PDA

View Full Version : There is no such thing as a dietary vegan



Pages : 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11

Mahk
Sep 2nd, 2008, 07:49 PM
If that's what he wants to declare, why not use that sentence instead then, or simply say "my diet is vegan"? :)
Because "dietary vegan" is two words, that sentence is 22 words, but they mean exactly the same thing.




"my diet is vegan" = dietary vegan = vegan in diet only

Is the person a vegan? We would assume no, since the specific use of "diet" or "dietary" was used. There is no ambiguity for me but obviously there seems to be so for you. To me these mean exactly the same thing so I have no problem with using them interchangeably. Does the person wear leather? Well most non-vegans do, so probably yes. How do these three people differ then? Answer: they don't, they are identical. There's no ambiguity for me.


If we should establish that some vegetarians eat chicken and some don't...

"A vegetarian but they eat chicken" does not in any way establish that some vegetarians eat chicken at all. In fact, it even teaches us that vegetarians don't eat chicken. That's why the word "but" is used as opposed to the word "that" or "which". It shows us that vegetarians don't eat chicken but this person for some reason does.


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.


Not according to the Vegetarian Society (http://www.vegsoc.org/info/clothing.html) website:

"Whether or not the pupae feel any pain whilst being suffocated or subjected to heat is debatable, but most vegetarians consider silk is not acceptable as it cannot be produced without the death of a living creature."

[Wool however doesn't kill the animal hence wool, lanolin, and vitamin D3 are arguably "vegetarian" but leather and silk are not.]


Would "I'm a vegan who eats fish" work for you? or 'I'm a vegan who eats chicken'?

No, because it implies some vegans eat fish/chicken. However, "I'm a vegan except I eat fish" works for me because:

A) It gives a good concise description of what they are all about. There's no ambiguity as to whether they wear leather or not for example.
B) It teaches us that vegans don't eat fish. That's why the word "except" or "but" is used, not "which" or "that". [I wonder if this is a subtlety that is lost to someone who's primary language is not English? :confused:]

Korn
Sep 2nd, 2008, 08:38 PM
Because "dietary vegan" is two words, that sentence is 22 words, but they mean exactly the same thing.
:)


Good try.

I eat vegan food: 4 words.
I am a vegan: 4 words.




"A vegetarian but they eat chicken" does not in any way establish that some vegetarians eat chicken at all. In fact, it even teaches us that vegetarians don't eat chicken.

Yes, the use of 'but' indicates that, so since we agree that vegetarians don't eat chicken, why should a person who eats chicken call himself a vegetarian?



That's why the word "but" is used as opposed to the word "that" or "which". It shows us that vegetarians don't eat chicken but this person for some reason does.

Yes he does, which is why he isn't a vegetarian. The point is that if this would be established as an accepted. logical use of these words, there would soon be a lot of people calling themselves vegetarians who eat chicken. Then the waiter who served you a 'vegetarian soup' with chicken in it to a vegetarian would say 'we had another vegetarian here the other day, and he was eating chicken...'.


Would you have a problem with "I'm a vegetarian, but I eat beef?", or '"I'm a vegan, but I eat chicken?"



It teaches us that vegans don't eat fish.
So... what you are saying is that a 'pesco-vegetarian' is... a vegetarian? Or a non-vegetarian?




That's why the word "except" or "but" is used, not "which" or "that". [I wonder if this is a subtlety that is lost to someone who's primary language is not English? :confused:
My native language isn't English, but that's not the problem this time... :)

If some 'vegetarians' eat chicken, and some don't, then some vegetarians may eat meat as well.

If some vegans avoid animal products as much as practical/possible, and others don't, then 'pesco-vegan' or 'beef-vegan' could be the next big thing. This would confuse any communication using the word vegan.



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'm curious about your answers to these questions, Mahk...

I posted them questions because while 'vegetarian' normally is used about food, vegan is normally used about avoiding all kinds of products, so adding 'pesco' before vegan wouldn't be very different from include use of wool, fur or leather into the term vegan - which is exactly what is done when 'dietary vegan' is used; 'dietary vegan' suggests that vegans may be 'dietary' or not.

