There is no such thing as a dietary vegan

[snivelingchild]

...and co-founder Elsie Shrigley (http://www.vegansociety.com/about_us/history/). Of course history doesn't always convey herstory now does it.

Of course, we can never know what really happened, but while they both founded the society, everything I've read said that he coined the term. Two people can hardly make a word, that's sort of an 'I have an idea' and 'I like that idea' sort of situation.

[cobweb]

i think Mahk enjoys arguing............

[Mahk]

i think Mahk enjoys arguing............

I can see how some would think that of me mainly because I hardly ever post:
"Yeah, I think so too." Such a post is a waste of space in my opinion so if I agree with a post or have nothing else to contribute I stay mum.

[RubyDuby]

i'm not trying to be argumentative, and although this is off-topic I feel the need to say I'm glad not everybody has that opinion! what a negative, unsupportive place this would be! (although I don't think it's bad neccessarily that you act in that matter. diversity=good) I certainly don't believe agreement and support should be criticized (sp??).

[Mahk]

Yeah, I think so too.:) Perhaps I over generalized my behavior. I thought your chili (http://veganforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=502258&postcount=548) looked yummy, for example, but people already commented that it looked yummy [and how all of us are now making chili today :)] so I didn't bother. I'm much more inclined to comment if no one else has already, I guess. I don't consider my behavior negative and unsupportive but rather "unknown at this time". If I see a poster is already getting support I feel mine is un-needed.

[RubyDuby]

:hmm: :p

[gogs67]

i think Mahk enjoys arguing............
'Discuss' is the word i would use!:D
Mahk tends to come at an argument from a different angle from most and raise a lot of very valid, if not widely held points. I find a lot of these debates interesting and refreshing as they tend to be the type of questions i encounter when confronting my own views on veganism!! Precisely the kind of thing i like to see on a board like this!:thumbsup:

[Mahk]

Thanks gogs. That was a nice thing to say.:)

I thought also to point out that I at times will join a controversial or contentious discussion not because I have a particular point of view but rather because I think it is unfair that a particular perspective is being alienated or bashed, such as my posts in the "Are you religious" poll. I myself am not religious at all but who was I arguing shouldn't be bashed? Answer: the religious people. At an election poll turning away people or making a hostile environment that pressures them to leave based on their skin color or in this case religious views is unacceptable in polite society.

[Mahk]

Our disagreement about that term could be something linguistic as well, but adjectives normally describe nouns - in English as well, and since others, which unlike me are from UK support me, I feel my viewpoint is on safe linguistic ground.

And at least one Englishman, starlight, agrees with me:

I certainly wouldn't interpret this phrase as meaning the person claims to be English.

We still haven't heard from harpy or the others though. Harpy?

"Dietary" means of or pertaining to diet alone. It does not address blood type, skin color, ethnicity/race, wardrobe, or lifestyle. In fact in both the examples "dietary Englishman" or "dietary vegan" there is a strong suggestion that they are indeed not English or vegan simply by the use of the word "dietary"; it implies "in diet only, in all other regards not". And as we all know, diet alone neither defines Englishmen/Englishwomen nor vegans.

[harpy]

I haven't read all the messages properly, but based on the ones I have read I don't think you're ever going to settle the question one way or another, frankly.

Obviously there are some qualifiers (let's call them type 1) you can put in front of "vegan" that would make it mean "not a vegan at all", like "lapsed vegan", "part-time vegan", "pretend vegan". There are other qualifiers (type 2) that imply you're talking about a type of vegan, e.g. "lifelong vegan", "lonely vegan", "evangelical vegan."

Vegans would probably agree (ETA: if they accept the phrase at all) that "dietary" in "dietary vegan" is a type 1 qualifier (i.e. "dietary vegans" aren't vegans at all), but some people (non-vegans who haven't given the matter much thought) might take it as being a type 2 qualifier (i.e. "dietary vegans" are a subset of vegans).

So IMO the phrase might be better avoided in favour of e.g. "people who eat a vegan diet" in order not to confuse people about what a vegan really is. But I don't see it as a major issue as people who are actually interested in veganism will soon find out the truth of the matter, or figure it out for themselves.

