Let´s Make Veganism Less Strict

[PTree15]

Editing your post to highlight a few quotes.

You should definitely continue to do what you are comfortable, and in some ways your efforts are kind of a little heroic and inspiring, but the question is whether we should advocate for others to do the same. Looking at these quotes, doesn't this attitude make veganism less attractive to outsiders, meaning less people will do it, and there will be more animal suffering?

Thank you, but I don't consider my efforts heroic, as I think I can always do better. No, I don't think living my beliefs would necessarily turn people off to trying veganism. My asking questions at the restaurant, for example, could also be seen as a positive, in that it normalizes asking questions about food. So many people are afraid to speak up, but I think by asking questions, it shows that it's not such a big deal to do it. I've yet to have any staff give me any grief about it, either.

Because animal consumption is so ingrained in our culture, there is little chance of my making a huge difference in getting people to try veganism anyway. That said, I'll never stop trying. I think leading by example is the best way to promote it, showing people that life can be completely enjoyable without my having a hand in animal cruelty. And talking about it with people who are generally interested in understanding it is a good thing as well. Like my mom. She asked me about why I don't use wool for knitting. So I explained about the philosophy of not exploiting animals for our own comfort, about how it's a vegan mindset that animals aren't there for us to use/kill/eat. And I talked about the not-so-great conditions sheep endure for wool production. She may not agree, but she always wants to learn.

The other problem I have with this sentiment, that my efforts would turn people off, is tied to, IMHO, a big problem in our culture (I'm speaking of the U.S. here) for everything to just come easily and a lack of desire to work for things or goals or whatever it is people want. I've noticed it in all age levels, too (before you accuse me of being a cranky old person, lol). I think the drive for convenience in living over the last 40 years and the advent of the internet have made us impatient and averse to working for anything. And I said above, it takes effort -- at the beginning, at least, but I always tell people how worth it and rewarding it is.

The phrases you quoted are situations that don't bother me. I'm doing this for the animals, and if people don't agree, that's on them. When they ask, I tell them what I think. I don't sugarcoat anything, but I do explain in no uncertain terms how awful meat and dairy production are and how incredibly horrible it is for the animals. And I tell them that I live my life as compassionately as possible. That's what I believe.

I think half of us having to struggle how to define ourselves is not helpful. A broader interpretation of the vegan definition might help unify us all.

Maybe this is a generational thing (I don't know how old you are, so if my assumption is off, I apologize), but I don't have this burning desire to define myself by anything or be unified with others, except that I'd love it if the whole world stopped eating animals! I chose to go vegetarian initially for health, but I came around to veganism minus any interaction with activists. I learned about the horrors of the meat and dairy industry over the years, but I still didn't call myself a vegan while eating cheese. I think that if you're still consuming and using products with animal ingredients, simply say you're working toward becoming vegan or something. I don't see anything wrong with that. But again, wording such as "mostly vegan" muddies things up and just confuses people.

Mostly vegan sort of works, but then again mostly vegan could mean anywhere from "I eat the bread once a year on Christmas at my gran's house so as not to have a big argument on Christmas again" right through to "I eat steak every Sunday". So because the definition of veganism is policed somewhat strictly, you end up needing maybe two slightly awkward sentences every time if you want people to have a clear idea of what you are doing.

Yes, this is way too broad, as again, it just confuses people who are maybe considering it. As I said, working toward veganism I think would be less confusing. It tells people you aren't there yet, but you're on your way. And there is nothing wrong with that.

I worry that the people who don't think they are vegan because of the strictness therefore don't participate in the vegan forum, the vegan facebook page, the local vegan society etc etc. I want 30% of people to be vegetarian or vegan (that is my predicted threshold for the end of factory farming), not 1% of people trying to attain a high level of personal purity.

I'm pretty sure IS has made it clear that anyone interested in veganism is welcome here, no matter where they are on their journey, as long as they don't promote animal consumption. People need to stop worrying about what other people think. I know how hard that is sometimes, but seriously, the only way to learn is ask questions, have discussions and be prepared to make mistakes or be called out, because that will happen. We've all made mistakes on this journey.

