To be honest, I think you'd be better off carrying out your work in north america. Africa is the result of western world consumption (partly) Why treat the effect when you're in a position to affect the cause?
Printable View
To be honest, I think you'd be better off carrying out your work in north america. Africa is the result of western world consumption (partly) Why treat the effect when you're in a position to affect the cause?
[Because that is not what i would find rewarding out of life. I will do what i can here, and continue to do it when i am not here. I only have one life and my desire is to do ti helping people that at least my portion of the world has alrgely left out. I understand what you mean, and others have told me the same. My father wanted me to be a politician or a lawyer, both of which i am not interested in. I want to help people, i want to travel, i want to write and have an adventurous life. I dont feel i can achieve that here.
Yes, it does, because if they declare that veganism is only about diet, they are not vegans :). Take a brief look at the birth and development of the vegan movement, and you'll understand what I mean...Quote:
On the Coast
That some animals abuse, kill or eat other animals doesn't mean that all animals 'abuse the world and things smaller and less intelligent than themselves'. Even if ALL other animals would kill and eat other animals, which is not at all the case, why should you or I do it? I think it's essential to get beyond the point where we look at other animals (or humans) and declare that 'they do it, so it must be right/'natural' for me to do it'.Quote:
On the Coast
Jjdaiquiri wrote that 'it just much easier to stand behind and defend animals that cannot speak for themselves, dont abuse the world and things smaller & "less intelligent" than themselves, and dont have rediculous viewpoints and opinons...'. That's different from claiming thatQuote:
animals do'nt abuse the world and things smaller and less intelligent than themselves
Yea, thats very true. I think its funny that people seperate themselves from animals in every regard because they assume their superior, EXCEPT when they're arguing against vegetarianism.Quote:
I think it's essential to get beyond the point where we look at other animals (or humans) and declare that 'they do it, so it must be right/'natural' for me to do it'.
I have never thought that deeply why i am vegan. I just am, and always will be. Veganism is the way i live my life, the way i choose to live. I dont think it is like a religion, well its not for me. I didnt even know about how badly animals were treated when i became veggie and didnt learn that much more by the time i first became vegan. I didnt need convincing by peta etc to do the right thing. I just learnt that abusing animals for our own selfish wants is wrong by looking around and seeing all the selfish people in the world who dont give a damm who and what they hurt to get what they want. I didnt want to be a part of that, pure and simple. I live a life of compassionate living to the best of my ability, and no its not just a diet, it is only a diet to those who quite veganism and go back to being omni. The ones who didnt care that much in the first place.
Sorry, Plunder Bunny. I wasn't clear in my earlier post. I meant that your suggesting that Cog's comment was "harsh" raised the issue for me. Not anything that you said beyond that :o .Quote:
Plunder Bunnie
In a roundabout way, I was trying to suggest what foxytina said so succinctly...choosing a vegan diet could (and often does) blossom into a vegan lifestyle. So, should those who follow an animal-free diet be denied the use of the term "vegan" until they have completed some rite of passage and embrace the one, right and true vegan lifestyle?
I guess my concern here (having come from a religious fundamentalist background) is how vegans can (or if they should even bother trying to) avoid the same traps that religions, political parties and such fall into - the "us/them", "we're right/they're wrong", "we're the one true x/they are the impostors" mindsets that harm rather than heal.
Hmmm, don't think I made any more sense there (above) than the first time...I agreed with you P.B. - it was harsh (and other comments that I'd seen throughout the day and on other threads since I've been around have been of similar tones...that's what prompted my initial post). But, I do understand that sometimes we just need a place to express our frustrations! :pQuote:
knittenkitten
Tis alright! I wasent upset or anything, just confused. I didnt know i portrayed myself that way. i guess thats the problems with computers, its hard to convey how you feel emotionally!!:p
Thank you, foxytina. :) I know it does for a lot of people, and I believe that spiritually, (not religiously!) as a person eliminates the products of death and suffering from their diet, it is possible to become aware that veganism is about more than just eliminating animals from the diet. After all, not using leather, wool, silk, and animal-infused body care products has nothing to do with the diet. It is about living with compassion for other beings, not just avoiding their use because they are disgusting, and I think even if you don't start out thinking this way, you may eventually arrive at this way of thinking.Quote:
foxytina_69
Animal flesh in particular has been found to be full of the adrenaline and other hormones that are present in the animal at the time of death. These are there because the animal has been tortured and terrified, and I don't see how this can promote spiritual or physical health in those people who are consuming them. I think their absence in the diets of folks going vegetarian or vegan is partly what makes it possible for people to go beyond the physical aspects of diet alone, and realize that what they are doing has greater implications.
