There is no such thing as a dietary vegan

[Mfap]

With the entire approach to changing the wardrobe or not aspect of 'dietary veganism' as opposed to veganism surely its a matter of not buying further animal-based produce (or if you have to, buy it secondhand from a charity shop that is consistent with your beliefs, thereby subverting what would be a funding of the exploitation of animals into an act which causes benefits to the populace.) Whatever you do, I'd advocate not merely rubbishing things, as I see that as counter-productive on an enviromental basis, as well as being anti-utilitarian in terms of cost of suffering versus benefits. For clarification that is not me saying that one should consume first hand the produce of exploitation if it is beneficial, rather it is my opining that if one has contributed to such industries as do this already , one should make the most out of it (or enable others to utilise the produce without funding the industry).

On the whole however, I can see that taxonomically there is a need to encourage the use of the older term "strict vegetarian" to distinguish plant-based diet from veganism. And indeed, I agree with Nivvie that we should not have recrimination for those who use the term. Such a thing would be needlessly derisive.

Ooi - didn't the term veganism actually evolve from such a rift concerning whether or not the vegetarian movement was one that was strictly diet based or one that dealt with the entire spirit of the affair?

[Russ]

Get yer torches and pitchforks ready ...

Here goes ...

By the strictest definition, I'm not vegan. Dietary, yes, I won't go near meat or dairy, ever. I don't buy leather (I still have a couple pairs of leather shoes 'left over', but wouldn't buy any more) or any other clothing made from animals.
But when it comes to, for instance, detergents, like someone mentioned up there, I don't go looking for the vegan option. For one thing it's going to be pretty hard to know, and for another, pretty hard to find. This also extends to things like shampoo. Yes, it's possible to get 'vegan' shampoo ... it would mean taking a day's trip into London, or ordering online ... which would be about four times as expensive and probably smell weird. My experience with 'vegan deoderants' has been one of watery rock-sticks that don't do anything beneficial and soon end up smelling like armpit. No thanks.

Let me pose a question ... if you're out at a pub or restaurant and you go and use the bathroom, do you wash your hands afterwards? Yeah? Good, I'm glad to hear that ... what soap do you use?

Right. So we all know where we stand. Unless you carry your own soap around with you. I'm sure there are 100% totally pure vegans on this forum, but by my reckoning, they're few in number. I'm just going on what I've heard and what I've picked up. The dietary part of veganism is clearly the most crucial, because if we move away from killing animals for food then we'll probably stop with the 'byproducts' too ... I know how horrible animal testing is, but I can't find alternative products that actually do the job ... I do tend to buy those kind of things from Sainsburys, but last time I checked, there's a lot of conflicting evidence over their animal ethics.

[horselesspaul]

Let me pose a question ... if you're out at a pub or restaurant and you go and use the bathroom, do you wash your hands afterwards? Yeah? Good, I'm glad to hear that ... what soap do you use?

I just use the water. Preferably hot. No problems in 18 vegan years..

[Topaz]

Great points, Russ.

I personally wish that vegans would stop spending so much time criticizing each others' choices. We are such a tiny percentage of the population, we should spend more effort trying to find ways to be inclusive and less effort ruminating about who is pure enough to be in the club and who is not.

It reminds me of that old joke about being a group where our response to being attacked is to circle the wagons and fight with each other.

[Russ]

I personally wish that vegans would stop spending so much time criticizing each others' choices. We are such a tiny percentage of the population, we should spend more effort trying to find ways to be inclusive and less effort ruminating about who is pure enough to be in the club and who is not.

It reminds me of that old joke about being a group where our response to being attacked is to circle the wagons and fight with each other.

I feel the same way about vegetarians in general ... the whole vegetarian-vegan war is the dumbest thing I've ever heard ...

*braces self for ostracism*

[xrodolfox]

While I agree that we shouldn't fight with other veg*ns who aren't vegan, the idea that the depth of idea and value and social impact of being vegan is lost by the passive change in definition scares me.

I think being vegan is much more than a diet or what type of toothpaste is consumed. It is a philosophy, and to reduce it to something less makes the social impact of what it means to be vegan much less powerful.

There is great power in words, and how they are defined. Being concise, such as calling people "Strict Vegetarians" when they avoid animal products but aren't vegan by philosophy makes a lot of sense to me.