I don't deny that in the real world, you might come across the vegan purity police and that they might be off-putting. But again, it's a personal thing. Worry about what you want to do to avoid animal exploitation. I applaud the vegans who do worry about bone char in sugar and plastic in electronics, but I know that to live practicably, vegan sugar isn't something I find very often. Again, I think there are lines. Maybe the vegan police would call me out on it, but I really don't care. I think the minimum is to not eat/use the obvious products that either are animals or made with animal ingredients (cheese, eggs, milk, etc). Again, personal circumstances do matter, but it's all about doing the best you can. I wouldn't get hung up on what to call yourself. That's not the point. The point is to do your best, and if your best isn't quite vegan, so be it. As I said, every effort to reduce animal consumption should be applauded, regardless of where you are on the journey.

There was someone on the forum once (or Veggie Views which merged into this one) some years ago that explained that they eat a vegetarian cheese pizza when at a restaurant to make their lifestyle more attractive to their friends. There were some debates about this, and after a while I think the person left. They might have been a good ally for instance.

Maybe so, but they also might not have been that serious about being vegan. I don't know what that person's motivation was for going vegan, but if they were scared off because someone disagreed with them, oh well. There also is a big fear of debate in our society (sane, reasoned debate, not the nonsense that goes on on social media) and groupthink. Differing opinions are part of life. Not everyone is going to agree.

 

[PTree15]

...
I just don't understand peoples need to demand that things be changed just to suit how they want things to be

That's what I'm getting at-- I do feel veganism needs standards. I don't feel people should be judged for deviating based on time and need, but I DO feel they should acknowledge that the infractions are in fact deviations, not vegan standards just to suit what they like

Yes. You said it much more succinctly than I!

 

[Jamie in Chile]

To reply to posts 18 and 19 from Danielle and Silva, the reason I want to shift the interpretation of the definition of veganism is because I think this will lead to less animal suffering and death for the reasons I stated in post 1.

To be clear, I don't think it should be possible to call yourself vegan and eat a slice of cheese or boil an egg, not even occasionally. I think that it should be possible to call yourself vegan and eat any bread or pasta, even though they might contain dairy. I just think it's strategically better to attract more people.

I may have overreached a bit in the original post when I said "vegans should be able to eat .......any ice cream". That is probably a bit too far. However if someone says they are vegan but confesses to the occasional milk chocolate ice cream instead of patronisingly telling them "transitioning...work harder...you will get there" or "call yourself plant based" or "say mostly vegan" I think we should just say nothing at all.

To reply from post 20 from Silva, about WFPB diets, is it possible that instead of it being as I present it (that vegans are strict and no-one else is) is there a possibility that there is something in the human condition that leads to strictness related to food, and less strictness relating to non-food? That might explain why vegans are stricter about food than other items. I believe Islam and Judaism (and maybe Christianity in the past?) and Hinduism all have strict food taboos - in such religions/cultures I believe the prohibited foods are fairly absolute prohibitions in most cases that people can feel very strongly about. Could the strictness be a food issue rather than a vegan issue?

To PTree (post 21), I am 41, but it´s not about me wanting to be part of a group so much as my belief that humans want to be part of a tribe. Think about all the tribes, liberal and conservative tribes, churches, football teams. I mean sometimes you have got 40,000 people in a stadium and 20,000 are literally cheering for everyone wearing blue and 20,000 for everyone wearing red. It might be nominally about their home town team but most of them are out of state international players who are just there for the money. It is just about a sense of belonging to a group. And the more people feel accepted in the group the more they promote it and the more you grow the associated movement and the more you achieve the movement´s goal.

I really am proposing shifting the interpretation of veganism because I have a genuine interest in reducing animal suffering and death, and think this is the best strategic way to achieve it. There isn´t some weird personal business going on.

 

[PTree15]

To reply to posts 18 and 19 from Danielle and Silva, the reason I want to shift the interpretation of the definition of veganism is because I think this will lead to less animal suffering and death for the reasons I stated in post 1.

To be clear, I don't think it should be possible to call yourself vegan and eat a slice of cheese or boil an egg, not even occasionally. I think that it should be possible to call yourself vegan and eat any bread or pasta, even though they might contain dairy. I just think it's strategically better to attract more people.