I am not trying to be exclusive or elitist here, I am just objecting to the idea that these beliefs are hilarious, as they are important to me. I also believe in the right of a group of people to set definitions for what they think they are, and I feel that these definitions should be respected. Like I said before, the folks who observe kosher restrictions are following a Jewish diet, but they are not Jews until they go beyond that into a more non-physical realm of thought. This is not intended to demean anyone merely following a diet, or to imply that is impossible to go beyond following a diet, or even to imply that starting off following the diet makes some vegans inferior to others. It is just a simple matter of definitions. Those who don't go beyond diet are vegitans, or strict vegetarians, and those who do go beyond diet are vegans. There is no value judgement in this, just definition. :)
Thank you, Seaside. You (and so many others here) write eloquently and everyone is helping me think through these issues more fully.
http://www.thisiscool.net/vpforum/im...icon_study.gif
Plunder bunny, you say:Do you expect that they are different in african than in canada and Nth america? There are some people (I'm not implying you) who opt for work there in order to feel superior to those around them.Quote:
I'd rather work in an african slum with prostitutes and drug addicts. I think humans have potential, but here and north america, many of them are walking zombies.
Seaside, what you posted reflects my own views exactly. :)
Yes. Mainly because i am quite sick of North America, and id rather to listen to North Americans come tell me they are sad because they cant look like a super model and buy a new sports car. Id rather people that werent quite as perversed with mass media and their own selfishness.
I very much understand where your coming from, and im sure many people do do that for that reason, I just feel guilty living the way i do and want to stop once i am down my education and out of my house.
Thanks eve! :)Quote:
eve
You're swelcome, knittenkitten. Thank you! :)Quote:
knittenkitten
Agreed
This immediately made me think of this verse...
Phi 4:8 Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable--if anything is excellent or praiseworthy--think about such things. (NIV)
As a Christian I don't see how you could 'think about such things' when deciding what to eat and how to live and still eat or use animal products. The caveat here being, I suppose, if you realize what eating or using animal products represents in terms of animal suffering, abuse, death etc. as well as the effects on everything else including our own health. Which is where I was until an embarrassingly short time ago and I would suppose most of the folks here were at some point in their past. It goes a lot deeper than just diet.
pq
Yeah - I'd be pretty offended if someone said that to me too.
1
Well said. :)
I think there are two or three main reasons that some (luckily, only a few) people think that a vegan is someone who os concerned with food only.
One is that people buy and eat food a lot more often than they buy eg. shoes or coats, so there's much more talk about animal products in diet than about animal products in clothes, furniture etc.
The reason is the existence of the term (again, luckily used bu very few people) "dietary vegan" (we have a thread about this term here), which creates the impression that there are two kinds of vegans, the dietary vegans and the other vegans - but that both actually are vegans.
The third is also a linguistic thing: it's the term 'ethical vegan'. Fist time I heard it (around 2002/2004) I asked what it meant, because being vegan has always been based on ethics, not on milk allergies or not liking meat. In one of the first printed articles about veganism, I saw someone write something a la 'let's hope a diet free from animal products diet proves to be as healthy as a diet with animal products in it'. They didn't really know back then.
Still - today, some people (again, very few) suggest that a vegan is someone who eats vegan food, but that a person who "seeks to exclude — as far as is possible and practical — all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose" shouldn't be called a 'vegan', she should be called an 'ethical vegan'. If they would succeed in changing the definitions this way, veganism would have turned into a diet (in most people's eyes), and vegan (in the original and commonly used definition) would be a 'minority within a minority'.
Veganism is becoming more and more commonly accepted, and I understand that maybe it's tempting to 'hijack' the word and turn it into a non-ethical thing. But: it wouldn't be... ethical to do that! :)
...another classic thread resurrected
Once, I was invited to crash on the sofa of a flat of AR activists in Bristol so that I could make the coach for a big demo along with them early next morn.
