PDA

View Full Version : The Vegan Forum and diluted veganism



Pages : [1] 2 3

Korn
Sep 1st, 2004, 08:22 AM
If someone says that they are not into veganism as such (respect for life, being against harming and killing animals), but ie. only are against factory farming, or certain ways to kill animals, or that they are just against killing animals due to certain conditions in our society/culture, IMO they represent an outwatered veganism. The existence of outwatered veganism is actually a main motivation for running this site, because we think it's important, both for the vegan movement, human health and for the animals, that veganism is not being converted into representing a conditioned/limited resistance against harming or killing animals.

In my opinion, someone who says that 'I'm a vegan, but would not be it if *******', is not a vegan. Replace ******** with an analysis of world population, theories about rural communities that 'have to' kill animals to survive, discussions about environmental issues etc.

Even if being vegan means being against harming/killing animals, this doesn't mean that everybody who is against harming/killing animals are vegans. This is a site for people who are pro veganism.

After having seen some attempts from people who register and after a few days or hours start to agitate pro extreme variations of ideas that they think has something to do with veganism, we have changed the board guide lines, (and will adjust them even more), because we don't want discussions with people who think that eating meat or killing animals 'ain't that bad' under given circumstances. We simply don't want a message board populated by people who means that veganism possibly includes killing / eating animals.

Veganism has nothing to do with evaluating how happy the animal is, how it is killed, how many people who live on the earth, the current environmental situation the earth is in, or any other way of saying OK to eat meat or kill animals.

To avoid the endless discussions about whether it's OK to eat meat or not, we will soon declare in our FAQ and in our sign-up text (the one you have to agree with to become a member) that IF you for some reason disagree with this definition of veganism, which is the common one, this site is reserved for people who DO agree with this definition of veganism.

ConsciousCuisine
Sep 1st, 2004, 02:36 PM
I appreciate how attentive you are to these issues that arise in this forum. It's lovely to have a space that is truly a Vegan Sanctuary where we can be amongst like-minded beings and our core values are respected.

Thank you so much for being consistent, ethical and direct. I appreciate you and this forum!

Artichoke47
Sep 1st, 2004, 03:05 PM
Yay, Korn! I get tired of people thinking that it's okay to murder "free-range" animals. I completely agree with your entire post. :)

uww27225
Sep 1st, 2004, 03:06 PM
Korn, you definitely win the administrator/moderator of the year award. :) I love having an online sanctuary where I can go and get good advice, tips, etc. from people who feel the same as I do. Many of us lack this network in the "real world". It's nice to know that when I'm feeling overwhelmed or alone in regards to my choice to turn vegan, I can just read a few posts here and feel confident that I'm doing the right thing. Keep up the good work, Korn! :D

feline01
Sep 1st, 2004, 03:47 PM
Korn,

It's refreshing for a moderator/administrator to set concrete guidelines rather than trying to please everyone. I agree that these washed down definitions of veganism are getting out of hand. Either you support a vegan lifestyle and all the encompasses or you are not vegan. Not that you're a horrible human being for not being vegan nor or vegans morally superior in all aspects of life, it's just different lifestyle choices.

Thanks for the fine job that you do.

cedarblue
Sep 1st, 2004, 04:43 PM
hear hear! ;)

Fruitbat
Sep 1st, 2004, 08:42 PM
Then I am not vegan and we have gone back to the same type of thread as with defining the word "vegan" and the ellitism of differnt motives for being vegan.

veganfever
Sep 1st, 2004, 09:27 PM
I sign my name under all the posts before mine ( except Fruitbat's ).
Some people are just able to express themselfs so much better than I would (english is my second language). Great moderator, great place to come to and read very interesting, challenging and sophisticated posts. Thanks. :D

wuggy
Sep 1st, 2004, 09:46 PM
In my opinion the definition of vegan is someone whose lifestyle entails the avoidance of all animal products/by-products, and whose actions, as far as is humanly possible, would not entail or encourage any suffering to other living beings. I don't think that is atall elitist, it's surely what being vegan is all about, and this, and other vegan forums should the place where we feel 'at home' enough to share thoughts with others who place the same importance on active avoidance of the promotion of cruelty and abuse of animals! That is not elitism, that is just the purpose of a specialist forum - surely! :rolleyes:

veganmike
Sep 1st, 2004, 10:15 PM
The funny thing is that the only person who discussed possibility of eating animal products no longer posts here. Almost all other members consider themselves vegan, yet the witch hunt continues. We will see where it leads us.