I may have overreached a bit in the original post when I said "vegans should be able to eat .......any ice cream". That is probably a bit too far. However if someone says they are vegan but confesses to the occasional milk chocolate ice cream instead of patronisingly telling them "transitioning...work harder...you will get there" or "call yourself plant based" or "say mostly vegan" I think we should just say nothing at all.

It's not being patronizing at all to tell someone they aren't there yet, according to what's accepted as the definition of veganism. It's just stating the facts. If someone calls themselves a vegan and they eat eggs, they'll get called out on that, and rightly so. They aren't That's one of the lines I was talking about earlier. I disagree that shifting the definition of veganism will attract more people by making it seem easier.

Again, it's a personal thing. It's all what people will tolerate and it depends on their circumstances. People find different aspects of veganism difficult. But for people to shy away from even trying because OMG they aren't perfect about it doesn't make sense. All-or-nothing thinking is detrimental. Some people go vegan overnight. Others take longer. It's all good because they are making the effort.Take steps, start somewhere and do what you can do. But you aren't a vegan if you eat eggs or cheese or if you eat baked goods made with eggs and milk or chocolate with dairy in it. These days, for a lot of people (not everyone, I know), these are avoidable. Convenience is a big deal for some people, as are social considerations, but it doesn't make you vegan just because you're uncomfortable with certain situations you will come up against. (I'm using the collective you, not you personally, Jamie.)

...
To PTree (post 21), I am 41, but it´s not about me wanting to be part of a group so much as my belief that humans want to be part of a tribe. Think about all the tribes, liberal and conservative tribes, churches, football teams. I mean sometimes you have got 40,000 people in a stadium and 20,000 are literally cheering for everyone wearing blue and 20,000 for everyone wearing red. It might be nominally about their home town team but most of them are out of state international players who are just there for the money. It is just about a sense of belonging to a group. And the more people feel accepted in the group the more they promote it and the more you grow the associated movement and the more you achieve the movement´s goal.

I really am proposing shifting the interpretation of veganism because I have a genuine interest in reducing animal suffering and death, and think this is the best strategic way to achieve it. There isn´t some weird personal business going on.

I never meant to imply it was just you personally, so I apologize if it came across that way.

I get what you are saying, but it's like Silva said. You can't just change the definition because you want it to be a certain way. It is what it is. And I get that people want to be part of a group, have a sense of belonging. But that doesn't mean the definition of veganism, and its goals, should be watered down to meet a standard that some might consider easier. It sort of reminds me of participation trophies. I don't find them productive. We didn't have those when I was a kid. Whoever won, got the trophy, whoever was the best, got the trophy. It's a good thing. It's how I found out I stunk at sports. And life doesn't award participation trophies. I think it sets people up for disappointment because they didn't learn to cope with that when they were kids. Anyway, I digress. Being part of a group can be a great thing, but if the group has certain rules or whatever, that's how it is. If you want to be in the group, then follow the rules and requirements.

 

[Sax]

Are there any other movements that should loosen up their standards to include people that sometimes knowingly pay for and/or consume products of the violent abuse of the very individuals the movement is trying to protect?

The premise seems to be that making a best effort to follow a vegan diet is too high of a bar. That hasn't been my experience and sounds more like an anti-vegan talking point than an effective strategy.

Perfection isn't the standard. If the current definition of veganism doesn't offer enough wiggle room for you you should probably call yourself something other than vegan.

 

[Lou]

I may be a little slow.

I just realized that most of what this discussion about is something that has been discussed in articles over the years.

The way its usually framed is Personal Purity vs Vegan Advocacy

Let’s get one thing clear: No one is perfect. It’s almost impossible to be a perfect vegan.​

​

But following a vegan lifestyle isn’t about purity—it’s about helping animals and doing the best that we can to reduce their suffering and avoid exploiting them while still living a normal life.​

​

We could all go out into the woods and live on nuts and berries as “level-5 vegans,” but ultimately, that would be far less effective than living in places where we can influence others to adopt vegan diets, too.​

Get the Latest Ways to Help Animals | peta2

Lead by example and with compassion for all—get the latest ways to help animals with peta2.

www.peta2.com

The number one thing that we do wrong—and I am speaking from many years of doing this myself—is that we place personal purity ahead of being as effective as possible for animals. We lose sight of the fact that veganism is not an end in and of itself but rather a means of ending cruelty to animals. Being vegan is not about being perfect and causing no cruelty at all—it’s about decreasing suffering as effectively as possible.​

http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/media/links/p3419/argument.pdf

 

[Emma JC]

What a wonderful discussion!! thank you all for your input, it makes for great reading.