Vegetarian is based on the word 'vegetus' (life). Vegan is based on the word vegetarian. Vegans and vegetarians don't want to kill for food. If someone who calls himself a vegetarian eats chicken, turkey or beef, he is responsible for an animal being killed for food, which is why calling himself a vegetarian doesn't make sense.

Vegans avoid wool and leather as well, so - using the same logic, if he buys wool or leather products - I can't see the need for using the word vegan at all. We know that one doesn't have to kill animals to get wool, but as we know, vegans go further than just avoiding 'killing'. I don't see a need to invent a new word for vegans, and all kinds of mixed words ('chill vegan', 'pesco-vegan', 'dietary vegan' etc) would create the impression that vegans may or may not use animal products such as fish or wool, depending on 'what kind of vegan' you are.

Let's not make things more complicated than they need to be... if some friendly grandma wants to buy a present to her grandson, and is told that he has become a vegan, it should be necessary for her to ask if he's the kind of vegan who is using animal products like leather or not. ("Is he the dietary kind of vegan?"). The word vegan has been used for decades about someone who avoids all kinds of animal products as much as possible, and there's no reason to contribute in any way to change this.

Mahk
Sep 2nd, 2008, 09:41 PM
:)
Good try.

I eat vegan food: 4 words.
I am a vegan: 4 words.

"That" sentence as you call it in post #100 refers to post #99's:


" I follow a vegan diet, but I my self am not a vegan, I hunt on the weekends and wear leather, for example".

22 or so words. I'm not sure if it should be "myself" instead of "my self".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unacceptable: "I am a vegetarian who eats chicken"

Why? Because it implies this behavior is permissible. It is not.

Acceptable:

"I am a vegetarian except I eat chicken"
"I am Jewish however I don't keep a strict kosher diet"
"I am a Catholic, however I am divorced" [Catholicism doesn't allow that normally, right?:confused: At least that's what I meant.]


Why? Because it explains in the answer that these behaviors are not normally tolerated.


So... what you are saying is that a 'pesco-vegetarian' is... a vegetarian? Or a non-vegetarian

From my limited understanding, unlike the vegan community, the vegetarian community does have sub divisions such as ova, lacto, pesco, etc. but I don't know for sure; ask them, not me.


Would "I'm a vegan who eats fish" work for you? or 'I'm a vegan who eats chicken'? ?...I'm curious about your answers to these questions, Mahk...

I already answered this directly in my last post:

No, because it implies some vegans eat fish/chicken.
Did you miss that?


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'

My answer wasn't "yes" so I have no further comment.


Vegetarian is based on the word 'vegetus' (life). There's some debate on that. Unlike the word "vegan", and despite the Vegetarian Society's claim they came up with it, the word "vegetarian" was already in popular use prior to their existence (c. 1848?). My opinion is it is based on the more common word "vegetable", not "vegetus" as they claim.

So Korn, now it is time for you to answer my question. Is a person not allowed to call themselves a Jew unless they follow a strict kosher diet and wear a yarlmulka? Are all the millions of people who claim to be Jews but don't do these things "fake Jews"?

starlight
Sep 2nd, 2008, 09:51 PM
Most people at work have started calling me either "vulcan" or occasionally "vogon".

OK time for me and my pointy ears to make it back to the constructor ship.

horselesspaul
Sep 2nd, 2008, 10:13 PM
"fake Jews"
Hahaha. Fake Jews. Awesome.
Sorry.

Korn
Sep 2nd, 2008, 10:35 PM
I can't answer the questions about Kosher, Jews and yarlmulka - because I don't know enough about the real/true/original/commonly used definitions of these words are.

"I'm a vegan except I eat fish" sounds to me like "Bach is dead except he is alive", "I'm a non-violent pacifist except I beat my wife' or "I'm a native American except that I'm a native African".