Korn
Sep 2nd, 2004, 01:03 AM
We've had about 30 people who have logged in here either to defend meat eating, saying that veganism should include use of animal products, or who in other ways seem to stay here in order to influence our visitors against 'classical' vegan ideas. (I noticed that one of these very active 'semi-vegan' visitors was logging in from a corporation that makes millions of dollars on animal products, which of course can be a coincidence...)

This has nothing to do with witchhunting. If your comment above and your sarcasm about 'critical thinking' a few days ago indicates that you're not happy with how this site is run, I'm sorry - but we won't change it.

Let me give you one example. We have a thread here (http://www.veganforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=169) about possible side effects of taking too much B12, where you have participated. Nobody has been witchhunting you for your rather extreme B12 viewpoints, more or less recommending people to take 40 times what most governments recommend for breastfeeding women. 100 mcg daily is 100 times the amount WHO recommends, and 1000 times the amount Victor Herbert thought was enough for most people, 0.1 mcg. Today you have put a picture of a jar of 1000 mcg B12 pills as your avatar... 10.000 times the amount Victor Herbert recommended pr. day. What's on your agenda, veganmike? Do you sell these products, or do you really think there is a reason to take 40-1000 times the amount the amount of B12 that 99.9% of all others think we need? I don't want to participate in the discussion about whether or not Jack Norris and Stephen Walsh are 'infiltrators' in the vegan movement, but consider this: Dr. Victor Herbert thought that there was no B12 in plants at all, and that, therefore, living on a vegan diet was 'lethal' (congratulations to Donald Watson, 94 years today, who has survived on a lethal diet on 60 years!). Now when we know that B12 analogs might not be that 'scary' as many people thought they were, and that there is B12 in some plants, and water (lets skip that whole discussion for now)... we end up with this situation: The anti-vegan crusade led by V. Herbert was based on a belief that there only was B12 in animal products. The same Herbert said that most healthy people needed only 0.1 mcg pr day (I think we need more). Now, when we know that it's possible to get some B12 from plants and clean water, probably more than V. Herberts minimum requirements, what would be better if one wants to make veganism look unhealthy than to promote that we need a lot more B12 than UN/WHO, USA and all other countries in the world suggest that we need? This way, again it will look like the vegan diet is unnatural and useless as such, because it contains far too little B12 compared with the new, much higher levels that some people want to define as a new standard.

Critical thinking in this context would be to look at both the good reasons to monitor B12 levels for people who don't eat other's liver or blood/cells (read: meat) AND evaluate how likely it is that we need to take 10-20 times the B12 amounts that meat eaters consume daily PLUS look at the possible side effects of too much B12. A few quotes about this from that other thread:

Too much brewers yeast can impair the kidney function (+ cause fungus issues)
People with high B12 levels tend to frequently suffer from tachycardia, panic-anxiety attacks, or angina-like chest pains, that may be accompanied by numbness and tingling in the face or extremities.
Animals studies show that there have been cases of increased cancer production in animals receiving high levels of B-12 (the animals have an increased production of white blood cells such as occurs in chronic myelogenous leukemia).
A case has been reported of acute myeloblastic leukemia resulting from B-12 overdose in the treatment of pernicious anemia.
A group of French investigators reported a series of cases suggesting that B-12 may stimulate multiplication of cancer cell division in general and certain tumor cells in particular.
Patients with rheumatoid arthritis present serum B-12 levels significantly higher than normal subjects.
B12 is also known to be higher in patients with ulcerative colitis, and other serious illnesses.
A high serum B-12 level should be a signal for a thorough medical evaluation.