I have friends and family members who know I am vegan and my approach to them is normally from the health side as that is how I finally came to it despite knowing about the animal cruelty part for a long time. Not sure what that says about me exactly. However, because I was able to do it with 'coming from a health' aspect then that is how I am comfortable approaching it with them. Getting them to change certain habits and get rid of a few foods at a time and incorporate more vegetables/beans/potatoes etc seems to work. A few days ago I had a discussion with a cousin who is younger than I and who is bordering on type II diabetes - I explained the whole fat clogging our cells to her and suggested cutting back on fatty foods/oils and she texted me the next day all proud because she didn't put heavy cream on her oatmeal!! yayyy.... baby steps.... she has a very stressful life and to think that I would try to make that life more stressful by encouraging her to go vegan overnight is just not kosher.

As mentioned before, I was brought up in a very strict 'born again' atmosphere where judging others for how "christian" they are was de rigueur and I try very hard to get rid of that judging habit in my life.

Emma JC
Find your vegan soulmate or just a friend. www.spiritualmatchmaking.com

 

[KLS52]

What a wonderful discussion!! thank you all for your input, it makes for great reading.

Yes, I agree.

I don’t see why we couldn’t encourage others to seek veganism without having to give them the vegan label. When someone is just starting out, I think it’s perfectly ok to let them know that yes, it is a journey for some. It doesn’t have to be all or nothing from the get go. But they also need to know that they won’t be “vegan” until they have reached the level where they consciously say no to all products that contain animal ingredients.

I do understand and appreciate the desire to make it easier and less daunting for newcomers. It’s not without merit. But I don’t think they should be identifying as vegan if they are willfully consuming foods that contain animal products. I don’t know who just posted it in this thread but I do think it’s a disservice to the vegans who are strict and don’t cave to inconveniences.

 

[Lou]

Probably because I have been watching some Melanie Joy's videos, "Beyond Carnism" videos been popping up in my Recommended Videos thing. I've watched a few - they are nice and short. They have another term: meat reducer.
An interesting point made in Episode 9 is that its the Meat Reducers who are powering the plant based movement. There are more of them than us and they are the ones who buy a lot vegetarian pizzas, impossible burgers, and Just Eggs. As a whole they probably help more animals than we do. So... we should promote meat reducers.

 

[silva]

I really hope I didn't come across as being judgmental. I'm just so over reading posts where people defend their choices of using animal products as vegan. You want to eat your pet hens eggs that's fine, but they still aren't vegan. It's that kind of choice where I'd rather people say 'mostly'. Or those that will still have eggs or dairy ingredients at restaurants or parties if no other choice. Mostly vegan.

You know who made a real impact on reducing eating animals IMO? Michael Pollan when he wrote In Defense of Food.
The book and documentary got more people to face the food industry, and become interested in changing their diet, including meatless mondays. there was no push to say 'go veg', just brought an awareness to the food industry, and an interest in veganism.

Too many can shut out documentaries about how the animals we eat are abused, but I find when you present all the better choices we have and educate people about how to make it accessible has better and lasting results

There is no reason the majority of packaged foods shouldn't or couldn't be vegan, which is why it angers me to have things like restaurants promote vegan foods they deliberately serve in non vegan ways--and people that push for that acceptance.

 

[Jamie in Chile]

Are there any other movements that should loosen up their standards to include people that sometimes knowingly pay for and/or consume products of the violent abuse of the very individuals the movement is trying to protect?

You've specifically worded that in a very tightly defined way that makes it hard to respond to.

However if you had just said "Are there any other movements that should loosen up their standards" my argument would be that I think most movements already have looser standards. If you're a supporter of racial equality you aren't forbidden from buying products from a company that has a racist CEO and no black employees. If you are a feminist you aren't forbidden from buying products from a company because that has ten board members and none of them are women.

