and food revolution focus a lot on nutrition, but also the other aspects. It so maybe I was strict vegetarian for a day when I completely emptied my kitchen of anything with animal products and then mostly vegan a few days after, though some of you wouldn't consider me a vegan because I still shampoo and I haven't used up and shoes with leather. Hey, I'm a poor college student and shoes are expensive. I do what I can though and I hope people will understand that. I don't want to feel like a can't call myself a vegan because of these things but I also don't feel like it's helping the animals/environment/or myself to get rid of them because the damage is done. The only reason right now would be so I could call myself a vegan without guilt and the way it would look to others and I don't think I should have to do that.:o

Thats exactly like me DiaShel ;) (apart from the buying books bit!)

[RubyDuby]

to be honest i am doing craply with avoiding animal tested meds at the moment.
are there meds that haven't been tested on animals?

[cobweb]

are there meds that haven't been tested on animals?


well actually, no, even the 'alternative' remedies have been so i put that wrong anyway, but i would like to avoid the stuff dished out by doctors that is massively tested by the big pharmaceuticals and then modernised, re-labelled and tested again, grr :(.

on reflection of course using meds doesn't make me non-vegan but ideally as part of my ethics i would avoid medications. I'm reading a great book from the library called Food is better Medicine than Drugs and i am following a lot of the advice in it.

[nonegiven]

Damn ... this forum software sucks.

I wrote a long reply and it deleted it when disallowing me to post it for some reason even though I was logged in ... please try phpBB instead folks. Wasted half an hour.

Short version ... by whom, where and when was this term "dietary vegan" first used or invented? We must surely be close enough in terms of history and sociology to work it out.

[Korn]

I wrote a long reply and it deleted it when disallowing me to post it for some reason even though I was logged in ... please try phpBB instead folks.

Hi, and welcome!

I've had the problem you mention on a few occasions (eg. if the server is in the middle of a restart), but then the Backspace button has brought my post back - except one time, when I don't really know what happened. I suspect it was a problem with my browser version (Safari on Mac).

[Omnia]

Back on the World Vegan Day forums (RIP) this subject of what is vegan and who is really vegan and who is not really vegan just won't stop comming around.

We all have to come to terms that none of us are pure vegans. We all compromise our veganism and will always have to all the time we live in a society that use animals. :(

Someone else's 90% vegan is no more an act of hypocrisy than your 98% vegan, or his 99.999% vegan. (The computer you are using stop you being 100% anyway).

A "dietry vegan" is not a non-vegan or a definition of a vegan - it is a minimum requirement. In the same way a Christain does not have to do all the things a Christain should do, they just have to abind by the minimum requirement of believing in the divinity of Christ. Dietry veganism is our baseline. None of us are going to be an absolute vegan, its impossible, so we have to draw a practical line somewhere.

Of course, if any of you want to change the VS requirement for joining the society, then by all means put a new statement forward to it. Perhaps "diet and clothing", perhaps "diet, clothing and cosmetics" but you will still end up with a term like "a dietry, clothing and cosmetic vegan".

We could go along the lines of stating veganism as an aspiration (which is how I see it), but as a practical definition it very problematic without a baseline requirement. It would be easy for a soley aspirational vegan to say "well, am a vegan and I do eat beef, it just I have not got very far along the road to pure veganism". :eek:


I think you put that very well indeed StevieP. As a newbie to the forum, I'm still slowly working my way through this thread but at this point it makes me wonder what the concensus is amongst the membership on the "am vegan (or very close)" classification on the forum.
Would "dietary vegan" be "not close enough"?

It's also interesting to observe at what level of veganity people cross the line in their tone from friendliness to hostililty towards fellow travellers who are all walking in the same direction.

[Omnia]

Gave them to an omni.
Nah it's all plastic. I'm no Clarkson.

Not if you buy them from a vegan supplier.
Gave them to an omni.

I just stick to German lager. Vegan brewing is the law.

Ironically, all sold off in animal welfare charity shops on day one..

Being vegan is frequently a question of opportunity and access to information but the above choices were easy enough to make and this is an area that many snidey omnis like to poke around in to make themselves feel more comfortable and I don't like to give them the satisfaction.


Impressive!
Omnia (not related to the snidey omnis mentioined in the post, or at least i don't think so)

[Korn]

...it makes me wonder what the concensus is amongst the membership on the "am vegan (or very close)" classification on the forum.
Would "dietary vegan" be "not close enough"?
To me, the term 'dietary vegan' is an oxymoron - just as much as 'a vegetarian who eats chicken'.

The reason we don't offer a 'dietary vegan' reply option in the registering process, is that there's no such thing. Some people use this word, and it gives the impressions that there are several types of vegans - some who respect animals and some who don't, but:

There aren't two types of vegans; those who avoid animal products as much as practical and possible on one side, and those who eat vegan, but don't mind participate in hunting - or wear fur on the other. 'Vegan' has always been about more than food.

Regarding "vegan or very close"... someone who avoids meat, dairy, eggs etc. but is fine with killing animals/hunting/support the fur/leather industry etc. isn't 'very close' to be a vegan, he's actually quite far from being a vegan... And - it doesn't help if he disagrees in the definition of 'vegan', or want to contribute give the word a new meaning. Lots of people eat Masala Dosa without calling themselves South Indians, so we're not looking at a severe, conceptual, unsolvable problem here... we're just seeing that people want to call themselves vegans when they are not. As I've mentioned before - that must be a good sign for the vegan movement! :)


It's also interesting to observe at what level of veganity people cross the line in their tone from friendliness to hostililty towards fellow travellers who are all walking in the same direction.
Well... I've personally banned people who defend hunting etc. here, but that's not due to unfriendliness/hostility. :) It's simply because this is a site for vegans. We want to communicate on vegan premises, so inviting non-vegans to join the just forum doesn't make sense. It would only trigger a kind of friction we don't really need...