I think it isn't a matter of a "club" or not. It is a matter of being concise and clear with our language.

[aubergine]

I don't know what I'd do without the Co-op. Specifically cruelty free brands cost money I just don't have.

[Shells]

Russ, as much as I hate to admit it, I'm in a very similar boat as you. I simply can't afford to buy most vegan soaps and detergents. I canfind them, but the laundrey detergent is literally 4 times or more the price of non-specific vegan detergent, everywhere I looked. I can find dish soap for a normal price, but it physically hurts to spend ten dollars on a small bottle of laundry soap when I can get a giant bottle for 4 dollars, or two for seven.

My current solution is to ask for these more expensive products as gifts, actually. I haven't run out of deoderant yet (I tend to stock up on toiletries, so I'm still using pre-vegan purchases - and it's been three months!) but I'm sort of dreading the deoderant replacements - my mother had me and my sister using "natural" deoderant in middle school, and it was my biggest rebellion to keep "normal" deoderant in my gym locker. People were making fun of my because I would smell after gym class, or if it was hot out. It just... didn't work at all. And we tried eeeevery brand.

I'm hoping that there have been some advances in the deoderant technology, because I can't stand BO.

Luckily, Colgate makes vegan toothpaste, so I don't have to change! My makeup is already vegan as well (not the brushes though, sadly) so I don't have too much to change. Just shampoo (which I'm sort of dreading), hair products (ditto) and the whole detergent thing. Soap is easy because... well, soap is soap. It works the same if its natural.

Unlike deoderant. Sigh.

*still not calling myself vegan yet*

[missbettie]

Shells I think you are vegan, It is about doing what you can for the cause. Doing whatever is possible for you to be vegan. You have the mindset, unfortunately not the money...its difficult.... I find myself yelling at my boyfriend for using my vegan soap because it is so much more expensive than his and he just doesn't care...its very petty and stupid but I do it anyways, because I would rather not spend 10 bucks on soap, with that money I could do a lot more...like buy a new dress...ah but then again i'm pathetic...lol

[The_Jeweller]

I used the term in my first post on this forum a few days ago without giving it much thought. I am, however, a very new vegan (only since Aug-07) and still learning. The only bit of leather left in my wardrobe is, like some of you, a pair of DMs which I will continue to wear in bad weather until I can find a suitable replacement.

Also I still use a depressingly large number of animal by-products in my trade as a jeweller from the glue that keeps my sandpaper sandy to many of the polishing compounds. Then, of course, there are the ethical questions raised about where and how my metals and gemstones are sourced. Despite my full-fledged vegan aspirations, I simply cannot abandon my trade or my tools as there are few to zero alternatives. It's a pickle.

And then there's the question of WATER! Even tap water is filtered through animal bones making it, technically, non-vegan.

It all makes me wonder: can there possibly be such a thing as a perfect vegan?

Besides, who has the right to attack a newbie vegan who has made the leap and still looking for footholds? Advice and a friendly helping hand is what we need - not a hostile lecture about why we're wrong to call ourselves 'dietary vegans'.

But now I'm ranting.

(by the way Original Source shampoo & conditioner not only smells and feels fantastic to use, it's also cruelty-free and endorsed by the Vegan Society!)

[Risker]

And then there's the question of WATER! Even tap water is filtered through animal bones making it, technically, non-vegan.

Woah there! Lets not spread myths about that stuff.

[Korn]

a hostile lecture about why we're wrong to call ourselves 'dietary vegans'

Hi Jeweller, I have yet to see any hostility in statements about why people disagree with the term 'dietary vegan'. It's a totally relevant term to use if someone wants to describe what they eat "without giving it much thought" (to use your words). When people order food at a restaurant, they sometimes use the word vegan about themselves instead of about the food they want ("I'm a vegan" instead of "I'd like some vegan food"). It's possible and to talk about food without using people descriptions', but we sometimes use the word 'vegan' about themselves - even if other words like total vegetarian' or 'vegitan' already exist. The confusion probably exist because both vegan, vegitan and total vegetarian food is entirely plant based. I don't think anyone use the 'dietary vegan' term for other reason that it's simple. The very existence of the term 'dietary vegan' is in itself a proof that veganism is about more than food, because why would they otherwise add 'dietary' before 'vegan' in the first place?

