NoneHarm - what do you think?

[Korn]

This isn't a public site yet, so I'm posting it in the members section only.

[Link removed, see this post.]

Do you think it's worthwhile launching this project? Any comments?

[eco]

I think it's an extemely worthwhile project. Anything that promotes the ideal of non harm/ahimsa is a good thing in an increasingly violent world. The very best of luck with this project Korn.

[Mr Flibble]

This isn't a public site yet, so I'm posting it in the members section only.]

It's already in google:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?compl...=noneharm&meta=

[absentmindedfan]

Sounds fab, could become a great resource

[Roxy]

I think it looks like a great resource too Korn!

[twinkle]

Looks good!

[BlackDog]

It does look good.
Grammatically, 'Noharm' or 'Harmnone' would work better.

[RedWellies]

Or nonharm. I agree it's a good idea.

[hazelbunny]

I think its a fantastic idea too




"An it harm none, do what thou wilt" - The Wiccan Rede

[Risker]

I'd like 'Noharmdone.com' in a parodic sense.

[Korn]

It does look good.
Grammatically, 'Noharm' or 'Harmnone' would work better.

noharm.com sounds better, but the domain name isn't available...

[Ginger]

Great idea Korn, good luck with it

[aubergine]

I think the project is a great idea.

[Gorilla]

great idea! sounds really worthwhile at getting the message out there. i like the look and design of the test website too.

[pookah]

Good idea! Good luck.

[Kevster]

Like the idea, there is very little criticism of vegetarianism, many groups prefer to silently promote veganism. I also think the name could do with a change. Noneharm doesn't sound quite right.

[veganlinda]

Looks like a great idea. I am working on project to promote veganism where I work and this is the kind of site that would have been perfect to utilise, especially if there is multimedia stuff.

[sprite1986]

I think it's a fantastic idea! But I agree with some of the posts above, 'noneharm' doesn't sound quite right..

I really like the whole style of the site though.

EDIT: but just a little point, in the first bullet-point on the main page, it says 'Every animal and human have the right to live a happy life"; it might read a bit better if you put "every animal and human has the right...."

[HappyVegan]

I haven't been around for a while so I just saw this. I went and read through the whole site and it sounds wonderful! I can't think of any other animal rights organization that focuses on what I believe better than this. I also love the web design and layout. Best of luck with the launch!

[cobweb]

I like it, too. I actually like the name because it sounds slightly quirky .

[eve]

I like the name for that same reason, cobweb

[Korn]

Looks like a great idea. I am working on project to promote veganism where I work and this is the kind of site that would have been perfect to utilise, especially if there is multimedia stuff.

It will have all kinds of multimedia stuff (downloadable .pdf files, movie clips, DVDs for sale etc) a while after the project will be launched, if it will be launched. Nothing's wrong with flyers, but people depend more and more on digital media for their info these days, and that isn't going to change.

I haven't been around for a while so I just saw this. I went and read through the whole site and it sounds wonderful! I can't think of any other animal rights organization that focuses on what I believe better than this. I also love the web design and layout. Best of luck with the launch!

A project of this kind would require a substantial amount of time and money, it would need sponsors and maybe also paying members, it would need both a paid staff and volunteers, but still would have to start up in a small format.

Based on the positive feedback here and in private messages, it looks like there's a need for such an organization/company. Here are quotes from a couple of PMs I received:

Noneharm must NOT be a "typical" animal rights organisation. What noneharm should be is an in-depth resource of knowledge that promotes ethical lifestyle and hence veganism.

The world does not lack animal rights organisations. There are plenty. What people need is one central point or institution that gives all info without any bias irrespective of religious sentiments or pesudo-science. So I appreciate this idea.

[...]

What I am saying is, Noneharm must be viewed by people as an information body and not only as a group of animal rights people. Show the ideas as credible information and talk about the planet as a whole when expressing most of this information when possible.

[...]

The most important thing to remember is that you are not just concentrating on Animal rights. You are discussing ethics from various viewpoints and in the larger scope of the environment, planet and human welfare.

Let me point out another advantage of having such an institution. Let us say NoneHarm Publications (a wing of NoneHarm) produces books, DVDs and materials on so much knowledge and scientific facts that advocate for veganism and care for the planet. You will find that many schools and universities will gladly have these books and materials in their libraries. Students will read it with the aim to gain knowledge, but in the process they will make a large impact on the future of the planet and animals.

Do you think PeTA's materials will be allowed in schools or colleges? NO !!! Why??? Because they look too pushy, inconsistent, visibly biased and in most cases looks fanatical. Do you see the difference between NoneHarm and any typical animal rigts organisation? NoneHarm will not be any run-of-the-mill type organisation.

I'm not going to start a PETA-discussion at all, but I believe that all these things are important: People who work in schools, media or other institutions who look for any kind of media discussing or documenting reasons to go vegan would very likely meet serious friction if whatever they presented contained links to ALF or pictures of people wearing masks when attacking labs, combined with pictures of Paris Hilton and Pamela Anderson supporting their work.