In the thread above, instead of witchhunting your extreme enthusiasm for B12 pills, you have been invited to to discuss the topic, but so far, you have chosen not to. To be honest, I don't know if I think it's a good idea to promote the use of 1000 mcg B12 pills when there is so much we don't know about overdosing B12, with reference to the studies I just mentioned.

If you think we are against critical thinking and that we are witchhunting visitors, why bother about this site? According to yourself, you're not even happy that I'm 'trying to look veganism appear as a natural diet', and believe that humans are natural omnivores. Personally I prefer to say what I mean, when needed, instead of being sarcastic, and I'm sure you do too. Please participate in the discussions, but... please stay away from sarcasm and advertising something that might be really harmful for vegans and others. B12 supplements might be useful for some, but let's not play with people's health or with nature. If you are against the way this site is run, please speak out, or just ignore us. I warn people against overdosing B12, and you put something that looks like an ad for VERY strong B12 pills as your avatar. Please consider either removing it, or find references which shows that the findings I refer to above are wrong.

NS Vegan
Sep 2nd, 2004, 02:16 AM
I see destabilizing insularity in what Korn has done.

First, it denies the range of reasons for being vegan, and shuts off entry to this site and veganism to all but those who have a "religious" interpretation of veganism.

You might not want to hurt animals, but the fact is that even if every human being on this earth eats nothing but vegetables, humanity will use up land that animals need to breed healthy populations.

But no animals are harmed by that, they just cease to exist.

Look at the big picture.

If you make this division between "outwatered"/"religious" veganism, what you're doing is limiting this to a belief of fanatics.

I don't consider myself or other vegans fanatics, but practical: we don't want to destroy our natural environment.

Korn
Sep 2nd, 2004, 02:41 AM
First, it denies the range of reasons for being vegan, and shuts off entry to this site and veganism to all but those who have a "religious" interpretation of veganism.


I don't have a 'religious' interpretation of veganism. Whether you like it or not, veganism is not based on a time limited resistance against killing animals or eating meat, or on a belief that eating wild animals killed in a 'humane' way is OK, while eating animals from factory farms or tortured animals is not OK.

Picture this: let's say that veganism was a kind religion that have certain conditions or rituals around meat eating... what a business idea! You could go to exclusive restaurants and order 'vegan meat', from animals that lived in nature and was killed with advanced, pain free weapons or chemicals. Veganism is FAR from putting a time stamp on it's values, or a 'quality stamp' on meat or the lives of animals. And that's not something I make up. Vegan philosophy has been linked to 'Ahimsa', non-harming and non-killing, which, again, never was promoted by Gandhi as a temporary solution or as an emergency solution because our planet is in bad shape. There was never a 'Best before end of ****' stamp on non-violence.

Veganism is about a lot more than what you for practical reasons choose to eat. If a slaughter would be recommended to eat only plant based food for medical reasons, this wouldn't make him a vegan. It would make him a person who for 'practical' reasons was eating vegan food. maybe for a limited period of time. Eating pasta doesn't make you Italian, even if it's very practical to eat Italian food if you are on a visit to Italy.

Korn
Sep 2nd, 2004, 02:51 AM
One more thing, if you consider claiming that vegans are against harming/killing animals and against using animal products as much as possible NOT limited by a given period of time in history... if you consider this to be a 'belief of fanatics', the vegan movement has always been 'fanatic' according to your terms.

The vegan movement is based on reverence for life. What is your definition of reverence for life? Is it really to kill someone when it suits your practicalities and current circumstances, and avoid killing them when it doesn't?

John
Sep 2nd, 2004, 06:26 AM
I stand behind Korn 100% In the past he was somewhat lenient and the integrity of the forum began to be compromised. Remember that there are usually twice as many non-members on the site than members. We are presenting a model of veganism for many who are not totally educated about veganism, so in that way Korn is providing a service for more people than just us.

harpy
Sep 2nd, 2004, 10:23 AM
I originally adopted a vegan lifestyle primarily because I was unhappy about modern farming methods. While I would say my reasons for being vegan now are pretty much what Korn regards as the only valid reasons, I suspect a narrow definition like this would have put me off when I was "in transition" as it were.