The people that want to overthrow the fossil fuel industry are using fossil fuels, and as they do so they are financially supporting the industry that they are trying to destroy. They may even use fossil fuels indirectly on the bus or train on the way to the protest. But no-one says you can't use fossil fuels at all if you want to be part of this movement. Doing so would be impractical and make it harder for others to join. You sometimes hear environmentalists specifically saying that people that fly, drive an SUV etc are very welcome to join their group, infact they say anyone is welcome within reason. Because they want change at a system level.

That's what I want. One day I hope to see a protest where a million people surround a factory farm and force it to shut down and change public opinion and force the government to ban factory farming. A few of the people in that future protest may be meat eaters who don't like the current system but would prefer a vegan world.

The current interpretation of the definition of veganism is not written in some sacred stone or text (although it would be interesting if Donald Watson was ever quoted as saying anything relevant to this topic). There is an arbitrary subjective line about the level of strictness. There is no 100% avoidance of animal products. You're all definitely accepting of people that are 99.9% vegan and probably few of you do better than that yourself, even the ones disagreeing with me. You could say I'm proposing we change from you need to be 99.9% vegan to call yourself vegan to 99% vegan.

I think reducing your animal products by 99.9% (i.e. vegan) is perhaps twice as hard as doing it by 99% (i.e. vegetarian and mostly vegan). If that has any impact at all on the number of people becoming or staying vegan, then the net result of the current strict interpretation of the definition will be increased animal suffering.

However it looks like I misread the room on posting this article. I thought there was a chance we might get a majority support for this, but it doesn't look like we do so I'll admit defeat for now.

How about we just don't say anything when people say they eat the bread in the restaurant and they can't be bothered to pack shampoo when they go to a hotel. I think these people are helping free animals, we should welcome them rather than point out to them that they are not technically correct to call themselves vegan.

 

[silva]

You've specifically worded that in a very tightly defined way that makes it hard to respond to.

However if you had just said "Are there any other movements that should loosen up their standards" my argument would be that I think most movements already have looser standards. If you're a supporter of racial equality you aren't forbidden from buying products from a company that has a racist CEO and no black employees. If you are a feminist you aren't forbidden from buying products from a company because that has ten board members and none of them are women.

The people that want to overthrow the fossil fuel industry are using fossil fuels, and as they do so they are financially supporting the industry that they are trying to destroy. They may even use fossil fuels indirectly on the bus or train on the way to the protest. But no-one says you can't use fossil fuels at all if you want to be part of this movement. Doing so would be impractical and make it harder for others to join. You sometimes hear environmentalists specifically saying that people that fly, drive an SUV etc are very welcome to join their group, infact they say anyone is welcome within reason. Because they want change at a system level.

That's what I want. One day I hope to see a protest where a million people surround a factory farm and force it to shut down and change public opinion and force the government to ban factory farming. A few of the people in that future protest may be meat eaters who don't like the current system but would prefer a vegan world.

The current interpretation of the definition of veganism is not written in some sacred stone or text (although it would be interesting if Donald Watson was ever quoted as saying anything relevant to this topic). There is an arbitrary subjective line about the level of strictness. There is no 100% avoidance of animal products. You're all definitely accepting of people that are 99.9% vegan and probably few of you do better than that yourself, even the ones disagreeing with me. You could say I'm proposing we change from you need to be 99.9% vegan to call yourself vegan to 99% vegan.

I think reducing your animal products by 99.9% (i.e. vegan) is perhaps twice as hard as doing it by 99% (i.e. vegetarian and mostly vegan). If that has any impact at all on the number of people becoming or staying vegan, then the net result of the current strict interpretation of the definition will be increased animal suffering.

However it looks like I misread the room on posting this article. I thought there was a chance we might get a majority support for this, but it doesn't look like we do so I'll admit defeat for now.

How about we just don't say anything when people say they eat the bread in the restaurant and they can't be bothered to pack shampoo when they go to a hotel. I think these people are helping free animals, we should welcome them rather than point out to them that they are not technically correct to call themselves vegan.