They: young, on benefits to support their full-time activism, clad in black with piercings and punk hair, radical music scene, tip of a flat
Me: chirpy American housewife with a taste for Pimms on the terrace
Question: we share the same lifestyle?
I flatter myself to say we do! What else would I call it? I sometimes refer to Veganism being my criteria for choosing a lifestyle.
Doesn't sound very punchy; anyone offer a better soundbite, please?
When I went vegan, everyone thought that is was just a diet and that I was going to keep following this for a while, and then go back on eating meat, dairy and the other animal products. It took them some time to realize that it's not only the diet, it's a lifestyle for me and something that I care about, that means something to me. Anyway, I usually don't say I'm vegan if it's not necessary or if the person I'm with doesn't find out, and one reason for this is exactly that fact: they begin asking me the same questions again and again and they think it's just a diet or ask me if I don't miss meat, cheese and the others, or even cakes or ice cream(they just can't understand that there are sooo many vegan cakes and sweets recipes :lol:) so I prefer to not reveal this if it's not necessary.
Just curious what do you call someone who doesn't eat meat, milk, and cheese? Understand that being Vegan is a lifestyle and more than just what you eat. A diet is a : food and drink regularly provided or consumed b : habitual nourishment c : the kind and amount of food prescribed for a person or animal for a special reason d : a regimen of eating and drinking sparingly so as to reduce one's weight. So to say someone is eating a vegan diet to lost weight is one thing and to say someone is eating a vegan diet to be healthy (avoid cancer, heart disease, stroke etc) is entirely different. My whole issue with this concept is this, when I first started eating a Vegan Diet it was strictly for health reasons, this has changed as I learned more about animal cruelty, but my point is that it always seemed stupid to tell people I was eating a Vegan Diet (I wasn't trying to lose weight) instead of just saying I was Vegan (Because I wasn't I just ate like one). Is there another word out there...
Hi beachbum.
I don't think "eating a vegan diet" necessarily implies d rather than a or b, although some people may take it that way.
I may be wrong but I think the main objection that is being voiced in this thread is to people calling themselves vegans when they are only doing the food part, and not avoiding other uses of animals (clothes etc). The idea is that veganism is by definition based on an ethical objection to the use of animal products, so it follows that an adherent would avoid all uses of animal products as far as possible, not just for food.
Some people may object to the term "vegan diet" on these grounds, as well as to the term "dietary vegan". I think I have seen "strict vegetarian diet" suggested as an alternative to "vegan diet" although if you asked for a "strict vegetarian" meal in a restaurant what you would get is anyone's guess in my opinion :confused: Personally I am happy with the use of "vegan diet" "vegan meal" etc regardless of the other habits of the person who is eating it, but I wouldn't call a person vegan unless they were trying to avoid leather, wool etc as well.
Herbivore? Plant eater? Or simply a vegetarian/one who lives on a vegan diet/a vegitan?Quote:
Just curious what do you call someone who doesn't eat meat, milk, and cheese?
But it would also be 'stupid' (and disrespectful towards the definition of vegan) to say that you are a vegan when you're not a vegan...: if someone in the future would manage the convert the meaning of 'vegan' to be something which is only about diet, vegans would have to create a new term which covers what 'vegan' covers today.Quote:
it always seemed stupid to tell people I was eating a Vegan Diet (I wasn't trying to lose weight) instead of just saying I was Vegan
Plus, it's not more difficult to say "I eat vegan" than to say "I am vegan". :-) Lots of people already eg. eat low-carb food, Mediterranean food, South Beach diet, Atkins diet etc, without calling themselves Lowcarbers, Mediterraneans, South-Beachers or Atkinsers without any problems. :)
Huh, I've seem to have given this thread new life by being an unintended foil to the subject, so.... Not sure what it's like in Europe of other areas outside the progressive US (eye roll), but here in most places (like 60-70 percent of the country) they don't even know what a Vegan is so generally it's easier to say you're a vegetarian (which usually gets you a really weird looks which I follow up by saying I'm from California) and in the places they do know what a Vegan is it is a whole new discussion to break down exactly what kind of vegan you are. So for someone who is eating a vegan diet (and seriously what is wrong with someone stealing the word, I mean really folks there not eating animals which is good right?) to say they are an Herbivore (could we get more pretentious than that), eating a vegan diet (begging the question: oh really why do you do that, oh because you want to live longer then why the second scotch), or a strict vegetarian (I can see the confused looks now) is really a bit much when all you really need to tell some concisely is that you are a Vegan so they don't serve you something with milk, eggs, or cheese in it. I see no harm in that and really is just splitting hairs and possibly a little elitist.