OTOH, I also think it's important NOT to use an organization like NoneHarm (whatever the name will be) to attack Peta or any other pro-vegan group, even if it may be important to explain the difference. One wouldn't have to be anti-Peta, anti-ALF or anti-The Vegan Society (etc) to support something like NoneHarm.

[Edit: the word NOT was missing from the sentence above!]


Here's a response from another PM:

I certainly do think it worth starting - I've checked out quite a number of vegan sites as you must have, but this is certainly one where I don't have to close my eyes to certain statements.

So - at least some of us thinks this is a good idea.

The big question remains, though: How to raise the money needed to run NoneHarm? Membership fee income is of course possible, but in the beginning the amount of members will be low.

[BlackCats]

I just wanted to add my support and say that I thought this seemed very good, it has a very calm tone to it.

I think some vegans can appear quite hysterical sometimes (myself included) which of course is understandable and I think the public would be best served with balanced factual evidence rather than horrible images as they seem to be ignored anyway.
Sorry I am off on tangent hope this makes sense - just woken up

[eve]

The big question remains, though, - and there's basically only one big question: How to raise the money needed to run NoneHarm? Membership fee income, is of course possible, but in the beginning the amount of members will be low.

There are quite a few organisations around in the field, and they all require an annual fee, to which nobody can object if they want to be members. As a member of several organisations, having periodic payments to them arranged through the bank utilising my visacard, is pretty painless. Some are monthly payments, and for the annual ones there is usually a reminder letter. It is something that of course has to be tackled, preferably on a more regular basis than what happens on VF.

[Korn]

I've just added a new user group called 'The Vegan Movement'. It's open for vegans only, not for people who plan to go vegan only or who eat vegan food (eg. for health reasons) but aren't really vegans. The purpose of the subforum that will be available to those who join this user group is to the discuss the current state of the vegan movement, and also the possible need for a new/alternative vegan organization built around the the ideas that are listed at noneharm.com.

This subforum is not meant as a secret, closed area where vegans can bash Peta, The Vegan Society, Animal Liberation Front or other groups they may not agree with, but as a place where we can discuss possible alternatives, what we think needs to be improved in the vegan movement as such, and why there may be a need for a new, independent organization - in short: what we would change if we would start a new organization from scratch.

[Joeybee]

It sunds excellent, You should go ahed with it, it can only help.

[Melanie]

Sounds brilliant

[Korn]

I've just added a new user group called 'The Vegan Movement'.

FYI, I've just moved this thread over to this new subforum, along with some other threads.

[Fungus]

Looks like a brilliant site and hope it gets launched soon as it looks great! It'd certainly be a good relief from all the 'shock-horror' sites out there..
One point; all the text is in one big PNG so it takes quite a while to load, not sure if that can be changed?

[vava]

I realise that if this organisation gets up and running you are going to need a considerable amount of money and staff to run it. I also realise that a lot of the vegan peeps on this forum are multi talented. I am wondering therefore if it would be prudent to ask for volunteers in the first instance to help with setting up the site and the admin etc.

I think along with the sentiments of the first post and others' views I would feel very comfortable if the information contained was factual, with appropriate citations but also available in easy to read language. This is an example of help that could maybe come from peep on the forum. I am thinking that a scientific paper could be simplified into an abstract that is easily understood and has the relevant details but that is fully available for those who want to delve deeper. The 'normal' abstracts attached to scientific papers can sometimes be as daunting to read as ploughing through the whole work.

Sounds like a great idea and a great deal of work - so when is it starting and is there any help you need? PS what about 'knowharm'.

[Korn]

One point; all the text is in one big PNG so it takes quite a while to load, not sure if that can be changed?

Sure. It's just a preliminary site.

I am thinking that a scientific paper could be simplified into an abstract that is easily understood and has the relevant details but that is fully available for those who want to delve deeper. The 'normal' abstracts attached to scientific papers can sometimes be as daunting to read as ploughing through the whole work.

I agree... I think a main part of science is to show that there isn't one scientific truth about eg. nutrition according to science... as we learn more, we have to adjust our opinions and assumptions according to the new information. I disagree with 'scientists' who tries to give the impression that there's only 'one' scientific truth that everybody agree in. Most good scientists, however, are very good at making it clear that 'it looks like' or 'vitamin *** may be influenced by' etc.; layman are normally much less humble.

Abstracts are another story. I often quote abstracts, but that's because they contain info others would like to comment. In a site that's meant to inform 'normal' people about health and nutrition, the language has to be simple.

Having said that, I disagree with those sites that refuse to mention anything that takes more than a few paragraphs to describe... humans spend years learning to walk, talk, write etc..... IMO we're not asking too much from potential vegans if we suggest that they read a couple of pages about eg. vitamin B12. Over-simplification may cause just as much trouble as trying to hard to make something complex look simple...

when is it starting and is there any help you need?

Such a project would take a few years to build up, and would need all the help it can get!