Your arguement for looser standards is having the opposite effect on me!
I see America getting farther from racial or sexual equality every day. We can't even on the science and evidence of climate change even when it's damage costs billions.
Look at America today! I want the 70's back when there was hope and expectations!
Yes, if I find racism or sexism in a company I will boycott, I expect that from everyone!

 

[KLS52]

@Jamie in Chile don't look at it like defeat. I think it’s a great thread and I love that those who participated did it in a civilized manner. It opened up some really good conversation.

 

[PTree15]

Probably because I have been watching some Melanie Joy's videos, "Beyond Carnism" videos been popping up in my Recommended Videos thing. I've watched a few - they are nice and short. They have another term: meat reducer.
An interesting point made in Episode 9 is that its the Meat Reducers who are powering the plant based movement. There are more of them than us and they are the ones who buy a lot vegetarian pizzas, impossible burgers, and Just Eggs. As a whole they probably help more animals than we do. So... we should promote meat reducers.

I agree that the meat reducers are driving much of the plant-based movement, and as I said above, I applaud any reduction in the consumption of animals. Some of those meat reducers may end up vegan, even if it takes a few years. That's how I started. A little at a time.

 

[Mufflon]

"Make veganism less strict".

I would be glad if certain political, cultural and religious views could be left out of the equation. Veganism has become way too entangled with these things.

 

[Lou]

So in today's news....

New York Mayor Eric Adams is an imperfect vegan. And that’s okay.

The mayor’s “fishgate” debacle highlights the need for more nuanced food politics.

www.vox.com

I hadn't heard about Fish-Gate. However when this news article showed up in my newsfeed it immediately reminded me of this discussion. Some good quotes.

Critics are often quick to judge veganism as a strict ideology and lifestyle that demands far too much of its adherents, but when its adherents fail to meet those demands, those critics swiftly brand them as hypocrites. You just can’t win if you’re an imperfect human who is also concerned about animal agriculture’s enormous contribution to any number of problems — from climate change to animal cruelty to personal and public health crises — and wants to adjust their diet accordingly, though maybe not completely.​

​

You could say that Adams just shouldn’t call himself a vegan or strictly plant-based if he eats any amount of animal products, but there’s value to normalizing being an imperfect vegan — which is exactly what many vegans are.​

​

Vox’s Jerusalem Demsas put it well in a tweet: “It’s bad that being 90% vegan or vegetarian means that you’re no longer in the club. Would be a lot more valuable if 50% of people were vegan half the time than if just 2% of the population were vegan 100% of the time.”​

​

 

[KLS52]

This is crazy to me. Why does he have to call himself vegan? I don’t get it.

“Knowing the average self-defined vegetarian eats meat now and then, and that most vegans quit, the news that New York City Mayor Eric Adams occasionally eats fish while saying he eats a strict plant-based diet came as no surprise to me — nor did the finger-pointing backlash in the media and on Twitter. (Disclosure: Mayor Adams’s senior assistant is a friend of mine.)

Grub Street called allegations over his fish-eating “explosive,” and Eater reported Adams was “under fire” for repeatedly ordering fish. When a Politico reporter asked an Adams spokesperson about the fish allegation on Saturday, the official denied it. When pressed by reporters, days later, Adams replied, “Let me be clear: Changing to a plant-based diet saved my life, and I aspire to be plant-based 100 percent of the time. I want to be a role model for people who are following or aspire to follow a plant-based diet, but as I said, I am perfectly imperfect, and have occasionally eaten fish.”

Sorry, but he’s wrong here, imho. He aspires to eat 100% plant based.…and that’s fine. Not vegan. This doesn’t even sound like the person who is 99% vegan and twice a year chooses a veggie burger with egg or whole wheat bread with honey when they are on vacation. No one wants the vegan label more than me but we can’t keep watering it down. Where do we draw the line otherwise?

Don’t get me wrong. As strongly as I feel about the definition I’m not judging. I just don’t understand why the need for the label when you consciously choose to repeatedly eat non vegan food.

 

[silva]

This is crazy to me. Why does he have to call himself vegan? I don’t get it.