Don't suppose that helps :p

[RubyDuby]

Don't suppose that helps :p
I disagree.

very well put!



(if I may waste everybody's time once again. :satisfied:)

[cobweb]

I disagree.

very well put!



(if I may waste everybody's time once again. :satisfied:)


RubyDuby you just made me laugh, thankyou! :thumbsup::D
(btw>off-topic<i love this :satisfied:, it's my natural expression, only alternating occasionally with this :rollseyes_ani: and sometimes this :hmm:)

[Mahk]

Thanks for your input, harpy.

How about "dietary Englishwoman" though? Does that in any way suggest the person is English? I don't see how anyone who understands the word "Englishwoman" could possibly see it as a subset of "Englishwomen" (the dietary only ones) in fact I think it strongly implies they are not English.

ETA: If one truly knows what a vegan and and Englishwoman are, then "dietary" can't be a "type 2 qualifier" so that means it can only be taken to mean a type 1 qualifier.

[cobweb]

but isn't the whole point really that a LOT of people still don't truly understand what 'vegan' means so using this term 'dietary vegan' just confuses the situation further?

(*half of me finds this discussion of major importance/relevance and half of me thinks it's a bit silly :o:p*)

[harpy]

I'm afraid the phrase "dietary Englishwoman" doesn't really mean anything to me - I would just be baffled if told that someone was a dietary Englishwoman.

[Mahk]

Cobweb, should we stop using the word Englishwoman for the same reason then?;)

Just in case people don't know what it means we'll say " A female human who is English, and I don't mean just in diet alone" :p There, that should be clear.

[Mahk]

I'm afraid the phrase "dietary Englishwoman" doesn't really mean anything to me - I would just be baffled if told that someone was a dietary Englishwoman.

It means a woman who in terms of diet eats English food. Fish 'n' chips would be an example. American, Italian, Greek, Mexican, Chinese food etc. are not eaten.

ETA: Since type 2 qualification is impossible it leaves us only with type 1 qualification by default.

[cobweb]

Cobweb, should we stop using the word Englishwoman for the same reason then?;)

Just in case people don't know what it means we'll say " A female human who is English, and I don't mean just in diet alone" :p There, that should be clear.


well i believe that most people would know what an Englishman/woman is so i can't really compare it...........

[harpy]

But perhaps the fact that you have to explain what you mean by it shows that it's not as helpful a phrase as, say, "person who eats exclusively English food" (which would be a good description of my m-in-l BTW :D )

I do know roughly what you're driving at and think your position is tenable as regards the way the phrase "dietary vegan" should be interpreted. But as cobweb says it makes sense to prefer clear terminology where it's available, especially as the term "vegan" is generally less well understood (even) than "English" . (IOW I don't think people unfamiliar with the term "vegan" would necessarily know that type 2 qualification is unavailable in that case.)

[Mahk]

Brilliant post harpy. All great points.

Instead of "dietary Englishwoman", which I admit is awkward, perhaps I should have gone with "an Anglican ethnically"

-do we know what language they speak? No.
-do we know what country they were born in? No.
-do we know what country they live in now? No.
-do we know what they eat? No.
-are they Anglican? Most likely not, since the speaker is making it a point that they are speaking in regards to ethnicity only. Just like 'dietary vegan' is obviously speaking to diet only.

All we know is that their ethnicity is English. We shouldn't jump to conclusions about anything else.

Note, I'm not using the religious definition of "Anglican" but rather this secular one:

"Of or relating to England or the English"

[Mahk]

Mahk - you clearly agree that someone who only eats vegan isn't a vegan... you don't suggest that this topic is up for discussion as well, do you?
I think we should have a thread "The problem with the phrase 'eats vegan' " :p Vegans are animals and we don't kill or eat them, now do we? ;) Unless you meant...:amazed_ani: Just kidding.

Anyway, I already answered you as to my views in #173 (http://veganforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=502287&postcount=173). As to whether people should be allowed to discuss the issue, considering I now know the circa 2005/2006 Vegan Society's definition said "some vegans wear leather", I'd probably say I think it should be allowed. I don't really want to talk about it myself, but I can see how someone who joined in 2005, read that definition, and went with it would otherwise feel betrayed. Unlike some people here I don't think I have the right to impose my kind of veganism, which doesn't allow for pet ownership unless rescued, for example, on others.