Obviously Korn can do what he likes here but I think if it were my forum I would let people discuss their reasons etc freely and just draw the line at people persistently opposing vegan thinking in a way that becomes disruptive. That's roughly what I do on a vegetarian forum I moderate elsewhere. In general, I've found it more productive to look for similarities between my views and those of other people and use them to try and bridge the gap than just to refuse to talk to people who don't agree. It's usually fairly easy to differentiate between people who genuinely want to discuss these questions and those who already have an entrenched position and just want to spoil things for everyone else.

veganmike
Sep 2nd, 2004, 11:35 AM
Nobody has been witchhunting you for your rather extreme B12 viewpoints, more or less recommending people to take 40 times what most governments recommend for breastfeeding women. 100 mcg daily is 100 times the amount WHO recommends, and 1000 times the amount Victor Herbert thought was enough for most people, 0.1 mcg. Today you have put a picture of a jar of 1000 mcg B12 pills as your avatar... 10.000 times the amount Victor Herbert recommended pr. day. What's on your agenda, veganmike? Do you sell these products, or do you really think there is a reason to take 40-1000 times the amount the amount of B12 that 99.9% of all others think we need?

There are two vegan B-12 supplements in Poland. One contains 5 mcg/pill, the other 100 mcg/pill. The first one is more expensive. That's the primary reason why I take 100 mcg pills. B-vitamins are generaly not stored in your body, so if you eat too much of these they will go out with your urine the same day. No harm done. If you read on B12 absorption you should know that if I take 100 mcg of B12 it doesn't mean the whole dose will be absorbed, but rather 1,5-3% (which give us about 3 mcg, the exact amount that WHO recommends (ftp://ftp.fao.org/es/esn/nutrition/Vitrni/pdf/CHAPTER05.pdf); by the way, according to WHO "because plants do not synthesise vitamin B12, individuals who consume diets completely free
of animal products (vegan diets) are at risk of vitamin B12 deficiency"). So much for my "extreme B12 viewpoints". I believe them to be scientificaly sound and, most of all, safe.

My agenda is animal rights and I do not sell anything.


In the thread above, instead of witchhunting your extreme enthusiasm for B12 pills, you have been invited to to discuss the topic, but so far, you have chosen not to. To be honest, I don't know if I think it's a good idea to promote the use of 1000 mcg B12 pills when there is so much we don't know about overdosing B12, with reference to the studies I just mentioned.

Ineed, I chose not to discuss the topic. I did it because for the most part you provided me with unreferenced articles.

I also do not promote the use if 1000 mcg B12 pills.


If you think we are against critical thinking and that we are witchhunting visitors, why bother about this site?

Even if people here were against critical thinking, I wouldn't mind it. It's not my problem anyway. My belief is that you should be critical of your own ideas in the first place.

Besides, I like this place.


According to yourself, you're not even happy that I'm 'trying to look veganism appear as a natural diet', and believe that humans are natural omnivores.

It's not that I'm not happy with it, I just don't see any point in it. Why should anyone try to make "black appear as white"? To make it more attractive? Is veganism really so unattractive you have to resort to denial of scientific facts?


Please participate in the discussions, but... please stay away from sarcasm and advertising something that might be really harmful for vegans and others. B12 supplements might be useful for some, but let's not play with people's health or with nature. If you are against the way this site is run, please speak out, or just ignore us. I warn people against overdosing B12, and you put something that looks like an ad for VERY strong B12 pills as your avatar. Please consider either removing it, or find references which shows that the findings I refer to above are wrong.

I will refrain from sarcasm in the future. I apologize if I offended anyone.

I don't think I'm playing with anyone's health, especially using my avatar. There are vegan and non-vegan health prrofessionals who recommend 1000-2000 mcg of B12 in certain situations.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VRS-4BHH4H5-9&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2003&_alid=197688768&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_cdi=6242&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=216f1d01d7d6c75e0e30cbce3c3d40f6
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14616423
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12755792
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12746645
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11979747
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10100276
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11455311
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9201148

I could go on forever.