My opinion is it is based on the word "vegetable", not "vegetus" as they claim. In either case, fish, honey, wool, leather, turkey or beef aren't vegetables... So, if we agree that veganism isn't about diet only, defining users of non-plant based products (wool/leather etc) as a subgroup of vegans still doesn't make sense to me. Leather is from a dead cow, leather is not a plant, so if you buy leather products, you are not a vegan, or a subdivision of vegan ("the kind of vegan that use leather"). You eat vegan food, and eating pizza doesn't make you Italian.



From my limited understanding, unlike the vegan community, the vegetarian community does have sub divisions such as ova, lacto, pesco, etc. but I don't have a right to set up their rules; ask them, not me.
The reason I asked isn't that I want to know what they mean, but to illustrate the parallel between 'chicken-vegetarians' and 'dietary vegans'. I know you don't have any right to define how they should define themselves, but you could always have an opinion about how words can be used or misused; how they can contribute to better communication, or, in worst case, create misunderstandings.

If 'beef-vegetarian', 'chicken-vegetarian' or 'turkey-vegetarian' doesn't make sense, then 'dietary vegan' doesn't make sense either, because 'dietary vegan' suggests use of animal products as relevant for vegans - just like 'chicken-vegetarian' suggests use of chicken for vegetarians.

Maybe we disagree less then it seems we do? To me, "I would have been a vegetarian if it wasn't for the fact that I eat chicken' makes sense, but 'I'm a chicken chicken eating vegetarian' doesn't.

Likewise, "I would have been a vegan if it wasn't for the fact that I go hunting" would make sense (somehow), but not 'I'm a vegan but also a hunter'. The 'but' excludes the relevance of 'vegan'.

Look at these three types of statements:

A: 'I'm a vegan but I kill animals' suggests that you somewhat are a kind of vegan, or near vegan, even if you kill animals. The core is 'I'm a vegan', it's not 'I'm not a vegan'. 'I'm a vegan but eat fish' belongs to the same category.

B: 'I would have been a vegan if it wasn't for the fact that I kill animals' makes it clear that you don't consider yourself a vegan if you kill animals. This statement approves that vegans don't kill animals.

C: 'I'm a dietary vegan' suggests that you are vegan even if you kill animals or buy products from people who kill them - because the core of this statement is that 'I'm a vegan' (of the 'dietary kind'). There's not even a 'but' in that term: 'vegan' is placed next to 'dietary', and 'dietary' suggests use of animal products, which could be fur, leather, hunting and whatnot.


I think the real dilemma lies somewhere else. The Vegan Society and others knows that it's a lot easier to recruit new members to an organization that focus on food than to an organization that suggests that veganism is about more than food.

StevieP wrote "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."

But: AFAIK, you don't need to be a vegan to become a member of The Vegan Society. However, since 'vegan' now is on it's way (after 60+ years) to become a well known word, it may be easier for TVS to try to change it into something which is mainly 'dietary' than to invent a new word or use existing words like eg. 'vegitan', which unfortunately sounds a little like a bread spread.

I understand the desire to let go of the focus on non-dietary stuff, and make 'vegan' into something mainstream, simple, and mainly 'dietary'. Opportunism exist for a reason. I just think it's unfair; it's unethical towards those who have established the word vegan as something that covers both food and non-dietary stuff. It's not very different from plain stealing.

I'm sure that The Vegan Society's office doors are closed when there's nobody there. They don't want their belongings stolen, so they are 'policing' their belongings like most people do. However, protecting the definition of vegan is much more important than protecting eg. the computer hardware in their offices. The word vegan has a very valuable history, which is why it's important to protect the use of the word against anything that can trigger misunderstandings about the existence two types pf vegans: 'vegans who use animal products vs. 'vegans who avoid animal products'.

nonegiven
Sep 3rd, 2008, 02:08 AM
TECH NOTE:

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).
It just happened to me again after writing another long and meaningful post elsewhere and, frankly, it puts me off posting ... sorry.

Its nothing to do with Safari on Mac OS (I use it too). It is to do with vBulletin because it does not happen with phpBB (which I also use), including the phpBB quick reply function. It might be to do with the vBulletin "quick reply" function, if that is a mod. I am sorry but I cannot afford the time to investigate.