[Omnia]

I am absolutely in agreement. Anyone heard of the Vegan Police? Their website is www.vegan911.com (http://www.vegan911.com).

I think that if an individual can honestly say that s/he is doing all that s/he can to avoid animal products and animal exploitation in her/his life, then that person should be supported rather than being taken for a hypocrite by a holier-than-thou critic. The Vegan Police go right up to the rank of Inspector, but I have to say that I've seen a few Commissioners in my time.


He he he he, I like it

[Mahk]

Korn, I disagree that "dietary vegan" is an oxymoron. To me a person who declares this is implying," I follow a vegan diet, but I my self am not a vegan, I hunt on the weekends and wear leather, for example". I think you are jumping to conclusions that they are implying they are a certain subset of vegans. I don't see them as implying that at all. If someone declares, "My diet is strictly kosher." we know what they will and will not eat but we don't know if they are Jewish at all. If you think they must be implying they are Jewish you would be jumping to conclusions. Perhaps they have other reasons. Your insistence that such people are not allowed to use the word "vegan" to describe their diet and must instead say it is "plant based" seems a little silly in my opinion.

I also have no problem with "A vegetarian but they eat chicken". It gives a clear concise definition of what they are all about. "A vegetarian but they wear silk ties only for job interviews" also works for me. "A Catholic but they use birth control" also works for me. The words "vegan", "vegetarian", and "Catholic" all may be modified when describing an individual.

[Korn]

To me a person who declares this is implying," I follow a vegan diet, but I my self am not a vegan, I hunt on the weekends and wear leather, for example"
If that's what he wants to declare, why not use that sentence instead then, or simply say "my diet is vegan"? :)


If someone declares, "My diet is strictly kosher." we know what they will and will not eat but we don't know if they are Jewish at all.
"My diet is strictly vegan' would also be a good, non-confusing way to claim that your diet is vegan, but that you aren't a vegan.


Your insistence that such people are not allowed to use the word "vegan" to describe their diet
That's where you misinterpret what I wrote... :) I don't insist that they shouldn't call their diet vegan, but that they shouldn't call themselves vegans (if they aren't vegans).


When you write...


I also have no problem with "A vegetarian but they eat chicken".

... I see that as a perfect example of how one can make communication more, not less difficult, because vegetarians don't eat chicken or beef. If we should establish that some vegetarians eat chicken and some don't, or some eat lamb steak and some don't, it will be almost as complicated to go and order a vegetarian meal on a restaurant as if the term 'vegetarian' didn't exist, because 'vegetarian' could mean with - or without - chicken.

If what someone wants is a chicken salad, why not just order a chicken salad instead of diving into using various definitions of what they 'are'? The waiter probably don't care anyway...


If we agree that a vegetarian meal never includes chicken, then we also agree that someone who eats chicken doesn't fit with the term 'vegetarian'.... right? Or: if we disagree, could a vegetarian also eat beef?

Furthermore, if a vegetarian may or may not eat chicken, then the next thing could be that some vegans eat chicken as well, to avoid being accused for 'policing'... ;)

Why use words at all, if they can be redefined into more or less mean anything by anyone who wants to change their original definition?


"A vegetarian but they wear silk ties only for job interviews" also works for me. Since 'vegetarians' normally isn't used about someone who avoids silk, I don't see a need for the 'but' in that sentence. Unlike 'vegan', 'vegetarian' is normally used about diet only.

Would "I'm a vegan who eats fish" work for you? or 'I'm a vegan who eats chicken'? If yes... why put the word 'vegan' in that sentence at all? Do you suggest that we should have 'pesco-vegans', lacto-vegans', 'lacto-ovo vegans', 'chicken-vegetarians', 'beef-vegetarians', and 'pesco-vegans'?

I don't see the need to use the word 'vegan' or 'vegetarian' about a person who eats beef, fish or chicken, because vegans and vegetarians don't eat beef, fish or chicken.

I have never seen beef, fish or chicken in a restaurant that defines itself as a vegetarian restaurant.

I don't see why one should use the word vegan about someone who doesn't avoid animal products as much as practical and possible, because that's what vegans are known for doing, and have been known for doing for decades.


I think that if an individual can honestly say that s/he is doing all that s/he can to avoid animal products and animal exploitation in her/his life, then that person should be supported rather than being taken for a hypocrite by a holier-than-thou critic.

Absolutely, but if s/he would be "doing all that s/he can to avoid animal products and animal exploitation in her/his life", s/he would be a 'dietary vegan' only! :)


If the 'take-any-word-you-want-and-give-it-any-meaning-you-want' people should rule the world, then not only could a vegetarian risk getting a meal with fish/chicken/beef if he ordered a vegetarian meal on a restaurant, but we would have to invent a new word that replaces the current meaning of vegan. Why do that, when we already have a word that works?

This isn't about 'policing', it's about protecting the definition of a word. We could change the meaning of 'vegan' into 'someone who may or may not use animal products, but who eats vegan', but there's no valid reason for doing that, just like it doesn't make sense to change the meaning of other words like 'Chinese', 'red' or 'rain'.

Again... eating Chinese food doesn't make you Chinese. We could of course try to change the definition of 'Chinese' into 'someone who eats only Chinese food' - but why would we do that? :)