[Korn]

Anyway, I already answered you as to my views in #173.
Hi Mahk, Are you sure you have answered that specific question in that post? It's not on your list of 'things do debate in veganism'. On the contrary, you bring up the topic of censorship, which could be read as if you think we filter away stuff we shouldn't - like posts defending use of animal products, or attempts of redefining 'vegan' into something that's accepting use of animal products/killing animals if eating these products isn't involved.

What you wrote is that you 'clearly agree that someone who only eats vegan isn't a vegan', but you didn't comment if you think that topic should be up for discussion re. the definition of vegan...

We are discussing at least 3-4 topics in this thread:


Is there such a thing as a 'dietary vegan'?
Can the use of 'dietary vegan' cause unnecessary misunderstandings among new vegans/potential vegans/others?
Should we do what we can to avoid such potential misunderstandings?
If it can, would it be better to explain 'someone who eats vegan food, but who isn't a vegan' with a different description?

As a result of discussing these topics, a couple of people have claimed something a la 'if someone stays away from meat and have no intentions about going back, he's a vegan' or 'non-vegans already have misunderstand what vegan means, so let's adjust the definition of the word according to their misinterpretation'.

Imagine that some represent of The Vegan Society would register here and start threads suggesting that a vegan is someone who avoids meat only, that use of eggs are 'vegan', that honey is 'vegan', that there's no conflict between being a vegan and go hunting, because vegansim is only about food etc.. If he did, he would first get a warning, then be put on moderated posts (if it seemed that he didn't respect our rule # 12), and finally get banned if he continued.

I could of course suggest that he should rather bring that discussion up within The Vegan Society itself, but since I think they deserve better than that, I wouldn't suggest that. Instead of trying to redefine 'veganism', I hope they want to use their forces on spreading vegan viewpoints, not on changing them.

We've even seen people who claim to be vegan, but who suggested that nothing would be wrong with killing animals if they were killed in a 'humane' way. These people aren't vegans - or vegetarians either, because vegetarianism/veganism never claimed that eating meat was OK if the animals was killed according to specific rules.

Should we allow these various groups of people to keep posting messages suggesting that vegans could eat meat from wild game, honey, milk from free range cows, humanely killed goats, eggs from free range chicken, killing animals for leather or fur but not for meat (because veganism is about diet) and what not? No, because this is a forum for vegans, and vegans already have made up their mind about these things. As I wrote earlier, 'normal' vegans would leave the site if such discussions - or posts defending use of animal products would dominate the board. I hope that The Vegan Society isn't about to be reduced into an organization that consider letting go of the entire concept of veganism only to become more popular, and flirt with the idea that killing is OK as long as you don't eat your victim afterwards, but our forum will not take that route.

Leather or honey wasn't mentioned in that first, almost 'pre-vegan' newsletter, but killing and exploitation was - several times. Vegan literature and internet is full of statements confirming that veganism isn't only about diet. I can't think of one good reason that this topic should be up for discussion within the vegan movement, and Mahk - I still don't know if you agree - even if you are the most active poster in this thread.


The question is relevant - because it has been used as some vague semi-reference for defending that there is such a thing as a dietary vegan/that 'dietary vegan' is a good choice of words when describing non-vegans who don't eat animal products...

ETA: I've now read the last half of your last post as well! :) You wrote in that post that you'd "probably say I think it should be allowed".

Please respect that this forum is a forum for people who accept that redefining vegan clearly is outside the board rules. Our policy is to offer a palce for discussion on vegan premises, and use the Not A Vegan -scetion to explain non-vegans/new vegans what veganism is (eg that vegans are against using leather), and not to allow posts from people who want to use our forum to try to change veganism to something else than it is. In practice, this means that we can explain to those who eg. misunderstand what 'vegan' is after having read something on The Vegan Society's pages what it is that they have misunderstood, but we won't allow people to want to change the definition of vegan into something that eg. accepts hunting as something vegan to do that. We'll keeping deactivating accounts of people who do that, and.... that policy isn't up for discussion either!