Mahk
Sep 3rd, 2008, 02:46 AM
. Non-Chinese people have been living in China for many years, eating only Chinese food, without needing to call themselves 'dietary Chinese'.... ;)
Although the words sound funny, "dietary Chinese" is perfectly correct in describing these people just like "dietary vegan" is to describe people who exclusively consume a vegan diet. Are they claiming to be Chinese? No, they'd be wrong if they did as would a "dietary vegan" if they claimed they were vegan, but pretending that these categories of people "don't exist" or that they shouldn't be allowed to call themselves these names because we think it will confuse people as to what being Chinese really means seems a bit silly to me. The use of the word "dietary" clearly shows we are not speaking about their motivation, their ethics, their race, their language, their country, their skin color, their views on animals, or what they wear. We are talking about one thing and one thing only; their diet. We know absolutely nothing else about these people and shouldn't make any other assumptions.

A person who states, " I am a dietary Englishman" is not claiming to be "an Englishmen" or a subset of Englishmen just like a "dietary vegan" isn't claiming to be a vegan or a subset of vegans. You don't seem to agree with me on this fundamental point so any further conversation on the matter seems futile to me.

Peas out,
Mahk

nonegiven
Sep 3rd, 2008, 02:49 AM
The word vegan has been used for decades about someone who avoids all kinds of animal products as much as possible, and there's no reason to contribute in any way to change this.
I agree with that ... "as much as possible" ... and it is an evolving process on both and individual and a collective level.

Its funny but until the Steven L Davis, "CONCEPT OF LEAST HARM (http://www.springerlink.com/content/r1277l2428v10637/)" debate arose, I never really consider the equation of how much animal suffering an artificial vegan diet caused in comparison to a traditional "hunter gather" existence. Although I don't agree with his findings because I place different values on different lifeforms according to their evolutionary state, I think it is a valid argument and one, along with Fairtrade, that has to make a rethink the bigger picture of what the intention of "being vegan" means.

For example, I might call myself a "vegan raw fooder" and demands to eat brazil nuts and pineapples in a European Winter. But the mere matter of fact that the pineapples are grown on slash and burn cleared rainforest (animal killing) by a multinational (human exploitation) and shipped half-way around the world (pollution ... environment to animal suffering) may very well equate to far more needless animal suffering than a hillfarmer eating homegrown vegetables and the odd local rabbit. (And as an off topic aside ... can a pineapple be "organic" if its ingredients include the oil used to ship it half way around the world).

Davis's argument was based on far simpler equations, e.g. the animal deaths involved in sustaining industrial agriculture of "vegan" or vegetarian products. What I am saying (and said in posts that the system deleted) is that vegans can avoid "some" killing "somewhere" and so it is all down to balance, perspective and the bigger picture.

I asked the question, "Where did this term come from?" for a reason. Who and when did it come about? We are close enough to find out and know.

The reason I asked the question was due to my experience of the word. I first heard it used by a vegan that I would say had at least borderline psychological problems, e.g. obsessiveness, emotional imbalances and was the type of vegan that I am sure we have all mostly met that was over-empathizing, over-associating and over-politicising "animal suffering" as their meaning and identity.

I am pretty sure that, for them, it was a put down towards other vegans that were "not vegan enough" for them ... all part of their inferior/superiority neurotic "vegan police" complex. The unfortunate thing is about obsessives, is that they are often very good at driving ideas or hounding others for change their way.

I do not think the terms belongs in the vegan lexicon, should not be on any official website or documents and I think we should dissuade others from using it before it is more widely picked up and "made real". It means nothing.

Sure, you can be a vegan and kill an animal. Sure you be a non-vegan but only eat vegan food. In fact, if you accept the concept "all people are vegans most of the time when they are not eating or chips (fullstop)", just like "all people are celibate when they are not having sex". Its important to know who and why.

I am a vegan (over 20 years). I still own leather boots I bought before I was because it would be ridiculous to replace them, I would kill an animal if it was going to kill me (which includes bugs, slugs and vermin if threaten essential food stock), I am happy to recycle non-vegan products for the greater good of the environment where there is no conscientious harm involved and I would be happy for my non-vegan products to be recycled after my death.

