This doesn't conflict with what I've said, I would agree that veganism is a "diffuse movement..." and would argue that it is such precisely because veganism, in itself, is little more than social group propelled by a dogmatic doctrine.
Animal rights and animal welfare aren't the same thing and, in the case of animal rights, there really isn't a huge diversity in thought....at least not on the major points.
Huh? My definition? I'm not attempting to provide a new definition of veganism....instead I'm using the definitions provided by vegan groups. You, on the other hand, seem to be trying to redefine veganism to be consist with your particular ethical view. Personally, I don't see the logic in that.....what does it achieve? What I've suggested here is that veganism, as defined by vegan groups, is an inconsistent doctrine that is propelled by dogma rather than philosophy or science.
Even so, your cat still contributes to animal suffering all to provide with a little cute pet. While I'm sure you'll avoid the question, as you typically do, but how do you justify the ownership of a cat in a utilitarian framework?
