PDA

View Full Version : Vegan authorities that cause harm to the vegan movement?



Pages : 1 2 3 [4]

Manzana
Dec 24th, 2008, 01:10 PM
Korn,

I disagree that they are spreading a misunderstanding.

I have to say that having looked at both arguments I think that their argument is fair. I also think that (even if they were not entirely right in this particular issue), they still do an AWESOME job helping vegans and promoting veganism.

I don't think it is fair to tell people what to post or not to post in this forum just because of a difference in opinion about such a small matter as the misprint in a leaflet (whether on their front page or not).

Korn
Dec 24th, 2008, 01:21 PM
The Vegan Society itself agrees that they should change that text, and I for one, fail to see that their argument is 'fair', because they haven't presented an argument defending the promotion of promoting the misnuderstanding the actively have been spreading for months now.


I don't think it is fair to tell people what to post or not to post in this forum just because of a difference in opinion about such a small matter as the misprint in a leaflet (whether on their front page or not).
Fair enough - then you don't agree with our board rules, which always have had reservations against people who "use our forum to try to change veganism to something else than it is". Trying to claim that veganism is about food is definitely within what I consider trying "to change veganism to something else than it is".



I disagree that they are spreading a misunderstanding.
They are defining 'a vegan' by defining what she/he eats. That gives the false impression that being vegan is about what you eat only. If you disagree that this is spreading a misunderstanding, so be it. It's not about 'telling people what to post' - we already do that since it's a vegan forum (you can't promote using leather or fur here, for example', it's about wanting to use this site or not. If people want to use it (we aren't telling anyone to use it), they need to accept that promoting use of animal products or trying to make veganism into a food-only thing doesn't fall within our board rules. Maybe we'll start another forum where such discussions may happen - but this isn't such a forum.

If we should allow people to promote the theory that you could be a vegan and still eg. go fishing/hunting (but not eat the fish/animals) - which would be the logical consequence of claiming that the definition of a vegan only has to do with what you eat - I would be out of here.

I'm simply not interested in running a site that's meant as a 'sanctuary' for vegans (in the true meaning of the word) and as a means to spread veganism, and let it be used to dissolve the very core of what veganism stands for: respect for animals, for life and the idea that we shall avoid harming other living beings as much as possible.

I also know for sure that a lot of members would leave with a new forum profile. I say this based on feedback I've received over the years from people who appreciate our policy about filtering away non-vegan/anti-vegan 'propaganda' here.

If this would be a forum both for vegans and for people who aren't vegan (but who happen to eat vegan food - due to eg. allergies, taste, health problems and so forth) the whole atmosphere would have been very different.

Nothing is wrong with having such a forum as well - I actually have suggested creating one (here (http://www.veganforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19292)), but I'm not going to spend thousands of hours running a forum like that. It takes a lot of time and resources to build up a message board, and I won't 'give' all that work away just because someone suggests that non-vegans also may participate here and join the discussions about ethics, animals etc. This would happen if 'vegan' should be redfined based on what people eat.

Frank
Dec 24th, 2008, 02:04 PM
(Post 75 ^) Again Ė we canít presume what the VS priorities are and therefore cannot make presumptions over what we feel they should or should not do, no matter how strongly we feel about something. Those guys will get everything done eventually.

I do ensure feedback, for what itís worth to forumers Ė even though some of you guys are not members or are external to the UK - and the VS does listen and does take an interest.

Manzana
Dec 24th, 2008, 02:09 PM
The Vegan Society itself agrees that they should change that text, and I for one, fail to see that their argument is 'fair', because they haven't presented an argument defending the promotion of promoting the misnuderstanding the actively have been spreading for months now.


I fail to see how misprinting a leaflet that is about vegan food is such a big deal. Caterers are concerned about vegan food. They are not gonna care if a vegan uses leather or plastic shoes... or whether i choose organic manure or vegetable mulch to grow my garden veg or whether vegans use lactose free condoms for that matter.




Fair enough - then you don't agree with our board rules, which always have had reservations against people who "use our forum to try to change veganism to something else than it is". Trying to claim that veganism is about food is definitely within what I consider trying "to change veganism to something else than it is".


Korn, no-one is trying to do that. It seems to me like an honest mistake that is being pursued to create discrepancies amongs vegans.
The statement did not spread a lie: vegans do not eat animal products, fair enough, there is more to it than that but there is no need to make such a fuss once they have said that they would reprint their leaflet.

I don't see why it is necessary for you to say whether i agree or not with the rules of this board.



They are defining 'a vegan' by defining what she/he eats. That gives the false impression that being vegan is about what you eat only.


No, they are not. They are explaining to caterers what vegans eat. If it was a guide to shop retailers, i would find it a bit strange if they said "vegans dont eat meat, dairy, eggs, honey"... I think they would just concentrate on the fur/leather/wool part of veganism.