I look back at my 'radical Pharisee' purist vegan days of riding motorcycles in cotton tai-chi slippers and spending my life looking for replacement think what an idiot I was. No sense of balance, no sense of perspective ...

Mahk
Sep 3rd, 2008, 02:52 AM
TECH NOTE:

It just happened to me again after writing another long and meaningful post elsewhere and, frankly, it puts me off posting ... sorry.

Its nothing to do with Safari on Mac OS (I use it too). It is to do with vBulletin because it does not happen with phpBB (which I also use), including the phpBB quick reply function. It might be to do with the vBulletin "quick reply" function, if that is a mod. I am sorry but I cannot afford the time to investigate.

Could it be that you are blocking all cookies? I use IE 7, allow only session cookies (which I assume are erased when I close my browser), write lengthy posts :surprised_ani:, yet I don't get dumped except maybe once a year.

nonegiven
Sep 3rd, 2008, 02:53 AM
Oh ... just to add ... I specifically remember the type of people this individual that was spreading the "dietary vegan" meme put down as dietary vegans. "Oh ... she's just a 'dietary vegan'" ... it was such a put down.

The were actually just nice, reasonable, interesting people that happened to be vegan but had some other life interests outside of animal rights and just did not want to be harangued with the atrocity pornography of animal suffering at every conversation.

If a vegan wore a woollen jersey or an old pair of leather shoes, they would accuse them of being just a dietary vegan because they had somehow "betrayed the cause".

I can accept that, say, a cancer sufferer that has been told by their doctor to eat a vegan diet is not a vegan. But then that is what they are ... a non-vegan who happens to have to eat a vegan diet. But that does would make them a "dietary vegan".

[Tech talk: no, not a cookie issue. I don't block them and I do web development and support elsewhere. Its software related. Don't use quick reply unless you are very quick and short folks and save copies as you go.]

Mahk
Sep 3rd, 2008, 03:13 AM
I would kill an animal if it was going to kill me (which includes bugs, slugs and vermin if threaten essential food stock)...
Oh no. There are killer slugs now? At least we can out run them!:p I guess you are talking about your garden? Can't you put them in a witness protection relocation program? [re-home them to a big field far away]


Hmm...Nonegiven is an anagram for nonveegin... better watch this guy. ;) (just teasin')

vegan_quilter
Sep 3rd, 2008, 05:49 AM
There are so many different angles to this discussion and I have truly enjoyed reading everyone's comments.

I'm consider myself basically a mainstream soccer Mom, but I was rasied by hippies lol*, so I feel priviledged to know things that the mainstream Moms don't generally know. Like, for example, what being Vegan means. Lol* I can honestly say that the majority of my circle, hippie parents excluded, don't know much if anything at all regarding the term. While dietary-vegan may not be a pleasing idea to someone living the full on vegan lifestyle, I agree very much with those who have stated that it clearly defines what the intention of the person is. If not for my hippie upbringing and affinity for critters, I might use the term myself. After all, the diet aspect is what drew me to veganism in the first place. In societies where ethics are second to material wealth, a label of "dietary-vegan" might gain more respect...after all, a girl will go to any length to fit into a size zero designer dress, and all sorts of off-beat diets are socially accepted to do so.

Calling yourself a "dietary-vegan" to me is kind of a way to say, "you know, I don't eat meat or dairy because I want to be healthy, but I'm not all wierd like those animal rights people". Which is fine in my book, because in my mind it seems less important that a person know the correct label for themselves and possibly be turned off by extremism, than it is that they get the main gist and make a change, albeit not a perfect one.

I suppose I understand the need for definitive meanings for vegans and vegetarians, if for nothing else, simply for the sake of passing along correct information in venues like this one.

What seems more of an oxy moron to me, is the thought of using a term like "dietary vegan" to say that someone who defines themselves as such is doing something less important than someone living the full vegan lifestyle. I would think someone who is vegan for ethical reasons would be pleased to hear that hundreds of animals lives will be spared by people who have chosen not to consume animal byproducts - regardless of their intentions in doing so. The likliehood of the entire world population going vegan or even vegetarian is slim to say the least, so I kind of feel like, hey, you can't win 'em all, but if you can encourage a few people to eat a little less meat, or none at all, then you've accomplished something.