“Knowing the average self-defined vegetarian eats meat now and then, and that most vegans quit, the news that New York City Mayor Eric Adams occasionally eats fish while saying he eats a strict plant-based diet came as no surprise to me — nor did the finger-pointing backlash in the media and on Twitter. (Disclosure: Mayor Adams’s senior assistant is a friend of mine.)

Grub Street called allegations over his fish-eating “explosive,” and Eater reported Adams was “under fire” for repeatedly ordering fish. When a Politico reporter asked an Adams spokesperson about the fish allegation on Saturday, the official denied it. When pressed by reporters, days later, Adams replied, “Let me be clear: Changing to a plant-based diet saved my life, and I aspire to be plant-based 100 percent of the time. I want to be a role model for people who are following or aspire to follow a plant-based diet, but as I said, I am perfectly imperfect, and have occasionally eaten fish.”

Sorry, but he’s wrong here, imho. He aspires to eat 100% plant based.…and that’s fine. Not vegan. This doesn’t even sound like the person who is 99% vegan and twice a year chooses a veggie burger with egg or whole wheat bread with honey when they are on vacation. No one wants the vegan label more than me but we can’t keep watering it down. Where do we draw the line otherwise?

Don’t get me wrong. As strongly as I feel about the definition I’m not judging. I just don’t understand why the need for the label when you consciously choose to repeatedly eat non vegan food.

^ THIS. 100% this^

The thread form someone about feeling bad eating a cheese pizza while partying with friends, I'm NOT critical
Being hungry stuck somewhere without a decent option, NOT critical
Choosing something with a small non vegan ingredient that's way cheaper than the vegan version because your money is limited, not critical
A get together you weren't able to prepare for, and choosing the best available
Even when an older person feels shunned if you won't have the food they prepared that you used to love that they prepared for you==NOT critical if you eat it

BUT

People who make a deal out of being vegan, and having choices, but give in simply because they sometimes want? Yeah, I am critical.

I'm sick of this whole "club" mentality. Of course it's stupid to care so much about what others do, but it's even stupider to make claims about being vegan or plant based and then whine when people call you out about the times you're NOT being vegan and get defensive.

If you're in the middle of eating a food when you see you missed something non vegan on the wrapper it doesn't make a bit of difference if you finish it, or throw it away. If you buy a food knowing it has something non vegan and you had choices, it matters

 

[FlandersOD]

insists that strictly speaking eating bivalves isn't vegan than neither should may contain anything.
which i am atleast attempting to also avoid.

and while that % seams small that means for every kilogram of water, vegetables oils, sugars, vitamins, there would be 1g.
0.1%, so and 1% of that is 1cg = 10mg, for the exact number you propode is actually 10 times that.
so lets begin smaller ca
now if you eat just 2 kilos of food a day, 20mg.
a medium size animal is mid range is about 5, according to the mass estimates of a midsize animal that i've found.

so death quotient that is 7320mg of meat meaning that 0.001%, according to weight would kill 2 animals in the first year.
and an average of 1.464, which according to my calculator, so long term that average of 1.464 animals per year as t in years approaches ℵ₀, the calculator indicates that this equates to 8 animals for a 5 year period.
this assumes i only eat 2 kilograms a day, long term limit of the average, scales directly with the ammount eaten, and inversely of efficiency, with this assuming a 100% utilization, which isn't true and doesn't consider unprepared meals or other sources of waste or anything and assumes a 2 kilos of consumption as an average limit across the period of time from the onset of said dietary practice.

Put it this way if one were talking about a case where the norm where to use humans for the same purposes this would be deemed entirely unaccpetable here. we could take average weight of human calf to make human veal to make a similar point.

the fact that birds, mamals, possess higher cognitive functions as such in order to be consistent with the values i appear to hold,
must demand and expect them to be treated just as equally as I would a divergent category of humans based solely on subset of generally relevent traits that are actually relevent to the particular form of the moral or ethical question being raised.

… so is it vegan to kill 8 retarded children every 5 years or 2 retarded children, every year, using methods that are prohibited by the u.s. for adults who have recieved the death penalty.
The definition of retarded here would include any children with anything that may be deemed a cognitive defficit according to literally demonic antihuman overlords.

As long as they don´t have leather, vegans are able to buy and use products like cars and consumer electronics, even if they have say a glue derived from animals.