[Mahk]

see below:

[Mahk]

You have several question marks throughout your post. I'm not really sure which are rhetorical questions and which you want my answers for. All?


Please respect that this forum is a forum for people who accept that redefining vegan clearly is outside the board rules. Our policy is to offer a palce for discussion on vegan premises, and use the Not A Vegan -scetion to explain non-vegans/new vegans what veganism is (eg that vegans are against using leather), and not to allow posts from people who want to use our forum to try to change veganism to something else than it is. In practice, this means that we can explain to those who eg. misunderstand what 'vegan' is after having read something on The Vegan Society's pages what it is that they have misunderstood, but we won't allow people to want to change the definition of vegan into something that eg. accepts hunting as something vegan to do that. We'll keeping deactivating accounts of people who do that, and.... that policy isn't up for discussion either!


This all makes perfect sense if there was a singular definition of "vegan". There isn't. I think pet ownership is wrong, for example, yet you disagree (I think). If you disagree with me on this point then please provide a link that addresses: sugar of unknown filtration, pet ownership, pre owned old leather, Vitamin D3 in fortified food, mono- and diglycerides, leather seat use in taxis/restaurants/friends' houses etc., and using lifesaving medicines that contain and/or were animal tested.

Sniv is right, if Watson and Shrigley were alive today we could simply ask them, but the next best thing is the society they formed. If they say no honey, which they do, then no honey. But "whenever practical and possible" is extremely vague in my opinion and just doesn't cover the issues I'm asking for clarification on except in an individual's own mind.


Mahk every human is unique (even vegans) so surely there is no definitive answer to the above questions, which is where the 'avoidance'................'wherever practical and possible' thing comes in?.

Yeah, I think so too.:) Hence they seem fair game to discuss to me.

[Korn]

You have several question marks throughout your post. I'm not really sure which are rhetorical questions and which you want my answers for. All?
Well, after I saw what you wrote in the last half of your previous post... no further explanation is really needed.



This would all makes sense if there was a singular definition of "vegan".
We are going in circles now.

There is a common, traditional definition of vegan, it has been mentioned in loads of books and internet sites, it's on The Vegan Society's current pages, in their 1948-1976 Memorandum - and it clearly says that veganism is NOT only about diet. This definition has been posted many times on this and many other sites.





I think pet ownership is wrong yet you disagree (I think), for example.
First of all, I haven't posted anything suggesting that, secondly, the definition of vegan doesn't say that keeping a so called 'pet' under all circumstances are wrong (or that it's vegan'); which is why we have a discussion about this topic.



If you disagree with me on this point then please provide a link that addresses: sugar of unknown filtration, pet ownership, pre owned old leather, Vitamin D3 in fortified food, leather seat use in taxis/restaurants/friends' houses etc., and using lifesaving medicines that contain an/or were animal tested.
Disagree with you on which point?


...the next best thing is the society they formed. If they say no honey, which they do, then no honey.
If those who started the vegan movement, who coined the word vegan, and participated in/monitored the birth of the vegan movement had a discussion and agreed that use of honey isn't vegan, then it isn't vegan. They did. Honey isn't vegan.

On the other hand, if a group of people manage to hijack, say a vegan, or Christian organization, and claim that 'one could kill animals for entertainment and still be a vegan' or 'Jesus was pro mass-extinction of left-handed, poker playing redheads from West Virginia', these would still be false, non-valid statements. This would be true if if it could be proven that there was a direct line between the initial vegans/Christians and the group who claim to represent these values.



But "whenever practical and possible" is extremely vague in my opinion and doesn't cover the issues I'm asking for clarification on except in an individual's own mind.
Regarding eg. using fur, leather, honey, eggs, killing animals.... and exploiting animals in general - there's nothing vague regarding the definition if vegan or regarding how 'practical/possible' it is, unless somone is in windup mode and want to discuss extreme/special situations like 'if the only way you could save yourself from freezing to death was to...." etc.

We won't get any further with this Mahk. We've been running in circles for a while already...