[Korn]

all the text is in one big PNG so it takes quite a while to load, not sure if that can be changed?

It has been changed today, but the site is still in 'preliminary' mode - with a preliminary layout.

[Qaxt]

PS what about 'knowharm'.

I don't know about anyone else, but I think that's an AMAZING title.


I definitely think this is a great idea. I do not like most popular vegan websites at all.

[vava]

The preliminary site looks very 'dark' - and 'male' and as a result I expected to read about gun sales in the small print.

[cobweb]

^ HMM, been trying to persuade Korn to get a pink 'skin' for this forum, too......

[Steph]

The preliminary site looks very 'dark' - and 'male' and as a result I expected to read about gun sales in the small print.

Oh, I so disagree with you, I think it looks very neutral, I did not find it dark or small font at all. I really like the look of it, I appreciate that it doesn't have alot of "fluff" and distracting colors and images.. It has a "clean" look to it, I like it so far.

[Korn]

Oh, I so disagree with you, I think it looks very neutral, I did not find it dark or small font at all. I really like the look of it, I appreciate that it doesn't have alot of "fluff" and distracting colors and images.. It has a "clean" look to it, I like it so far.

I actually changed the design a little after vavavegans post, but forgot to mention it in this thread...

[vava]

oooooooooH nice!

[Korn]

Poll added.

[Fungus]

Hmm .. "Voters: 1. You may not vote on this poll"

[bryzee86]

I was about to say about that, fungus!

Damn dictatorships!

[Korn]

You may not vote on this poll

Ooops - time to look at the permission settings again, I guess...

[Edit: the reason for the No Permission message seems to be that the poll was in a section that normally doesn't allow creating polls (therefore no need to enable voting)... but the thread is moved to a subforum with polls/voting is enabled now!]

[Samber]

It does look good.
Grammatically, 'Noharm' or 'Harmnone' would work better.

"Harm none" is the wiccan creed, and thus might confuse some people.

[Ames]

I think it looks wonderful!

[vava]

http://www.vegatopia.org/

just seen this ad in the vegan magazine for summer.....

[Korn]

Quoting myself here:

I think there are two or three main reasons that some (luckily, only a few) people think that a vegan is someone who is 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!

Here's vegatopia's own definition of vegan:

Definition of ‘vegan’

A vegan is someone who chooses a diet composed of plant foods (supplemented with other non-animal foods such as funghi and minerals). An ethical vegan attempts to minimize, as far as possible, the harm she or he causes to all animals (nonhuman and human) in the course of her or his life. This involves choosing to eat a vegan diet; choosing products that do not depend on violence against, or the exploitation of, animals; campaigning against unnecessary human activities that harm nonhuman and human animals.

Definition of ‘veganism’

Veganism refers to the dietary practice of choosing a diet composed of plant foods (supplemented with other non-animal foods such as funghi and minerals). Ethical veganism refers to the practice of minimizing, as far as possible, the harm caused to all animals (nonhuman and human). This involves choosing to eat a vegan diet; choosing products that do not depend on violence against, or the exploitation of, animals; campaigning against unnecessary human activities that harm nonhuman and human animals.

[songlife]

Quoting myself here:



Here's vegatopia's own definition of vegan:

Well that's silly!!! I wish they wouldn't separate it like that. There is only one actual definition of vegan, the reason someone chooses to be vegan is inconsiquential. Why do they have to make it so complicated?

Vegan means DOES NOT KILL OR USE ANIMALS (for food and other products).

simple!

But I was wondering, can you still be a vegan if you condone the testing of drugs, euthenasia, and even violence on humans themselves? Does vegan mean "does not kill or use non-human animals" or "does not kill or use animals, humans inclusive"?

[Frank]

Vegan means DOES NOT KILL OR USE ANIMALS (for food and other products).

simple!

But I was wondering, can you still be a vegan if you condone the testing of drugs, euthenasia, and even violence on humans themselves? Does vegan mean "does not kill or use non-human animals" or "does not kill or use animals, humans inclusive"?

I think you said it in your earlier title: Vegan means DOES NOT KILL OR USE ANIMALS.

There's no mention of humans there. Some vegans might be okay with the death penalty for certain crimes etc.

As regards vegans okay with animal testing - I don't think i've ever met one.

If you have to have a prescribed drug in the UK, it has been tested on animals. If that drug keeps you alive then I would want you to have it because I value your life. I don't condone animal testing - but I may unfortunately have to accept it in its current legislation.

There's a lot of work still to be done here though. There are organisations like the Dr Hadwen Trust that offer some alternatives. We need to support and promote them more.

[Korn]

No thanks, we have enough similar organizations already

Out of sheer curiousity - which organization(s) would that be?

[Bunny]

Didn't see this until now (sorry). I think it is a good idea. I do think there needs to be a more neutral vegan factual site. Too many sites are swayed by politics. It would be nice to just focus on the reasons for veganism. I like the look of the site too Thumbs up!