Some vegans order 'total vegetarian' food instead of vegan food because they have found that some waiters don't know what vegan means, which could indicate that it would be simpler for total vegetarians to call themselves total vegetarians instead of vegans or dietary vegans anyway...

If people say that a person who use animal products is not a vegan, it's just because they don't want the word vegan to change it's meaning. The term 'vegetarian' has almost developed into a word anyone who happen to not like os use or stomack red meat can use. This started to happen before internet was commonly used, and thanks to internet, we can now prevent that the same thing will happen with the word 'vegan'. To remind people what vegetarians don't eat chicken, or that veganism is about more than food isn't "hostile", because it isn't about a person - it's about a definition of a word.

Even tap water is filtered through animal bones making it, technically, non-vegan.

We're going off topic here, but I agree with Risker, let's not spread some myths about water not being vegan, because too many people think 'in block'. If a myth about water not being vegan would be spread, there are actually people out there that aren't intelligent enough to understand that 'if not even water is vegan, I might as well use other animal products as well, because it's not possible to be a perfect vegan anyway'.

The great thing about the word 'vegan' is that there isn't baked any kind of unrealistic perfectionism into it. If you think that tap water as such is not vegan - and if you think this is important, first of all some documentation would be needed, confirming that a) bone char is commonly used for water filtering, and b) that a product that doesn't contain any animal products is not to be considered vegan (according to a commonly accepted definition of vegan) if animal products has been used somewhere in the process between creating it and bringing it to your home. If your postman eats a burger while delivering your post, because he's not a vegan and ned some food, animal products have been used in the process of delivering your mail to you, but that doesn't mean that receiving post technically isn't vegan.

'Vegan' is about doing your best to avoid harming and killing animals as far as practical and possible, and personally I'm not even interested in whether my tap water has been filtered with bone char or not other than if I would contact someone involved in water filtering and suggest that they should use something else instead of bone char. I'm not going to try to figure out what the postman is eating either. If you walk on a sidewalk, some insects and maybe some mice were probably killed when that street and sidewalk were made, but that doesn't mean that sidewalks - or walking on sidewalks - technically aren't vegan. If my tap water would have been filtered using bone char, I wouldn't start buying/collecting water from other source to use with cleaning, cooking (etc) anyway, I'd just say that it's not practical/possible to not use tap water, just like I'm going to continue to walk on sidewalks and live in a house without going into a depression about how streets and buildings are made.

who has the right to attack a newbie vegan

This is not about attacks, it's about calling a spade for a spade, since the word 'vegan', just like the word 'Chinese' is not limited to describe what people eat. If my neighbor would claim that he is now Chinese because he has been eating only Chinese food for a month, and I'd tell him that he's not Chinese, it wouldn't be an attack on him as a person, it wouldn't even be an attack on how he is using the word 'Chinese', it would only be a reminder about 'Chinese' being about more than what people eat. Non-Chinese people have been living in China for many years, eating only Chinese food, without needing to call themselves 'dietary Chinese'....

[horselesspaul]

This is not about attacks, it's about calling a spade for a spade, since the word 'vegan', just like the word 'Chinese' is not limited to describe what people eat. If my neighbor would claim that he is now Chinese because he has been eating only Chinese food for a month, and I'd tell him that he's not Chinese, it wouldn't be an attack on him as a person, it wouldn't even be an attack on how he is using the word 'Chinese', it would only be a reminder about 'Chinese' being about more than what people eat. Non-Chinese people have been living in China for many years, eating only Chinese food, without needing to call themselves 'dietary Chinese'....

Korn, you fuqing rule man.

Peas.

[Shells]

I might be dietary Thai...

[teaboy]

This is why straight-edge is so fractured; everybody analyzing each others commitment to it and trying to show that they're just that little bit more straight-edge than the next man. It doesn't matter to me what somebody else choses to call themselves or how they order their food. It's not my business either.

[Korn]

It doesn't matter to me what somebody else choses to call themselves or how they order their food.

---but it matters for many others, eg. vegetarians who have to explain that vegetarian food doesn't contain chicken or fish when they order food.

Communication is simpler if people don't have introduce new definitions of words that already have a useful definition - it isn't more complicated than that.