If you disagree that this is spreading a misunderstanding, so be it. It's not about 'telling people what to post' - we already do that since it's a vegan forum (you can't promote using leather or fur here, for example', it's about wanting to use this site or not. If people want to use it (we aren't telling anyone to use it), they need to accept that promoting use of animal products or trying to make veganism into a food-only thing doesn't fall within our board rules. Maybe we'll start another forum where such discussions may happen - but this isn't such a forum.

I think posting this kind of comments has a negative impact on the atmosphere of the forum in general. We have a difference of opinion and we should be tolerant about it not try to impose our views...

Korn
Dec 24th, 2008, 02:10 PM
Again Ė we canít presume...

And again: I don't think we can blame anything that's so controversial - and so easy to change - has to do with capacity. It's even a lie to say that it takes 5 minutes - it takes less than two.


the VS does listen and does take an interest.
That's not enough. ;-)

songlife
Dec 27th, 2008, 09:44 PM
(Post 75 ^) Again Ė we canít presume what the VS priorities are and therefore cannot make presumptions over what we feel they should or should not do, no matter how strongly we feel about something. Those guys will get everything done eventually.

Of course, the definition of veganism itself being completely botched on a site that is about veganism is of some importance!

It's like me having a site about guitar and claiming that the definition of guitar playing is about strengthening one's fingers. Obviously it's not only about strengthening one's fingers.

songlife
Dec 27th, 2008, 09:45 PM
(Post 75 ^) Again Ė we canít presume what the VS priorities are and therefore cannot make presumptions over what we feel they should or should not do, no matter how strongly we feel about something. Those guys will get everything done eventually.

Of course, the definition of veganism itself being completely botched on a site that is about veganism is of some importance!

It's like me having a site about guitar and claiming that the definition of guitar playing is only bout strengthening one's fingers. Obviously it's not only about strengthening one's fingers. Imagine this was the most influential guitar site in the world. Do you know how upset all the other musicians would be?

Korn
Nov 29th, 2010, 11:39 PM
There's a new site called theveganrd.com. It's dominated by the B12 view that has been presented by Jack Norris for a while, which generally gives the impression, more or less between the lines, that it's harder to end up with a nutritious/healthy diet as a vegan than as a non-vegan. One example of this is that theveganrd.com does exactly what Jack Norris does: he defines his own 'recommended value' for B12, and compares what most vegans get with this new, extremely high and highly private 'standard'.

theveganrd.com dosn't only suggest 25 mcg/day but writes "The recommended dose is 25 to 100 micrograms per day or 1,000 micrograms 2-3 times per week."

Like Jack Norris, theveganrd.com doesn't mention that non-vegan diets usually are short in lots of nutrients, and also that - in terms of B12 - the amount they recommend is way higher than anyone gets.

Non-vegans usually gets max 5-15 mcg/day of B12 from their diet. Some people's apparently blind faith in the importance of reducing homocysteine as a way to reduce heart disease risk (http://www.veganforum.com/forums/showthread.php?108-B12-homocysteine-amp-heart-disease/page2) ignores all the studies and opinions researchers have been sharing during the last decade. THese 'experts' don't even mention important, large studies and other articles discussing if homocysteine mainly is a result, a symptom, and which therefore indicates that treating the symptom as such may not help. Please have a look at the thread I just linked to if you haven't already, or at least have a look at the emphasized text.

A while ago the B12 'expert' Victor Herbert wrote that we need to absorb max 0.25 mcg B12 pr. day. I think its' higher, and Herbert increased his numbers.
All B12 that is consumed isn't absorbed, some of the B12 found in supplements, fortified food, vegan and non-vegan food isn't active, but inactive B12 analogues, and finally, we need to look at all the elements that reduce B12 levels/absorption.


The current Dietary Reference Intake for an adult ranges from 2 to 3 Ķg per day. According to Jack Norris, the recommended intake is 25-100 mcg, or circa 1000%-4000% of the current RDAs.

If theveganrd.com and Jack Norris manage to convince vegans that they need 25-100 mcg B12 daily, much more than eg. any health dept. recommends, we can conclude that 100% of the world population gets too little B12.

'Beforewisdom', who has spent years on posting the same links to the "Norris-sites" is of course also active on theveganrd.com and on Norris' own site. If you have ben visiting any vegan message board the last 5 years, you must have seen his messages, and the same references to some B12 deficient guy ("For the last few months, I was feeling sluggish, had to lie down a couple.... etc").