Korn
Sep 2nd, 2004, 12:03 PM
While I would say my reasons for being vegan now are pretty much what Korn regards as the only valid reasons [...]
I might have been been unclear. I think all reasons for avoiding animal products always are valid. I just don't want the term vegan to be washed out the way the term vegetarian has been outwatereed by people who eat chicken and fish...

I don't mind having lacto-vegetarians hanging out here to ge tinfo, or meat eaters that visit us to figure out what veganism is all about at all, or meat fanatics that need a recipe for a friend, as long as they leave our veganism alone.

From both public posts and the many PM's I've received, most people here seem to agree that this is not a place for people who come to convince vegans, in out private little sactuary here, that veganism should include usning animal products or that eating meat 'ain't that bad'. This is a forum for people who... want this kind of forum.


if it were my forum I would let people discuss their reasons etc freely Here, people can discuss their reasons to go vegan or eat vegan as freely as they want. This does not mean that if someone states that veganism is primarily about a dietary choice, noone here will remind them that vegans are against using animal products as much as possible, not only in their diet. If they have misunderstood the term 'vegan', let's give them some info. Having clear definitions make sense, it does not make sense to have publi polls every 50 years what the definition of 'red' is - this would communication with words even more difficult than it already is.

Seeing what a few sites (maybe even unconsiously) are trying to reduce vegansim into, and having been a vegan for many years (and knowing a little about the history of vegansim), I feel it would be unfair towards Donald Watson and the other founders of the vegan movement, to sit and watch attempts at changing the definition of vegan without doing something about that, especially since running a site likes this includes a chance to do so.

"In 1847, in London, a movement was born out a conviction that the killing of living, feeling creatures was neither biologically necessary nor morally acceptable for human survival and well-being. Factory farming had not yet been invented, chickens pecked away in open barnyards, cows had not yet been genetically engineered to have grotesquely distorted udders, and the veal crate of today was unknown. There was no genetic engineering, no hormones, no massive doses of antibiotics, no battery cages of egg-laying hens, no "processing plants" for the assembly line slaughter of chickens, no epidemic salmonella & campylobacter in eggs and poultry, no Mad Cow disease, no Bovine Growth Hormone." (From http://www.veganforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=271)

The vegetarian movement rejected use of flesh in 1847. The vegan movement was established a hundred years later, by people who wanted to go further than just not eating meat. Today, another 60 years have passed, and there are some tendencies among some people who call themselves vegans or vegetarians to not only ignore that vegetarians are against eating meat, but also that veganism could include use of meat and other animal products - which not even the good old vegetarians in 1847 would do!

This is a step in the wrong direction!!!! Donald Watson who started it all is 94 years today, and out of respect for this great guy and his friends, I'm doing a little to keep the meaning of the word intact. This doesn't mean that I think it's great if people drop only meat, or only dairy, or only drop using animal products from their diet.

What would the alternative be? Some years ago, at leaast in some countries, the word 'vegetarian' meant someone who didn't eat animal products (but were possibly using animal products in clothes etc). 'Lacto-vegetarian' meant someone who ate vegetarian food plus milk products. Today, the word vegetarian, for lots of people, is synonymous with 'lacto-vegetarian'. Therefore, some people who are vegetarians in the 'pure' meaning of the word, call themselves 'strict vegetarians', to make it clear that they don't eat animal products at all.

Will the next thing be 'strict vegans'? Why not just keep the meaning of the word vegan? If someone is not into veganism, and focus in diet only, there are already expresions for that.


I've found it more productive to look for similarities between my views and those of other people and use them to try and bridge the gap than just to refuse to talk to people who don't agree. We're not bridging gaps by changing or eliminating the elements we want to create a bridge between. Also, we don't 'refuse to talk to people who don't agree'. We've just created a forum for 'people who agree'. When this forum was started a year ago, I had no idea how many non-vegans that would come here and cause tension, or that a little number of people very actively want to chnage the meaning of the word 'vegan'. The adjustments we have made has helped this forum remain a nice place to hang out for people who like our way of doing things - and others have other places to fo if they want to. We don't need 10 equal veg'n-boards on the net, and I have decided to run a site where I don't need to encounter people who defend killing animals daily under such and such circumstances. If that's what I wanted, I could just close this site and register at a member at your site, right? ;)

We might add a sub-forum later, for people who are not vegans and do not plan to become vegans, if our users want it. My feeling is that many of our users don't.