[teaboy]

---but it matters for many others, eg. vegetarians who have to explain that vegetarian food doesn't contain chicken or fish when they order food.

Sure. I agree with that sentiment, but it shouldn't matter that a non-vegan is ordering vegan food, if that is the best way to get what they want. I'm not trying to pick holes in your original argument, but I feel that if anybody is doing anything positive at all where animal wefare is concerned, that it is better to accept it and appreciate it as a good gesture, than to find anything wrong with it. I'm sorry if I came across as belligerent, that's not my intention at all.

[Redveg993]

I am absolutely in agreement. Anyone heard of the Vegan Police? Their website is www.vegan911.com.

I think that if an individual can honestly say that s/he is doing all that s/he can to avoid animal products and animal exploitation in her/his life, then that person should be supported rather than being taken for a hypocrite by a holier-than-thou critic. The Vegan Police go right up to the rank of Inspector, but I have to say that I've seen a few Commissioners in my time.

[Risker]

That sites dead.

[Korn]

I think that if an individual can honestly say that s/he is doing all that s/he can to avoid animal products and animal exploitation in her/his life, then that person should be supported rather than being taken for a hypocrite by a holier-than-thou critic. The Vegan Police go right up to the rank of Inspector, but I have to say that I've seen a few Commissioners in my time.

'Guarding' the definition of a word (vegan) with the intension that it's meaning shall not go down the drain (this has more or less happened with the word 'vegetarian', hence all the 'But you do eat fish, right?'-questions) has nothing to do with not supporting people doing their best or 'policing' them. It's two different topics, really...

Actually, the better we are at keeping the meaning of the word 'vegan' intact, the less likely it is that anyone ever would be capable of digging up any motivation for 'policing' others: discussions a la 'you're not a vegetarian, because you eat fish/chicken' would never have happened if the definition if nobody would have attempted to 'hijack' the word vegetarian and allow/suggest that it could be used for people who eat chicken. That very 'policing' situation is a direct result of the fact that the original definition of the word 'vegetarian' hasn't been maintained.

[Dizzycow]

If vegans get caught up in trying to maintain vegan perfection, they will either burn out from frustration or fail miserably. This is because our industrialized world is fraught with unavoidable animal-based commodities. Our non-leather shoes and vegan cookbooks may be bound with animal-based glue. Our car and bicycle tires contain stearic acid. The plastic encasing our computers incorporates animal products. Our treasured photographs and videos include animal derived gelatin. It's endless!"

Jo Stepaniak,Grassroots Veganism

[Risker]

Our car and bicycle tires contain stearic acid. The plastic encasing our computers incorporates animal products.

Kinda O.T. but I'm yet to see any supporting evidence of these claims.

[Dizzycow]

I don't know any either but thought is was a relevant quote.

It made me feel a bit better as I'm newly vegan and feel a bit overwhelmed at times on the amount of changes to be made. I did wonder wether I was a bit of a fraud calling myself vegan but I'm making all the changes I can as I can and actually feel like I'm doing quite well, I bought my first vegan deordorant and toothaste this morning : )

[treehugga]

I always thought vegan was so much more than just a dietry thing, but rather a holistic belief system. I am proud of the reasons I do this around ethical reasons. I thought it was an understanding on here that those reasons are important. Otherwise, we would not worry about wearing leather or wool. I don't care if people just do it for dietry reasons but I don't think this alone constitutes being vegan - it's the belief system. Of course we can't avoid everything as previously discussed, but surely we can do the best we can to avoid cruel systems and not let this sway us.

[cobweb]

I always thought vegan was so much more than just a dietry thing, but rather a holistic belief system. I am proud of the reasons I do this around ethical reasons. I thought it was an understanding on here that those reasons are important. Otherwise, we would not worry about wearing leather or wool. I don't care if people just do it for dietry reasons but I don't think this alone constitutes being vegan - it's the belief system. Of course we can't avoid everything as previously discussed, but surely we can do the best we can to avoid cruel systems and not let this sway us.

well i totally agree, but if it's impossible to get vegan tyres, or to get 100% correct information about them then there's little point in wasting energy worrying too much about them is there?

