Unpopular Opinions Society

[Pickle Juice]

I'm also going to add that this forum is going to turn a lot of people off of veg*nism if any new veg*ns come in talking about how they just became veg*n, and we start to tell them that unless they get rid of everything non-veg*n in their wardrobe, they aren't really veg*n.

I would suggest that anyone who would allow a bunch of strangers on the internet to alter their decision to live more ethically doesn't have what it takes for the long haul anyway.

As to what veganism is supposed to be about, it is supposed to be about refraining from the exploitation of animals for any purpose. Death and suffering may or may not be direct consequences of animal exploitation. They are not the main focus of veganism. The exploitation is. A vegan will cause death, and may cause suffering, through accident or self defense. As long as they aren't causing death or suffering through deliberate exploitation, they are still vegan. The proscriptions against causing suffering and death are more in line with the principles of ahimsa and Jainism.

 

[mlp]

If you build a house on a fox den, is that exploitation?

 

[kazyeeqen]

I'm also going to add that this forum is going to turn a lot of people off of veg*nism if any new veg*ns come in talking about how they just became veg*n, and we start to tell them that unless they get rid of everything non-veg*n in their wardrobe, they aren't really veg*n.

I just read through the last few pages, back to where you posted your first 'sometimes not vegan things are vegan' post and I've come to the conclusion that you just think VV is just too boring, and are trying to turn it into VB. Maybe you should start a 'are eggs vegan?' thread like they have on VB every couple of weeks.

No one said anything anywhere even close to what you are implying here and frankly it's a bizarre accusation. The closest thing anyone said to 'get rid of all animal products or you're not vegan! ' is when Sequoia said it was ******** to say that animal products are wasted if they are not eaten. And she didn't even say to get rid of animal products, just that she didn't agree with your reasoning to use them.

In conclusion; Whatchoo talkin' 'bout, das_nut?

 

[kazyeeqen]

If you build a house on a fox den, is that exploitation?

No. But it might be 'being an *******'.

It can still be wrong and not fall under the purview of veganism.

Although that example, as all of your and das_nut's examples in this thread, is weird. How many people even build their own houses? The contractors are the ones generally in charge of dealing with whatever is already there. And of people who do build their own houses in areas rural enough to have foxes (not a common occurrence) how many are vegan, and would follow the precepts of veganism in other ways, let alone this more abstract way? How often in a lifetime do people build houses? Is there many home site options on the land these people bought to build a house?

 

[das_nut]

I just read through the last few pages, back to where you posted your first 'sometimes not vegan things are vegan' post and I've come to the conclusion that you just think VV is just too boring, and are trying to turn it into VB.

Nah, I'm quite happy avoiding VB.

But I was stating an unpopular opinion. Hmmm, if only there was a thread for that...

The closest thing anyone said to 'get rid of all animal products or you're not vegan! ' is when Sequoia said it was ******** to say that animal products are wasted if they are not eaten.

I'm going to have to disagree with Sequoia on that one, as you might guess. It really depends on the circumstances.

But hey, if people here are willing to admit the possibility that sometimes, a choice that may appear non-vegan could actually may be the more vegan choice, then I see no debate in this thread. Perhaps my post should be in a popular opinions thread instead.

 

[das_nut]

If you build a house on a fox den, is that exploitation?

Not exploitation, but it does directly contribute to the suffering of animals. It also appears to be easily avoidable for most people by using an existing house instead.

 

[mlp]

No. But it might be 'being an *******'.

It can still be wrong and not fall under the purview of veganism.

Although that example, as all of your and das_nut's examples in this thread, is weird. How many people even build their own houses? The contractors are the ones generally in charge of dealing with whatever is already there. And of people who do build their own houses in areas rural enough to have foxes (not a common occurrence) how many are vegan, and would follow the precepts of veganism in other ways, let alone this more abstract way? How often in a lifetime do people build houses? Is there many home site options on the land these people bought to build a house?

I was just trying to figure out the parameters of exploitation. I guess killing a family of foxes isn't exploitation, but I don't think it's any better than exploitation.

And IMO, whether I kill them directly or indirectly, by directing my contractor to build the house on the foxes' den, doesn't make a difference, just like it doesn't make a difference whether I slaughter a chicken myself or have someone else slaughter it for me.

I honestly had never before focused on how narrow the definition of veganism is.

 

[Blobbenstein]

If someone opened a can of baked beans and found a human finger in it, would it be wasteful to not eat the finger?

Yes there are reasons not to eat the finger, like reporting the find to someone, or that cannibalism is unhealthy.

I got McDonalds to replace my coffee with milk in it, for a black one, as we did ask for a black one. Not sure why I should have to have drunk it, just because other people do weird things with cow mammary glands.

 

[Pickle Juice]

If you build a house on a fox den, is that exploitation?