If you are willing to make such drastic changes in your life for the sake of animals, it in my mind is only logical to also have equal compassion and acceptance for humans. Even those who do things that seem to you only half way.

nonegiven
Sep 3rd, 2008, 07:00 AM
This is headed a little off topic, so I apologise, but it is relevant to the discuss.

Oh no. There are killer slugs now? At least we can out run them!:p
Yup, trust me. They are out to get us.

If bugs or critters, from top of the food chain predators down to single cell amoebas, could handle hand guns ... human beings would have been compost a long time ago.

I grew up for part of my life on a farm (mainly arable farming, cereals, and horses), I have worked in the wholefood industry at a wholesale and retail level and, yes, I have grown my own. You have obviously never going away for a week and come back to a trashed crop. Most people have no idea how much rats piss, bug pooh and moth eggs there is in their food for it hanging around warehouses.

Trust me, nature is not just "red in tooth and claw" (to quote Tennyson) but sort of brown and yellowy too.

Its an interesting thing, and understandable, but for me veganism has always been a very "metropolitan" concept and lifestyle. That is to say, it is a very natural response in reaction or balance to a very unnatural environment. Note, the highest proportion of vegans and best vegan provision are in highly metropolitan areas line London, SF, NYC etc

Partly that is good; cities are unnatural, feeding them is highly unnatural and requires a lot of very unenvironmental and unethical practises. Vegan are attempting a sustainable balance and in such an unnatural environment, everyone's dies might as well be vegan as it is all "artifical".

Partly, it is bad as metro-vegans (to coin yet another neologism) are cut of from the reality of food production as it is all delivered, already washed, picked and in nice neat plastic containers. The dirty work, and the killing, has all been done for them. Have you ever read over that paper and any of the discussion around it.

Until the day comes that vegan's volunteer to walk ahead of combine harvesters on stilts running bells to frighten off the field mice or spend their lives in a cabbage field picking off caterpillars with chop sticks, we are all as much part of that nature by eating as we are part of the international war game for paying taxes.

What you are suggesting is fine on an amateur or domestic scale but impossible on an industrial or retail scale without going back to unpaid slavery or the 19th Century.

What I was actually thinking of was ethical culling or mercy killing. Even if the whole world became vegan tomorrow, we would still have to address the issues of stewardship of the planet and the imbalances we have created now require equally imbalanced rectification.

The talk of 'fake Jews' above made me think. It is true. I have met self-professed Jews who also ate bacon and sausages and it left me walking away scratching my head. How can you say you are Jewish but not follow Jewish observances? Their answer was, "Well, we follow some but not others ... just like all the other Jews".

To relate that into a vegan context. Some orthodox Jews, Hassidics, get around the Sabbath day bans by employ Goys to do the stuff for them. I know this from personal experience. Most reformed Jews think that is kind of ridiculous.

"Orthodox vegans" are kind of the same. Its not that killing isn't involved in their lifestyle, its just that they pay other people to do it for them and they don't have to think about it. They think the money transaction washes their hands of it ... well, I do not think that it does. I think one has to be more honest and bring it all closer to home. If necessary, take personal responsibility for it.

So now we have vegan, dietary vegan, neo-vegan, metro-vegan, eco-vegan, orthodox vegan, reformed vegan, born-again vegan, failed vegan, part-time vegan, pesco-vegan (ha!), McVegan (junk food vegan) ... and 'get real vegan' at the end. Which is where I guess I am at. Where it is all going to end ... when each and every one of us wears a different label!?!

(And, yes, you had better be joking about it ... I have paid more than my share of vegan dues.)

nonegiven
Sep 3rd, 2008, 07:26 AM
If a "dietary-vegan" to me is kind of a way to say, "you know, I don't eat meat or dairy because I want to be healthy, but I'm not all wierd like those animal rights people" ...
Quilter,

I was typing as you wrote but that was exactly what I was in my mind too. Its like saying, "I am vegan but don't expect me to spend all weekend holding up pictures of atrocity pornography of suffering animals and proselyting."