[treehugga]

well i totally agree, but if it's impossible to get vegan tyres, or to get 100% correct information about them then there's little point in wasting energy worrying too much about them is there?

Of course not, which is why I said 'do the best we can', I think most of us do avoid the obvious, it's the not caring re the ethics around it that bother me. If people do it for dietry reasons that's a good start, but when people say but I'm not worried re the ethics - that bothers me because I thought that's what vegans were all about.

[Korn]

Kinda O.T. but I'm yet to see any supporting evidence of these claims.

[Edit: The part of the thread about that particular topic is now here. Korn]

[cobweb]

Of course not, which is why I said 'do the best we can', I think most of us do avoid the obvious, it's the not caring re the ethics around it that bother me. If people do it for dietry reasons that's a good start, but when people say but I'm not worried re the ethics - that bothers me because I thought that's what vegans were all about.

sorry, yes, we are 100% in agreement, i don't see how anyone can be a vegan just for their health or even for the environment when veganism involves a lot of commitment, usually spurred on by compassion, or at least a wish for some kind of 'equality'.

[RubyDuby]

^however, I can see how somebody would go vegan for just health, or just the animals or just the environment. I wonder how many start off with not eating animals and their products, and then find out about the other stuff later?

[cobweb]

^however, I can see how somebody would go vegan for just health, or just the animals or just the environment. I wonder how many start off with not eating animals and their products, and then find out about the other stuff later?

i can't see that - would someone really be prepared to change everything they eat, stop using leather and wool, possibly rethink their health provision (e.g avoiding animal tested drugs etc), and generally avoiding all cruelty (as in the original vegan society definition of veganism) purely for their health?

[RubyDuby]

avoid animals and animal products and drugs for their health, yes. maybe not leather and fur, but for the first year of being vegan I still had non-vegan belts and shoes. I could see why a health-centered vegan could take that long to see the other reasons for going vegan.

Environmental- giving up animals, animal products and leather, yes. I don't really think it's possible to give up drugs not tested on animals???

Maybe I should re-state that as I can see why somebody would start off as a 'dietary vegan' (or I should say I understand why someone would avoid eating animals and their products) and then later turn into a real vegan.

[DiaShel]

I started for health reasons but very soon after I realized all the other great reasons, which are now just as important to me.

[cobweb]

ok, rubes, got you there, i suppose that is the whole point of this thread really.

[cobweb]

I started for health reasons but very soon after I realized all the other great reasons, which are now just as important to me.

aha, well you can be my test subject then if you don't mind?
was it veganism you started for health reasons or strict vegetarianism?
(e.g the difference being the avoidanc eof all cruelty including leather, etc)
i'm genuinely interested.

[Dizzycow]

aha, well you can be my test subject then if you don't mind?
was it veganism you started for health reasons or strict vegetarianism?
(e.g the difference being the avoidanc eof all cruelty including leather, etc)
i'm genuinely interested.

I'm going to stick my nose in here if you don't mind cobweb

I started as vegetarian but always felt wierd about drinking milk and I have 'always' felt wierd about eggs.

It seemed like a natural progression for me to become vegan, the animal tested products I've always tried to avoid but more so now.
Avoiding leather is a new one for me that has come along wiith the veganism.

However, I do have a friend who has been vegetarian for years who never buys leather but does drink milk and eats eggs.

I think there will always be variations.

[cobweb]

^ sure, but it's where and when it becomes veganism that interests me, as opposed to vegetarianism.

to be honest i am doing craply with avoiding animal tested meds at the moment and sometimes wonder if i should call myself vegetarian instead of vegan but then people would assume i will eat eggs, etc, which i won't. If you see what i'm rambling about?.

[treehugga]

I think good on people who have a meat and dairy free are fantastic, but I wouldn't refer to them as vegan as they haven't taken on the whole ideology. However, if they do the dietry thing first with the intent to learn re ethics etc I'd consider them more vegan minded. Clear as mud? I'm not trying to be judgmental-it's just everything I've read & heard re being vegan includes honey, leather and avoiding cruelty, Including the founding member's views.

[DiaShel]

aha, well you can be my test subject then if you don't mind?
was it veganism you started for health reasons or strict vegetarianism?
(e.g the difference being the avoidanc eof all cruelty including leather, etc)
i'm genuinely interested.