However, for reasons that don´t appear to me to be consistent, a much greater strictness is required for food than anything else. If a processed food is 0.01% animal product, it is not vegan and you can´t have it. I don´t agree with this.

this being the case one just needs to find a way to avoid these products if at all possible, if one does so unknowingly then one just needs to correct ones behaviour in the future.

 

[VeganRachel]

As long as they don´t have leather, vegans are able to buy and use products like cars and consumer electronics, even if they have say a glue derived from animals.

However, for reasons that don´t appear to me to be consistent, a much greater strictness is required for food than anything else. If a processed food is 0.01% animal product, it is not vegan and you can´t have it. I don´t agree with this.

I think all vegans should be expected to do on products they buy regularly is glance through the ingredients and make sure that as far as they can guess there are no animal products. It shouldn´t be necessary to scan every packet you buy with an app, or google every product as some seem to expect.

I also think when you are in a restaurant with non-vegan friends, or on holiday in a foreign country, or at a friend´s house, vegans should be able to eat any bread, pasta, get any ice cream, and eat the birthday cake. This will make vegan seem more accessible, and lead to more people trying it.

I worry that if eating non-vegan cookies and doughnuts means people have to call themselves vegetarian then once they have defined their identity that way they might start eating eggs for breakfast every day.

I also think people caught in this middle ground between vegetarian and veganism as it´s currently practised will be less likely to join vegan groups and get into activism. And it probably inhibits celebrities from coming out as vegan and supporting the cause.

I think to be vegan you should only need as a minimum to avoid meat, fish, eggs, milk, cheese, butter, leather, wool and fur and to commit to vegan toiletries at home and not going to the zoo. We could dispute the exact list and add a few things but it shouldn´t be a huge list.

That doesn´t mean we should encourage people to just rush to the store and buy milk chocolate ice cream. It should still be slightly discouraged, but not forbidden. And especially not “that´s great, but you should call yourself plant-based instead of vegan” which is basically like saying “you can´t be in our club”. People want to belong to a group. If they don´t fit in with the vegans, they might end up somewhere else.

We should want veganism to be accessible to everyone including the working class, or anyone with a difficult life for any reason, people in developing countries who are struggling, ethnic minorities and people that don´t speak English. I think all of this will help with that goal.

This would also make veganism cheaper. That counts for something in how many people will do it.

And the more people do it, the less the animal suffering and death.

A common reason for giving up is the social difficulty. A less strict definition would make people more likely to stick to it.

Hi,
There are many ways of looking at this statement.
I give any human credit for the willingness and effort to become vegan. It. means being different than the crowd. And studies show that most humans do not go vegan overnight. It is a gradual process over a few weeks, months, or years.
If the goal is to 'attract more humans to becoming vegan", i honestly believe most of them will make their own definition.
I have met several humans who call themselves "vegetarian" or even "vegan" who have a loose definition of the words. I have met
'vegetarians" who eat some fish or chicken on occasion (neither which are vegetarian).
The reason many humans become 'vegetarian' versus vegan is because they want the option to include eggs and /or dairy and maybe
leather in their choices. I understand their need to have those options, but both still inflict oppression, cruelty, and death against the animals
forced to provide those products.
There are many different vegans. We have raw foodists, fruitarians, part-time raw foodists, whole food vegans, and those who
dabble in many processed vegan foods and may not consume a lot of whole vegetables, etcetera. There is no one "vegan".
I believe there does need to be a definition of "vegan", or the title/word becomes meaningless and worthless. If a human chooses
to be flexible about the definition, no one can stop them. This is where the term "flexitarian" tends to come from. The human makes
their own definition and seems to do what they feel like doing.
Being a "failed ' vegan because someone cannot handle social pressure means that human gave in to social pressure instead of
sticking to their convictions and making the animals a priority. I also believe it is a possible excuse for eating animal products again.
However, they are humans and do the best they can at the time. There are also "failed" vegans because they have had their omnivore
diet for so long that they have a difficult time making a more compassionate choice, and, a few failed vegans because they got used to the constant carnitine, adrenaline overstimulation from eating animals and their body cannot do without eating them, at least in small amounts. They are true physical addicts.