You were also arounf at 'Veganforum '1, Harpy, weren't you? You might remember some of the threads we had about why people decided to go vegan. I started some of them. I got some important feedback last fall, from people who made it clear that one can't really say 'I'm vegan only to loose weight/for my personal health/to improve my skin'... because veganism as such IS about more than diet and personal benefits, like it or not. You can say 'I eat a plant based diet food for health reasons only', or maybe 'I eat a vegan diet for health reasons only', but you can't say 'I'm a vegan for health reasons only'.

You know what? The plan was not to have a forum about animals at all. I thought that many other sites have this, we don't need it. I'm not a Animal Rights activist, my only support for the AR movement is running this site (besides not eating animals!). But after having ecountered and discussed with some fanatic defenders of using animal products, 'humane killing' (even in the name of veganism, with a couple of members (or was it 3-4) who posted more posts than anyone else in here, myself included, we changed the guidelines.

I know many people who eat animal products, we have some of them in here... I just want them to understand that this is not a good place to try to convince vegans that eating meat or dairy is OK.

I don't want vegans to feel witch-hunted in here. Some of the pro-dairy, pro-hunting, pro-killing-under-*****-circumstances are EXTREMELY active. Maybe you have seen some of the posts I have deleted, maybe not, but please trust me. We've had too many people who tried too hard to tell us that how natural or healthy meat and dairy is, or how ethically OK they are with using animal products. I've had enough.

Look at it this way: I want to put energy into a site which might be alittle different from some of the other sites out there. I want a site where vegans feel that they can meet like minded people without having to encounter people at the entrance door promoting hunting - when they come for a brief visit to find a guacamole recipe. There are many other forums that offers this. If your site does, why not post the link to it right here, so people who don't like our guidelines can visit your site instead? Let's make life easy for each other, OK? :)

Korn
Sep 2nd, 2004, 12:28 PM
by the way, according to WHO "because plants do not synthesise vitamin B12, individuals who consume diets completely free
of animal products (vegan diets) are at risk of vitamin B12 deficiency").
What are your comment to the many reports about plants that do contain B12 ? Let's look at boths sides now...


So much for my "extreme B12 viewpoints". I believe them to be scientificaly sound and, most of all, safe. You wrote elsewhere that taking 1000 mcg was 'safe' (we need to diffentiate between food supplements and medical treatment, right?) Regarding 'safe': I still wonder wonder what comments you have' to the studies I just quoted.


I also do not promote the use if 1000 mcg B12 pills. Great. Until I wrote my post, your avatar said Vitamin B12m 1000 mcg... ;)


Besides, I like this place. That's good to hear :)




Why should anyone try to make "black appear as white"?
If you think being vegan is white, and 'a natural diet' is black, you need to explain why, not just state it...



Is veganism really so unattractive you have to resort to denial of scientific facts? Have I really given the impression that I find veganism unattractive? I've never heard that one before... :)

Come with your facts, mike, start the threads you need to. As I've mentioned for you before, this is a much better solution than just posting links to static sites you agree with.


I don't think I'm playing with anyone's health, especially using my avatar.
Well, you just removed the word 1000 mcg, fair enough... :)


There are vegan and non-vegan health prrofessionals who recommend 1000-2000 mcg of B12 in certain situations.My point is that it's very different to rcommend 1000 or 5000 mcg as medical treatment than to OK heavy amounts of B12 as a daily food supplement, as you did, kind of, when you wrote that toy don't think 'you could overdose B12 using 1000 mcg', in a response to someone who seem to have gotten problems from taking too much B12. We're not doctors, and even if we were, one should be extremely careful with that kind of advice at a message board.