Good question! Honestly, the change of heart took place over like a day or two. I really dove into buying every book I could find about veganism for health but some, like skinny bitch and food revolution focus a lot on nutrition, but also the other aspects. It so maybe I was strict vegetarian for a day when I completely emptied my kitchen of anything with animal products and then mostly vegan a few days after, though some of you wouldn't consider me a vegan because I still shampoo and I haven't used up and shoes with leather. Hey, I'm a poor college student and shoes are expensive. I do what I can though and I hope people will understand that. I don't want to feel like a can't call myself a vegan because of these things but I also don't feel like it's helping the animals/environment/or myself to get rid of them because the damage is done. The only reason right now would be so I could call myself a vegan without guilt and the way it would look to others and I don't think I should have to do that.

[cobweb]

I think good on people who have a meat and dairy free are fantastic, but I wouldn't refer to them as vegan as they haven't taken on the whole ideology. However, if they do the dietry thing first with the intent to learn re ethics etc I'd consider them more vegan minded. Clear as mud? I'm not trying to be judgmental-it's just everything I've read & heard re being vegan includes honey, leather and avoiding cruelty, Including the founding member's views.

again i totally agree with you, treehugga, and also with diashel - it's the intention which is all important in veganism, to try your best, but that for me is certainly avoiding the use of leather/wool/honey, etc - the other stuff like meds has to be doing the best we can on a 'need to use' basis i s'pose.

i still can't see how anyone would be vegan in the real, Donald Watson sense of vegan, for their own health reasons only though

[Dizzycow]

Good question! Honestly, the change of heart took place over like a day or two. I really dove into buying every book I could find about veganism for health but some, like skinny bitch and food revolution focus a lot on nutrition, but also the other aspects. It so maybe I was strict vegetarian for a day when I completely emptied my kitchen of anything with animal products and then mostly vegan a few days after, though some of you wouldn't consider me a vegan because I still shampoo and I haven't used up and shoes with leather. Hey, I'm a poor college student and shoes are expensive. I do what I can though and I hope people will understand that. I don't want to feel like a can't call myself a vegan because of these things but I also don't feel like it's helping the animals/environment/or myself to get rid of them because the damage is done. The only reason right now would be so I could call myself a vegan without guilt and the way it would look to others and I don't think I should have to do that.

Thats exactly like me DiaShel (apart from the buying books bit!)

[RubyDuby]

to be honest i am doing craply with avoiding animal tested meds at the moment.

are there meds that haven't been tested on animals?

[cobweb]

are there meds that haven't been tested on animals?

well actually, no, even the 'alternative' remedies have been so i put that wrong anyway, but i would like to avoid the stuff dished out by doctors that is massively tested by the big pharmaceuticals and then modernised, re-labelled and tested again, grr .

on reflection of course using meds doesn't make me non-vegan but ideally as part of my ethics i would avoid medications. I'm reading a great book from the library called Food is better Medicine than Drugs and i am following a lot of the advice in it.

[nonegiven]

Damn ... this forum software sucks.

I wrote a long reply and it deleted it when disallowing me to post it for some reason even though I was logged in ... please try phpBB instead folks. Wasted half an hour.

Short version ... by whom, where and when was this term "dietary vegan" first used or invented? We must surely be close enough in terms of history and sociology to work it out.

[Korn]

I wrote a long reply and it deleted it when disallowing me to post it for some reason even though I was logged in ... please try phpBB instead folks.

Hi, and welcome!

I've had the problem you mention on a few occasions (eg. if the server is in the middle of a restart), but then the Backspace button has brought my post back - except one time, when I don't really know what happened. I suspect it was a problem with my browser version (Safari on Mac).

[Omnia]

Back on the World Vegan Day forums (RIP) this subject of what is vegan and who is really vegan and who is not really vegan just won't stop comming around.

We all have to come to terms that none of us are pure vegans. We all compromise our veganism and will always have to all the time we live in a society that use animals.

Someone else's 90% vegan is no more an act of hypocrisy than your 98% vegan, or his 99.999% vegan. (The computer you are using stop you being 100% anyway).

A "dietry vegan" is not a non-vegan or a definition of a vegan - it is a minimum requirement. In the same way a Christain does not have to do all the things a Christain should do, they just have to abind by the minimum requirement of believing in the divinity of Christ. Dietry veganism is our baseline. None of us are going to be an absolute vegan, its impossible, so we have to draw a practical line somewhere.