You get the connection with pornography. Both are for people who don't do it but like looking at the pictures of it.

Someone else tried to coin the term "ethical vegan" and legally establish "ethical veganism" as equal to a religion - which failed. In trying to find it, I found from Vegan Outreach;


"Frequently the term "Ethical Vegans" is used to distinguish Vegans for whom Veganism is a religion from the "lifestyle-only vegans".
Really!?! "Frequently!?!" I never hear either used.

WTF is a "lifestyle vegan" ... someone that wears black t-shirts, plastic Doc Martins, has tattoos and goes on animal rights marches ... but still eats meat and dairy!?! Its starting to get silly. Dietary vegan sounds so clumsy and clinical.

The best advertisment I ever saw for vegan was some guy I used to work with who never told anyone he was vegan, never made an issue of it, worked well, was positive and healthy, and had lots of funs. When I asked him is he was a vegan, he always used to deny it and avoid the issue because he hated labels.

He was vegan in that he only eat vegan and we were working in a wholefood wholesaler so he was a 100% ... he was just sick of the petty, superficiality and cultic superiority of it all, and did not want to take flack from others. Some of the more outspoken "vegans" I have met, and I am thinking of this woman I mentioned about who was pushing this dietary term around, were the worst possible advertisement for anything!

May be we can have psycho-vegans too? Although it would be a waste of a perfectly fun terms to use it in this case.

Korn
Sep 3rd, 2008, 08:07 AM
[Tech talk: no, not a cookie issue. I don't block them and I do web development and support elsewhere. Its software related. Don't use quick reply unless you are very quick and short folks and save copies as you go.]

Hi again, I have posted thousands of posts here on Mac/Safari, and only once seen that a post was lost (in an old version of Safari). Did you try the Previous Page-button? What kind of error message did you get (if you got any)? If this continues to happen, at least copy your text block before you try to post it...


For example, I might call myself a "vegan raw fooder" and demands to eat brazil nuts and pineapples in a European Winter. But the mere matter of fact that the pineapples are grown on slash and burn cleared rainforest (animal killing) by a multinational (human exploitation) and shipped half-way around the world (pollution ... environment to animal suffering) may very well equate to far more needless animal suffering than a hillfarmer eating homegrown vegetables and the odd local rabbit.

Well, in real life, you can't grow much vegetables in the winter in Northern countries, and there surely aren't enough odd local rabbits (or other animals) around to contribute significantly to human nutrient needs. A normal meat eater also normally eats imported meat or meat from factory animals that are forced into a 'food' production scheme that's everything but environment friendly.

The focus on imported plants often comes up when raw food is being criticized, and often by people who don't seem to have a problem with non-rawfooders eating imported food.

The Vegan Society, for example, mentions use of bananas lots of places on their site: 'Try our delicious chocolate banana custard cake', 'Try BBQ’d banana with some yummy vegan ice cream and maple syrup' and so on, but when they discuss raw vegan food, they mention that 'commercial banana production is an environmental disaster', they bring up the issues with long-distance transportation, high pesticide use affecting plantation workers and so on. There seem to be an anti-raw bias between the lines.

Mahk, I agree that we probably don't get further towards agreeing about this. My main gripe with 'dietary vegan' is simply that 'vegan' means one who avoids animal products, and that 'dietary' in this context means one that doesn't avoid animal products, so a 'dietary vegan' would be 'a person who avoid animal products who doesn't avoid animal products'. At least we agree that a dietary vegan isn't a vegan, even with that adjective in there.

eve
Sep 3rd, 2008, 09:33 AM
In my toolbox are a few items such as hammer, screwdriver, knife. These words are clearly defined, and if I asked someone to pass me a hammer, any intelligent person would know which tool to hand me.

But it seems that some people want to use words to mean whatever they choose, just like the queen in Alice Through the Looking Glass, who says that her words mean whatever she wants them to mean.