Artichoke47
Sep 2nd, 2004, 12:43 PM
I have heard people on another site use the term "strict vegan," and I agree with Korn that I think this agenda that people have to make the word "vegan" meaningless needs to stop. Vegan don't use animal products or byproducts (with the exception of medicines and cars, roads, et cetera, things beyond our control). Vegans are against causing torture and suffering and further killing of animals.

I don't see how one can say that they are okay with animals being killed as long as the animals are "respected." WTF is that? Respect does not equal murder; the animals were not respected. Respect for animals entails letting them be, unless they need our help and/or protection.

veganmike
Sep 2nd, 2004, 01:03 PM
What are your comment to the many reports about plants that do contain B12 ? Let's look at boths sides now...

As far as I know none of the alleged plant sources is reliable. That is, they do not ensure adequate intake and levels of B-12.


You wrote elsewhere that taking 1000 mcg was 'safe' (we need to diffentiate between food supplements and medical treatment, right?) Regarding 'safe': I still wonder wonder what comments you have' to the studies I just quoted.

I would have no problem with taking one 1000 mcg pill every 2-3 days. In fact, I plan to embark on this system of supplementation. I have my B12 levels tested every 1-2 years, so I'll know if everything is fine with me.


Great. Until I wrote my post, your avatar said Vitamin B12m 1000 mcg... ;)

I don't want to get banned. :)



If you think being vegan is white, and 'a natural diet' is black, you need to explain why, not just state it.

I think being vegan is moral obligation, not a nutritional necessity shaped by evolution. Homo sapiens always ate animal products and I don't know why I should deny it since it's a scientifically proven fact.


Have I really given the impression that I find veganism unattractive? I've never heard that one before...

You believe that promoting supplemented veganism makes it more unattractive to potential converts. That's maybe true, buy if someone don't want to accept veganism with all the consequences then I'm not gonna force it on anyone.


Come with your facts, mike, start the threads you need to. As I've mentioned for you before, this is a much better solution than just posting links to static sites you agree with.

I have to post links to back up my claims. :)


Well, you just removed the word 1000 mcg, fair enough... :)

5000 mcg bottle picture was to big to fit in as an avatar ;)


My point is that it's very different to rcommend 1000 or 5000 mcg as medical treatment than to OK heavy amounts of B12 as a daily food supplement, as you did, kind of, when you wrote that toy don't think 'you could overdose B12 using 1000 mcg', in a response to someone who seem to have gotten problems from taking too much B12. We're not doctors, and even if we were, one should be extremely careful with that kind of advice at a message board.

This was a mysterious case, indeed, but I wasn't recommednig anything, just stating a fact. :)

Fruitbat
Sep 2nd, 2004, 02:18 PM
I have heard people on another site use the term "strict vegan," and I agree with Korn that I think this agenda that people have to make the word "vegan" meaningless needs to stop. Vegan don't use animal products or byproducts (with the exception of medicines and cars, roads, et cetera, things beyond our control). Vegans are against causing torture and suffering and further killing of animals.

I don't see how one can say that they are okay with animals being killed as long as the animals are "respected." WTF is that? Respect does not equal murder; the animals were not respected. Respect for animals entails letting them be, unless they need our help and/or protection.


The reaso that I am personally offended, dismayed and discouraged by Kron's statement is not because I am not vegan in practice both in dietary and lifestyle matters, but because he is attacking my beliefs which lead me to be vegan becos according to him, he would have me say that I am not. Whatever a persons motives for being vegan, if they pratice veganism to its definition, then I think the ellitist view that only the "religious" vegans are actually vegan as one more weapon that anti-veganists can use in their defence that vegans are a bunch of purist, ellitist and extremist individuals.

Korn
Sep 2nd, 2004, 03:38 PM
The reaso that I am personally offended, dismayed and discouraged by Kron's statement

Let's see if there are some misunderstandings here, Fruitbat... what exactly (quote?) is it that offends and disencourages you?


he is attacking my beliefs
I'm saying that veganism as such doesn't limit being against killing/harming animals to given geographical areas or conditions like world population etc, and that vegans are against killing and harming animals. Does this attack your beliefs??