Of course, if any of you want to change the VS requirement for joining the society, then by all means put a new statement forward to it. Perhaps "diet and clothing", perhaps "diet, clothing and cosmetics" but you will still end up with a term like "a dietry, clothing and cosmetic vegan".

We could go along the lines of stating veganism as an aspiration (which is how I see it), but as a practical definition it very problematic without a baseline requirement. It would be easy for a soley aspirational vegan to say "well, am a vegan and I do eat beef, it just I have not got very far along the road to pure veganism".

I think you put that very well indeed StevieP. As a newbie to the forum, I'm still slowly working my way through this thread but at this point it makes me wonder what the concensus is amongst the membership on the "am vegan (or very close)" classification on the forum.
Would "dietary vegan" be "not close enough"?

It's also interesting to observe at what level of veganity people cross the line in their tone from friendliness to hostililty towards fellow travellers who are all walking in the same direction.

[Omnia]

Gave them to an omni.
Nah it's all plastic. I'm no Clarkson.

Not if you buy them from a vegan supplier.
Gave them to an omni.

I just stick to German lager. Vegan brewing is the law.

Ironically, all sold off in animal welfare charity shops on day one..

Being vegan is frequently a question of opportunity and access to information but the above choices were easy enough to make and this is an area that many snidey omnis like to poke around in to make themselves feel more comfortable and I don't like to give them the satisfaction.

Impressive!
Omnia (not related to the snidey omnis mentioined in the post, or at least i don't think so)

[Korn]

...it makes me wonder what the concensus is amongst the membership on the "am vegan (or very close)" classification on the forum.
Would "dietary vegan" be "not close enough"?

To me, the term 'dietary vegan' is an oxymoron - just as much as 'a vegetarian who eats chicken'.

The reason we don't offer a 'dietary vegan' reply option in the registering process, is that there's no such thing. Some people use this word, and it gives the impressions that there are several types of vegans - some who respect animals and some who don't, but:

There aren't two types of vegans; those who avoid animal products as much as practical and possible on one side, and those who eat vegan, but don't mind participate in hunting - or wear fur on the other. 'Vegan' has always been about more than food.

Regarding "vegan or very close"... someone who avoids meat, dairy, eggs etc. but is fine with killing animals/hunting/support the fur/leather industry etc. isn't 'very close' to be a vegan, he's actually quite far from being a vegan... And - it doesn't help if he disagrees in the definition of 'vegan', or want to contribute give the word a new meaning. Lots of people eat Masala Dosa without calling themselves South Indians, so we're not looking at a severe, conceptual, unsolvable problem here... we're just seeing that people want to call themselves vegans when they are not. As I've mentioned before - that must be a good sign for the vegan movement!

It's also interesting to observe at what level of veganity people cross the line in their tone from friendliness to hostililty towards fellow travellers who are all walking in the same direction.

Well... I've personally banned people who defend hunting etc. here, but that's not due to unfriendliness/hostility. It's simply because this is a site for vegans. We want to communicate on vegan premises, so inviting non-vegans to join the just forum doesn't make sense. It would only trigger a kind of friction we don't really need...

[Omnia]

I am absolutely in agreement. Anyone heard of the Vegan Police? Their website is www.vegan911.com.

I think that if an individual can honestly say that s/he is doing all that s/he can to avoid animal products and animal exploitation in her/his life, then that person should be supported rather than being taken for a hypocrite by a holier-than-thou critic. The Vegan Police go right up to the rank of Inspector, but I have to say that I've seen a few Commissioners in my time.

He he he he, I like it

[Mahk]

Korn, I disagree that "dietary vegan" is an oxymoron. To me a person who declares this is implying," I follow a vegan diet, but I my self am not a vegan, I hunt on the weekends and wear leather, for example". I think you are jumping to conclusions that they are implying they are a certain subset of vegans. I don't see them as implying that at all. If someone declares, "My diet is strictly kosher." we know what they will and will not eat but we don't know if they are Jewish at all. If you think they must be implying they are Jewish you would be jumping to conclusions. Perhaps they have other reasons. Your insistence that such people are not allowed to use the word "vegan" to describe their diet and must instead say it is "plant based" seems a little silly in my opinion.