It seems that we could get a rush of links to this new, Norris-related site... not in the form of interesting posts which actually are discussing Norris' very special view on B12, but by people who "accidentally" happen to promote these sites by posting repeated links to them. So, here's a little, but important reminder: Spam (repeated links) are never welcome, discussions are welcome.

leedsveg
Nov 30th, 2010, 12:18 PM
Never mind about the effects of B12 deficiency, just reading all of this thread has made me feel more sluggish than before...!:eek:

lv



[this posting is an attempt at humour and in no way contains any nutritional advice or information*]

*allegedly

Kimberlily1983
Dec 6th, 2010, 02:40 PM
This looks like a very interesting thread, which I will have to read more closely in the future when I have more time. :D

For now will comment on a couple of things that caught my eye:


After The Rain, you know what's sad? Cohen said many of the things you did (and I find them to be true). There are definitely lobbyists posing as vegans, much more than people realize. You know, corporations are not above astroturfing and posing to create, destroy, and subvert grass roots movements and counter cultures. It's been a common practice in the US since day one, but oddly people pretend it can't be so. I think it's worth looking in to.

I just learned of this term - astroturfing - this week, how funny. While there are obviously corporations funding antiscience, etc. organizations that disseminate false information about soy, etc., and while there are definitely individuals, working with the law, infiltrating animal rights groups, I never really thought about the possibility of people posing as vegan advocacy, etc. organizations... That's a scary thought. Definitely something to be careful about, watch out for...


'...the chicken lying in the supermarket freezer today would have died even if I had never existed; but the fact that I take the chicken from the freezer, and ignore the tofu on a nearby shelf, has something to do with the number of chickens, or blocks of tofu, the supermarket will order next week and thus contributes, in a small way, to the future growth or decline of the chicken and tofu industries.' Peter Singer A Vegetarian Philosophy, Consuming Passions. Manchester, 1998, pp. 66-72

While I agree that Singer's philosophy is very problematic, this is a good quote! :)

BTW, utilitarianism can fully support rights, despite what most people think on this subject. Just because most utilitarians are anthropocentric (despite what Singer says, he falls in this category), doesn't mean all of us are. My own view is that rights are integral to utilitarianism, and that any utilitarian calculus that can justify the violation of rights is flawed. I can't get into it now - it would take too long - but perhaps it's fodder (ugh) for future discussion.

Korn
Nov 11th, 2011, 07:59 AM
There are definitely lobbyists posing as vegans, much more than people realize.
There are even people who 'pose' as (or are!) vegans, but which realistically function as lobbyists for animal products, or which try to get people to choose a lacto-ovo vegetarian diet instead of a vegan diet and lifestyle.

They may claim that only 'strict' vegans avoid other than food related animal products, and sometimes claim that only 'some vegans' don't use honey etc. Or: they promote the myth that vegans are likely to get iron and protein deficiency without supplements... and so on.

They almost always fail to mention that people on SAD (Standard American Diet) suffer from a lot of deficnecies.

The relatively new (?) site veganvsvegetarian dot info seems to belong to that category. For instace, they have a video about the difference between vegan and vegetarian, which ends up with saying that they'll now demonstrate vegetarian recipes. And (unfortunately - just like one or two major vegan sites) - they focus on the nutrients vegans need to pay extra attention to without focus properly on the fact that people on a standard diet have a lot of nutrients they need to pay attention to. The end result is that occasional vistors with little knowledge about vegan nutrition (read: most people) will have their fear about vegan food not being as healthy as SAD confirmed. For the records, the site I mentioned seems to be particularly misinformed, in that they eg. claim that the original meaning of vegan was "a person who was simply opposed to eating eggs for food." (!)

Some of these 'pro-veg' sites, for some reason, also happen to have advertisements for iron and protein supplements, and talk about vegans as 'they', not us (ever if they consider themselves vegans). ;-) Also - like meat eaters - they talk about what 'they' (the vegans) 'can' eat - and forget that we can eat what we want but that there's some stuff we don't want to do and eat.

Such writers/sites/blogs/YouTube clips - when comparing vegan vs the somewhat vague term 'vegetarian' - also usually fail to mention the many unwanted health side effects associated with dairy products - and never focus on the cruelty involved in the production of eggs and milk. It's all very food oritented.

And for some reason, they also tend to promote veggie recipes of the kind that meat teaers assume vegans and vegetarians eat (cooked broccoli with salad and rice or potatoes etc). Gourmet vegan food doesn't seem to be something they consider eating. :)

harpy
Nov 11th, 2011, 10:42 AM
'Both of these lifestyles require an extraordinary commitment...Furthermore, if you are not careful with these diets, you could have deficiencies in protein, vitamins and minerals. Even if you are getting all your necessary nutrients, it is easy to have “diet fatigue” and get tired of eating the same meals, day after day.' :rolleyes: Way to put people off the whole idea. On the plus side, I like their accents. ETA and the "recipe" video gave me some moments of innocent pleasure as well :devil: