Original definition of vegan was better

[Forest Nymph]

Ok then I have a question. In your opinion (or whoever wants to answer this), is it alright for a dietary vegan who does not believe in animal rights to simply be called a "vegan", without the "dietary" qualifier in front of it?

No.

 

[nobody]

No.

May I ask why? The current Vegan Society seems to concur with that but other sources include dietary veganism in the definition of vegan:

Wikipedia:

Veganism is the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in diet, and an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals. A follower of the diet or the philosophy is known as a vegan

Merriam Webster:

vegan
noun
veg·an | \ ˈvē-gən also ˈvā- also ˈve-jən or -ˌjan \
Definition of vegan


: a strict vegetarian who consumes no food (such as meat, eggs, or dairy products) that comes from animals

also : one who abstains from using animal products (such as leather)

 

[Lou]

Ok then I have a question. In your opinion (or whoever wants to answer this), is it alright for a dietary vegan who does not believe in animal rights to simply be called a "vegan", without the "dietary" qualifier in front of it?

Sure. Why not. IMHO, veganism is mostly about intent. It's a process. Not a product. And no one has yet to put me in charge of word usage.
I also believe that most of this "argument" is just quibbling about details and is just sort of stupid. Not that you or anyone else is stupid. but the argument is pointless.
I believe I'm here to promote veganism. And veganism's purpose is to reduce animal cruelty.
reducing the scope of the definition of Vegan does nothing to protect animals. But arguing about it not only does nothing but may even dissuade some "proto-vegans" from even trying. Keeping the whole non-diet aspects of veganism alive could actually persuade some proto-vegans to look for more cruelty-free or animal free solutions.

So anyway, if you want to call yourself a vegan. Great. We need lots more vegans. And getting 2 more "mostly vegan" people is better than getting just one more "pure" vegan.

 

[Lou]

May I ask why? The current Vegan Society seems to concur with that but other sources include dietary veganism in the definition of vegan:

Wikipedia:

Veganism is the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in diet, and an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals. A follower of the diet or the philosophy is known as a vegan

Merriam Webster:

vegan
noun
veg·an | \ ˈvē-gən also ˈvā- also ˈve-jən or -ˌjan \
Definition of vegan


: a strict vegetarian who consumes no food (such as meat, eggs, or dairy products) that comes from animals

also : one who abstains from using animal products (such as leather)

I don't think your examples back up your conclusion.

 

[nobody]

I believe I'm here to promote veganism. And veganism's purpose is to reduce animal cruelty.
reducing the scope of the definition of Vegan does nothing to protect animals.

You don't have a problem with a dietary vegan being called simply a vegan, which serves the same purpose as reducing the scope of the definition for my purpose.

That is to be able to say to myself and others "you are vegan as long as you follow the diet". "Being vegan" is important to me and others, and us knowing for sure we are vegan helps animals. The sureity of our veganism translates to greater commitment, which leads to less quitting, higher retention and animals being protected.

 

[TofuRobot]

Ok then I have a question. In your opinion (or whoever wants to answer this), is it alright for a dietary vegan who does not believe in animal rights to simply be called a "vegan", without the "dietary" qualifier in front of it?

That is really such a weird question. Obviously whomever would say that would be incorrect. So?

 

[nobody]

I don't think your examples back up your conclusion.

I don't understand this. What is my conclusion?

 

[nobody]

That is really such a weird question. Obviously whomever would say that would be incorrect. So?

Not according to Wikipedia or Merriam Webster, as you can see in their definitions I posted above.

 

[nobody]

I don't think your examples back up your conclusion.

You don't think those definitions say a "vegan" is someone who either follows just the diet or both the diet and the philosophy?

 

[nobody]

And getting 2 more "mostly vegan" people is better than getting just one more "pure" vegan.

If you are suggesting a dietary vegan is only "mostly" vegan, not so - a dietary vegan is actually fully vegan and any excluding of non-food animal use an ethical vegan may engage in is above and beyond the only requirement for full vegan status: following the diet.

 

[Lou]

OK. As i said before this kind of argument/debate/discussion is pointless.

If you want to call yourself a vegan, do so.

you do not need my permission. I'm not in charge.

 

[nobody]

OK. As i said before this kind of argument/debate/discussion is pointless.

If you want to call yourself a vegan, do so.

you do not need my permission. I'm not in charge.

Would you also say that if I wanted to eat dairy and eggs and call myself a vegan?

 

[Lou]

Now I'm just going to have to repeat myself.

As i said before this kind of argument/debate/discussion is pointless.

If you want to call yourself a vegan, do so.

you do not need my permission. I'm not in charge.​

 

[Nekodaiden]

Lol. It's not pointless when someone alludes to a definition they have of "vegan" (whatever that is) through their choice of words:

So anyway, if you want to call yourself a vegan. Great. We need lots more vegans. And getting 2 more "mostly vegan" people is better than getting just one more "pure" vegan.

OK. As i said before this kind of argument/debate/discussion is pointless.

If you want to call yourself a vegan, do so.

you do not need my permission. I'm not in charge.