The word 'vegan' has a specific definition that includes obstaining from using all animal products, so you can't call yourself a vegan if you only eat a vegan diet. If I was a dietary vegan, I would just say 'I don't eat animal products' or 'I eat a plant based diet'. I don't think it's elitist to point out when someone is using a word incorrectly, or to require that they use the word correctly when there is meaning behind the word. What if you met someone who called themselves a christian, but later told you they don't believe in god? You would say 'well, you can't be a christian then!' because belief in god is a necessary condition for being a christian, as is not wearing animal products for being a vegan.
There is nothing elitist about being a consistent ethical vegan. All this dietary vegan crap we are getting from Oprah, Clinton and in the media just shows how self-absorbed humans are. Taking a small subset that benefits them of what vegan is about and to hell with all the others that are put through a horrible system because of their half-assery.
There is no such thing as being a dietary vegan. It does not compute.
I'm all in favour of people eating vegan food even if they don't avoid leather etc and aren't into the ethics of it - the net result is good for animals, and the people may start to think more about the ethics later. And if they have to say they're vegan to get a meal in a restaurant, I don't really care about that either.
However, I think it's good to be clear that the ethical position, with the lifestyle implications, is part of what it means to be a vegan.
I'm all with you. 1 million people who reduce their animal take with 50% is better for the environment than 15,000 vegans reducing their animal intake by 100%, "part time vegans" as a group are more important than us. The main thing for animals isn't to qualify for the vegan label, but not to be killed and harmed.
There's no such thing as a dietary vegan (AFAIK; only The VeganSociety insist that there is), but when you write "All this dietary vegan crap we are getting from Oprah, Clinton", CoolCat - remember that we may see in the future that what you describe as crap and half-assery may have helped more animals than a small group of vegans being so 'pure' that they get tics if they discover that there's a few micrograms animal-something in their soap... Puritanism for the sake of puritanism has no value.
You can't apply maths to suffering. It's not better to only cage and abuse 100 non-humans animals than 1000 non-human animals if you are one of those 100 non-human animals. People doing things halfassed will not get applaud by me. They are not "saving" 900 non-human animals, they are responsible for hurting 100 non-human animals.
It's not about being purists. It's about trying to do the right thing. And knowingly and willingly putting non-human animals through horror and suffering when it can easily be avoided is simply not right.
Personally I feel it's more a question of encouragement than applause - if "part time vegans" feel encouraged they might go the rest of the way, whereas if they get the impression that their efforts aren't worth anything there's a danger that they might decide not to bother at all.
100 animals suffering is better than 1000 animal suffering even it isn't better for those 900 who still suffer - so you can apply maths to suffering...
FAir enough - but it's better than Clinton etc are eg. 50% vegan than not vegan at all for those animals which didn't suffer, and they won't know if you are applauding anyway....Quote:
People doing things halfassed will not get applaud by me.
We all agree in that.Quote:
And knowingly and willingly putting non-human animals through horror and suffering when it can easily be avoided is simply not right.
I think you made a mistake in your math. That 900 wouldn't be suffering if 100 is better than 1000 if I understand what you tried to say... But that isn't the point.
We are talking about individuals here, they are persons like you and me, and like the neighbours dog, or the cat living here and the cow down the street... Every single one of them has the right not to be born into slavery, not to be subject of abuse and exploitation... it doesn't matter if there are 100, 1000 or billions. "better" or "less worse" have no meaning to them.
This is the welfarist vs abolitionist thing I guess.
I no longer tell people that I'm vegan. I just say I'm a fussy eater or that I don't like the thing they're offering me. I am so sick of pitying looks, and people saying how hard it must be for me, or having to explain why I'm vegan, it's so much easier just to say that I'm fussy/picky.