Whatever a persons motives for being vegan
... Now you need to clarify what you mean by 'vegan'.... :) Is someone who didn't eat animal products for a week a vegan (that week)?


if they pratice veganism to its definition
Again... this all depends on the definition. If a person 'is against' murder, because he lives in an area and time where it wouldn't be very 'practical' to kill people, but would have no problems wuth murder if he lived in culture or time where murder was not illegal or caused other 'practical' problems, would you say that this guy is 'against murdering people', and into non-violence?


...the ellitist view that only the "religious" vegans are actually vegan
Gandhi was againt using violence. He created a non-violence movement (which you and I might think was a good idea or not, but that's not relevant right now). If someone would support use of violence - and defended it / believed in it... -, would you call it elitism if I said that he is not into non-violence?

If you need a surgery, and it shows up that the person that should use the knife on you wasn't really a surgeon, would it be elitism to state that he doesn't fit in with the definition of surgeon, for example if he doesn't have th eneeded education or lost his license? That's IMO not elitism, it's information.


....a bunch of purist, ellitist and extremist individuals.

Do you think it's anything extreme about the definition of veganism I and most people refer to (being against killing/harming animals, avoiding animal products as much as possible etc)?

If you don't think of the definition as extreme, but others do, should we change the definition in order not not to be considered extreme by them?

If you live in a society where everbody is into war and murder, you are probably being considered extreme if you don't believe in violence. If you live in a world where 97% eats meat daily, you are probably considered extreme if you don't even drink milk. But... so what?

If someone else feel that they don't fit into the term 'vegan', what's really the problem? Why not just call it something else?

If a person eats chicken and fish and still insist that this goes well along with being vegetarian, is it really a good idea to adjust the term, just to suit this person desire to call himself a vegetarian?

veganmike
Sep 2nd, 2004, 03:43 PM
Korn, you like rhetorical question, don't you? :) (This one is rhetorical, too).

Fruitbat
Sep 2nd, 2004, 08:55 PM
A person who abstains from eating all animal products for a week is a person who has followed a vegan/ pure vegetarian diet for that week

A vegan is someone who does not eat or use any products derived from animal sources - to the best of their ability USUALLY for ethical reasons

I am vegan - I eat nothing animal associated, and I follow a vegan lifestyle. And yet my ethical standpoint on veganism would have you say otherwise. I believe the vegan lifestyle is the compassionate way to live in our day and age in most societies. I do not think the vegan diet is natural to humans but I think it is an evolutionary-viable option that Mankind would do well to undetake- vegetarian ones are probably the MOST unnatural diets and organic, free-range meat-eating BUT DAIRY AND EGG-OMMITTING diets the closest one can get to a natural diet according to the evolution of Man.

If meat were completely wild and hunted by fair means like back in the day of Cave-men when humans had not destroyed the food chain - then it is natural. This is a state affairs that has gone extinct or is very rare on our planet today and thus any omnivorous diets from farmed, tamed, herded animals even if they are free-range, organic, free of hormones and treatments is unnatural.

Violence although terrible and wrong when humans "use" it, is a state of nature - lions are violent for example. What I object to is the violence of Mankind towards other species and each other, the use of their superior knowledge to gve themselves the easy advantage and minimise the effort required in a fair match between predator and prey.

Thus you are saying that as I am not against meat-eating per say, although only very rare circumstances would have me agree it was right in any society today and I would personally no longer ever eat meat out of habit and not liking it; that I am not vegan...

I abhor suffereing of humans, other animals, plants and our planet; but for the sake of not killing is it right to leave an injured wild animal to die a terrible death from natural or artificial causes> No I would phone the RSPCA or take it myself to a vet to be treated or put down. If this were impossible and I knew the animal to be beyond recovery and its plight to be onoe of agony - then I'd kill it myself out of kindness. That goes for humans too - I am not against euthanasia (that is the word isnt it? I'm not confusing it with something else???)

So according to your statements I am a violent, cruel non-vegan. That is why I am offended. Also the vegan society definition of veganism invites people who are vegans for non-ethical and more health-oriented motives to include themselves among vegans as long as their vegan practices extended to more than their diet...