I also have no problem with "A vegetarian but they eat chicken". It gives a clear concise definition of what they are all about. "A vegetarian but they wear silk ties only for job interviews" also works for me. "A Catholic but they use birth control" also works for me. The words "vegan", "vegetarian", and "Catholic" all may be modified when describing an individual.

[Korn]

To me a person who declares this is implying," I follow a vegan diet, but I my self am not a vegan, I hunt on the weekends and wear leather, for example"

If that's what he wants to declare, why not use that sentence instead then, or simply say "my diet is vegan"?

If someone declares, "My diet is strictly kosher." we know what they will and will not eat but we don't know if they are Jewish at all.

"My diet is strictly vegan' would also be a good, non-confusing way to claim that your diet is vegan, but that you aren't a vegan.

Your insistence that such people are not allowed to use the word "vegan" to describe their diet

That's where you misinterpret what I wrote... I don't insist that they shouldn't call their diet vegan, but that they shouldn't call themselves vegans (if they aren't vegans).


When you write...

I also have no problem with "A vegetarian but they eat chicken".

... I see that as a perfect example of how one can make communication more, not less difficult, because vegetarians don't eat chicken or beef. If we should establish that some vegetarians eat chicken and some don't, or some eat lamb steak and some don't, it will be almost as complicated to go and order a vegetarian meal on a restaurant as if the term 'vegetarian' didn't exist, because 'vegetarian' could mean with - or without - chicken.

If what someone wants is a chicken salad, why not just order a chicken salad instead of diving into using various definitions of what they 'are'? The waiter probably don't care anyway...


If we agree that a vegetarian meal never includes chicken, then we also agree that someone who eats chicken doesn't fit with the term 'vegetarian'.... right? Or: if we disagree, could a vegetarian also eat beef?

Furthermore, if a vegetarian may or may not eat chicken, then the next thing could be that some vegans eat chicken as well, to avoid being accused for 'policing'...

Why use words at all, if they can be redefined into more or less mean anything by anyone who wants to change their original definition?

"A vegetarian but they wear silk ties only for job interviews" also works for me.

Since 'vegetarians' normally isn't used about someone who avoids silk, I don't see a need for the 'but' in that sentence. Unlike 'vegan', 'vegetarian' is normally used about diet only.

Would "I'm a vegan who eats fish" work for you? or 'I'm a vegan who eats chicken'? If yes... why put the word 'vegan' in that sentence at all? Do you suggest that we should have 'pesco-vegans', lacto-vegans', 'lacto-ovo vegans', 'chicken-vegetarians', 'beef-vegetarians', and 'pesco-vegans'?

I don't see the need to use the word 'vegan' or 'vegetarian' about a person who eats beef, fish or chicken, because vegans and vegetarians don't eat beef, fish or chicken.

I have never seen beef, fish or chicken in a restaurant that defines itself as a vegetarian restaurant.

I don't see why one should use the word vegan about someone who doesn't avoid animal products as much as practical and possible, because that's what vegans are known for doing, and have been known for doing for decades.

I think that if an individual can honestly say that s/he is doing all that s/he can to avoid animal products and animal exploitation in her/his life, then that person should be supported rather than being taken for a hypocrite by a holier-than-thou critic.

Absolutely, but if s/he would be "doing all that s/he can to avoid animal products and animal exploitation in her/his life", s/he would be a 'dietary vegan' only!


If the 'take-any-word-you-want-and-give-it-any-meaning-you-want' people should rule the world, then not only could a vegetarian risk getting a meal with fish/chicken/beef if he ordered a vegetarian meal on a restaurant, but we would have to invent a new word that replaces the current meaning of vegan. Why do that, when we already have a word that works?

This isn't about 'policing', it's about protecting the definition of a word. We could change the meaning of 'vegan' into 'someone who may or may not use animal products, but who eats vegan', but there's no valid reason for doing that, just like it doesn't make sense to change the meaning of other words like 'Chinese', 'red' or 'rain'.

Again... eating Chinese food doesn't make you Chinese. We could of course try to change the definition of 'Chinese' into 'someone who eats only Chinese food' - but why would we do that?