To me a vegan is someone who lives their life, to the best of their ability, avoiding harming living beings. Now if someone else wants to call themselves a vegan but does NOT avoid harming living beings, then to me, they are not vegans. Simple as that, but that's just for me. What others do is not my concern, though it would be terribly confusing if people did not agree that this is what we mean by a vegan. ;)

nonegiven
Sep 3rd, 2008, 04:54 PM
To me, eve, what you are saying is that up until recently vegans have been laid back and relaxed enough to trust others commitment and judgement and it is all about doing whatever you can to expand your circle of compassion. That probably makes you a Buddhi-vegan™.

And, I think that is part of the maturity of the community. No one has needed proof of it or felt the need to divide an already small enough community.

I always felt that with "I'm vegetarian but eat fish and chicken now and again" brigade that there was an element of claiming the status of being vegetarian without actually putting in the effort. I am not sure if that applies to "dietary vegans" because I do not know where it came about from, why or when. I don't even know if any, or how many, actually exist or they are just a figment of an obsessive mind.

Someone forced to eat a vegan diet is not a vegan. Someone doing so to, say, slim, is also not a vegan. But in either case, I suspect they would say, "I am not a vegan but I eat a vegan diet".

cobweb
Sep 3rd, 2008, 08:47 PM
yep, there can only be one reason for people who aren't really vegan to call themselves 'dietary-vegan', and that is some weird status thing.
otherwise, why say it atall? :confused:
why not say, if necessary, "i eat a plant based diet"
or "i don't eat animal products"
..........and anyway, if they've gone that far, why not just be vegan? :D

Korn
Sep 3rd, 2008, 09:03 PM
I have been thinking more about this topic, and have a feeling that the main problem is The Vegan Society, which in it's eagerness to attract more members currently seem to - in important situations - present 'vegan' as a dietary concept.

If TVS currently is governed by someone who wants to ignore the non-dietary aspect of being vegan, it's understandable that newbies and others are confused about the definition as well.

cobweb
Sep 3rd, 2008, 09:15 PM
Korn have you contacted TVS about your concerns?.

I see it that TVS present vegansim this way because it's felt that people feel unable to go vegan because they think there'll be 'nothing to eat', so they are trying to show this is not the case.

Mahk
Sep 3rd, 2008, 09:21 PM
yep, there can only be one reason for people who aren't really vegan to call themselves 'dietary-vegan', and that is some weird status thing.
otherwise, why say it atall? :confused:
why not say, if necessary, "i eat a plant based diet"
or "i don't eat animal products"


Or yet another reason could be they are sick and tired of having this sort of conversation, over and over again:

DV: "No thanks, I'll pass, I don't eat animal products or byproducts."

Omni: "Oh, so you are a vegan then, right?"

DV: "No, I attend the circus with my children and they have animal acts, for example. A true vegan wouldn't do that."

Omni: "Oh, I see, then why don't you call yourself a 'dietary vegan' ? That would unambiguously describe to all that your rejection of animal goods is solely related to your diet."

DV: "Because people on the internet say I'm not allowed to."

:p

cobweb
Sep 3rd, 2008, 09:32 PM
Mahk all i can say to that is "go to the (U.K) Vegan Society's website and look up the original definition of Veganism, the one used by Donald Watson the founder of Veganism".

Mahk
Sep 3rd, 2008, 09:40 PM
Why should I look up "vegan"? This hypothetical person never claimed they were one:

DV: "No, I attend the circus with my children and they have animal acts, for example. A true vegan wouldn't do that."

harpy
Sep 3rd, 2008, 09:40 PM
I thought the Vegan Society used the "dietary vegan" thing when signing up members because there is a relatively clear definition of what a vegan diet is, whereas there are various other things that are up for debate about a vegan lifestyle (as in those discussions about "a true vegan would never do x", which we've sometimes had even on here). So they could be arguing about who should/shouldn't be a full member for ever.

I may be wrong but I also think their membership form used to say "am a vegan", and I never joined until they changed it because I was worried about a visit from the vegan police :o

If my interpretation of their policy is correct I think it's reasonable, but it would probably be better if they said "follow a vegan diet" rather than "am a dietary vegan" for the reasons discussed above.