Imagine 1000 animals suffering (or 100% of the number we're looking at). Then comes some 'halfassed vegans' in the population, you use your term, and manage to reduce that number from 1000 to 900 animals. Now 'only' 900 hundred animals are suffering (or 90%). That's doesn't help the animals which suffer much, but it means everything to the animals which doesn't suffer anymore. It matters a lot for them, it's very major change, a major 'point' for them that they aren't first put in a cage and are killed when someone want to eat them.
It's a major point for the animals who don't suffer anymore! If one billion animals are killed for food etc, and the number is reduced by only 10%, that as much as 100 million animals which aftee this change do NOT suffer instead of suffer. How can that not be a point for these animals. Likewise, if 100 million humans suffer today and the same humans don't suffer next year, that's also a major 'point', even if it doesn't match someones ideology.Quote:
But that isn't the point.
Lack of suffering matters immensely for each of the 100 000 000 animals which do not suffer. My point is that what matters the most is to reduce suffering - not if someone can label himself a perfect vegan. Of course eg. Clinton isn't a vegan if he still use animal products, but it's a lot more important that he has reduced animal s suffering by reducing his intake of animal products massively and because he's a well-known person who influence others. An interesting thing here is that he didn't drop using animal products due some Peta naked-stunt, but because of info which documented that changing his patterns would improve his health.Quote:
it doesn't matter if there are 100, 1000 or billions.
They didn't invent the self-contradictory and misleading term 'dietary vegan'. They may have seen that some Vegan Society employee has used it on the VS site.Quote:
All this dietary vegan crap we are getting from Oprah, Clinton and in the media just shows how self-absorbed humans are.
If the world is moving towards being more.... vegan-like, and fewer animals suffer due to what you call their 'crap', the reduction of animal suffering is still great news for animals. But seriously: Blame it on whoever it is inside The Vegan Society who insist on using the term 'dietary vegan'... if someone has picked that term up from their site - they probably use it without knowing better.
The Vegan Society is a small group, but it's still too bad that some people inside that group want to turn veganism into something which is only about food. You may have seen other threads about the same topic here. The 'vegan' concept is being worked against from the inside, so to speak, if the lobbyists succeed. In terms of real life actions, of course eating is a major part of being vegan, but it's unethical to try to hijack an organization and grab the term 'vegan' an make it into something else. It's a clear parallel to the Peta/porn(etc) topic here: if someone wants to make a food-only organization, focus on trying to make people go vegan, why can't they do that instead of trying to do it in The Vegan Society's name?
I applaud Clinton & Co for giving veganism a lot of media focus. It's a great move in the right direction, so I can't call it crap. We'll se a lot more if it in the future, which makes it even more important to keeping the term vegan intact. Shame on The Vegan Society for being on the wrong side here.
What matters is to end suffering. And people following a vegan diet out of selfish reasons does nothing for that. The big shift can only happen [if it ever will] when people acknowlegde that what is going on is wrong. And 'dietary vegans' fail in that by creating - easily avoidable - demand. It's not about obtaining the perfect label at all, it's about doing the right thing.
How did you come to that conclusion (and why is this important)? If you see a deer, are hungry, but do not kill and eat it because you have read that red meat is bad for your health, how can that *not* a difference for the animal?
If person A plans to kill person B, but drops the idea because he needs to reach a train, person B will still be *not* suffering from his violent ideas - he may not even know that he has them. People who eat vegan for health reasons make a major difference for animals even if the animals don't know that.
Of course acknowledging what's wrong is important. But it's a lot easier to accept vegan viewpoints if you already are off animal products. Plus - all those who say that they love animal products, understand that it's wrong and press 'Like' on vegan/AR friendly pages on Facebook don't really make much difference for the animals if they keep using animal products. Actions are more important than words.Quote:
The big shift can only happen [if it ever will] when people acknowlegde that what is going on is wrong.
Another aspect relevant to all this is that someone understand everything there is to understand *and* avoid animal products may still push people away from veganism - if he has a grumpy, people-hating approach. He may technically be a 'perfect vegan', but if he keeps giving veganism a bad reputation, his pushing of non-vegans away from their interest in veganism may result in more, not less animal products being used. The end result is more, not less suffering.