...to ask for a clarification of what that means via a direct question:

Would you also say that if I wanted to eat dairy and eggs and call myself a vegan?

If all it takes to be a vegan is to *think you are one*, then how can one make distinctions on who is "mostly vegan" and who is "pure vegan" as if some other (mystery) definition applied? Thinking again?

Interesting.

 

[Sally]

I think it is a problem that veganism has a creed. It is becoming like a religion. My interpretation of the word is that it is the way to live my life where I impact negatively as little as I personally can, on life around me. So I don't eat or wear animals, neither do I use products that have been tested on animals. My cat eats meat. I have chosen to be vegan, he has not. My husband has now decided on his own to become vegetarian. That is great, I did not stop him eating meat, he has made his own decision.

I still think that a plant based diet is a diet, but being vegan is a way of life. I say that because I do not feel that I am on a diet, I never have cravings for animal based foods. I would no more eat a pig than I would my cat. And I certainly would not squirt painful chemicals in his eyes, or purposely give him a disease.

Until the whole world realises that exploitation of living creatures is wrong, and slavery isn't that far in the past, then it will be difficult to be completely 'way of life' vegan. Medicine being a case in point. One day they will not be tested on animals, but we aren't there yet.

 

[Sax]

How to define veganism is a healthy and important debate IMO.

But debating who gets to call themselves vegan is a different discussion, and I'm not sure it's a productive one.

 

[Lou]

How to define veganism is a healthy and important debate IMO.

But debating who gets to call themselves vegan is a different discussion, and I'm not sure it's a productive one.

That is a good distinction. Thanks.

 

[nobody]

The number one reason I have a problem with this is because a lot of whiny "ex-vegans" on YouTube or Internet forums were never vegan to begin with they were just on a diet, and when the wind changed, so did they.

Vegan isn't a diet like Paleo or Atkins. Those are diet plans. Veganism is not a diet plan. WFPB is a diet plan, but you are not required to stop wearing leather on a WFPB diet, nor do you have to adopt a WFPB to be a Vegan. The two things can compliment each other, but they are not the same thing.

I certainly want more people to stop eating animals, but I want them to continue to refrain from eating animals, I'm not excited about people going "vegan" for a week, a month, or even a year, then quitting. The reduction of the word vegan down to a diet is part of the problem because then you get all of your orthorexics and narcissists who "try vegan" in the way someone else might try on a dress or a suit, then discard it if it becomes inconvenient OR they try so, so hard to be a perfect whole foods, oil free, fruit binger that they wonder in two or three years why their hair is falling out, and it's so obvious to everyone else it's because they aren't consuming enough calories or fat, but they decide it's "veganism" so have a steak.

I can see your point that a dietary vegan is more likely to casually quit than an ethical vegan would be. But I would think someone who is a dietary vegan today would be more likely to be either a dietary or ethical vegan one year from today than someone who is an omnivore today. One reason for this is that it is easier to continue doing something than it is to start doing it. This is why people stay in jobs they hate for decades. Once you settle into something, habit and routine become powerful forces to keep you there.

Even if someone went dietary vegan for one year and then quit, that would be about 200 animals saved throughout the year, including shellfish, according to that Peta figure, animals who would have been eaten had that person been omnivore for the year.

Also, environmental vegans are primarily dietary vegans. They may have an environmental reason to forgo leather and other non-food animal commodities but they have no environmental reason to exclude animal entertainment or products tested on animals, for examples. Your post seems to imply that dietary vegans quit so flippantly they aren't even worth converting, but if that is the case, why bother talking to people about the environmental consequences of animal exploitation (as you have stated elsewhere you are interested in doing) when the most you can expect to get out of it is people who do not believe in animal rights excluding animal foods and possibly leather, who will probably quit within a year anyway according to your rationale here, since they aren't ethical vegans to begin with.

 

[nobody]

How to define veganism is a healthy and important debate IMO.

But debating who gets to call themselves vegan is a different discussion, and I'm not sure it's a productive one.

What's the difference? The suffix "ism" is used for all kinds of movements, philosophies and diets, such as vegetarianism, flexitarianism, etc. Veganism is what vegans practice and just like the word vegan, veganism can be used to denote just the diet or both the diet and the philosophy.

 

[Sax]

What's the difference?

One essentially involves pointing fingers and saying "you're not one of us".

I'd rather leave it up to individuals to interpret a definition and use the detailed insight they have on their own lifestyles to determine if the definition fits them, or if they'd like to change their lifestyle to fit. The current definition's "possible and practicable" leaves room for the different challenges and circumstances different people may face in eliminating animal products from their consumption.

Sure, some people will straight up interpret the definition wrong (or use a different definition entirely). But I think if we could end the infighting over who's vegan enough it would help our cause more than ostracizing some well-meaning people who perhaps don't fully get what veganism is about.

It sounds like we disagree on how veganism should be defined. But I think there's more to be gained from seeing ourselves as allies than in me accusing you of not being a real vegan and you accusing me of being an animal rights extremist.