I suppose it could be seen as exploiting their environment. It is also very practical and possible to avoid building your home on a fox den. If I were looking for unimproved property, I would choose a lot with some stone upon which to build, as stone is the most stable substrate upon which to build, and a good choice for people who live near fault zones. I'm not likely to ever leave California, so earthquakes are always going to be a factor in choosing where to live.

I have no idea who might have lived under where my current house is built. It was beyond my control, since it was built before the 1930s. I don't think living in a house makes a person not vegan. These arguments just seem to look like the old "unless you are living in a cave, and don't wear any clothes, buy any food from a grocery store, use any modern technology, you can't tell me I'm not vegan for choosing to buy something made from leather or to eat something with cheese or egg or meat because if I don't it will just be wasted", which is pretty bogus, in my - possibly unpopular - opinion.

 

[Muggle]

Soooo about the whole not eating things made with animal products in a restaurant means you're not vegan thing.

If you order a vegan dish and instead they bring out a steak and tell you that if you don't eat it it will go into the bin*, does this mean a vegan has to eat that steak in order to keep their vegan membership card?
Because that's what I've gather from the past few pages and if that's what people here are saying then that is some crazy **** right there.

* forget the bin. Make it an incinerator so that no animals can scavenge it from the bin.

 

[das_nut]

If someone opened a can of baked beans and found a human finger in it, would it be wasteful to not eat the finger?

Most people would want to figure out why there's a finger in a can of baked beans. So it's not the same. (This is similar to desert-island vegan questions, IMO).

I personally always avoid anything with a high meat content, even in situations where the leftovers end up in the garbage, which is pretty wasteful. But after all this time, my digestive system doesn't react well to meat. And it's squickish.

These arguments just seem to look like the old "unless you are living in a cave, and don't wear any clothes, buy any food from a grocery store, use any modern technology, you can't tell me I'm not vegan for choosing to buy something made from leather or to eat something with cheese or egg or meat because if I don't it will just be wasted", which is pretty bogus, in my - possibly unpopular - opinion.

Why is it bogus? People who choose not to consume or wear non-animal products*, still seem to be perfectly fine with not avoiding animal products in other parts of their lives.

Why should their lifestyle get a free pass when they criticize those who seek to reduce the environmental harm that comes from manufacturing by not embracing the consumer culture in the west and instead reusing old clothing?

*Ignoring, of course, the small bits of animals that often end up in food.

 

[Blobbenstein]

Most people would want to figure out why there's a finger in a can of baked beans. So it's not the same. (This is similar to desert-island vegan questions, IMO).

but the baked bean company made a press announcement that someone had had an accident in one of their factories, and that there might be some fingers in some of the cans, and not to worry that they would be cooked and fine to eat, if you were one of those vegans who didn't want to waste food.

 

[Moll Flanders]

I wouldn't even consider eating a dish that came to me if it had animal products when I asked for it to made vegan. I don't eat out that often anymore and when I do it's usually pizza and I'm already paying about £8 for what is essentially fruit and veggies on a piece of bread. I have put our information into a carbon footprint calculator before and ours is actually quite low as we have a small, well-insulated house, use only electric and don't use cars or air travel but I don't think that makes me any more of a vegan.

I took my non-vegan footwear to a charity shop or the more battered bits went to textile recycling so you can find ways of getting rid of things without just chucking it onto landfill.

 

[RabbitLuvr]

Yeah. I'm cool with people wanting to add additional conditions to themselves. But to call out someone else as not vegan enough if they also don't adhere to your own self-imposed additional conditions is ********. If they meet the basic definition of vegan, they're vegan.

I had a long-time friend tell me that now I'm vegan I must eat ONLY local food, ONLY fair-trade and organic, no processed food EVER, or I'm not really vegan. This all came out over that quinoa thing. (She couldn't tell me what I'm supposed to eat in Kansas in winter, as nothing is growing right now.) She thinks its fine for omnis to eat fast food, imported non-organic, or whatever else.
**** her, and **** anyone who wants me to live by their standards.

I had quinoa in my dinner last night (not fair-trade or organic), and I'm having leftovers from Pizza Hut for lunch today (veggie lover's, no cheese, I'll add mozz-flavor Daiya when I heat it) and I'm no less vegan because of.

 

[Blobbenstein]

but the baked bean company made a press announcement that someone had had an accident in one of their factories, and that there might be some fingers in some of the cans, and not to worry that they would be cooked and fine to eat, if you were one of those vegans who didn't want to waste food.

anyway, you conceded that some people found it disgusting to eat animal products, and some people draw the line at human derived products, so I don't know that I'm making much of a point.

 

[Moll Flanders]

Yeah. I'm cool with people wanting to add additional conditions to themselves. But to call out someone else as not vegan enough if they also don't adhere to your own self-imposed additional conditions is ********. If they meet the basic definition of vegan, they're vegan.

Yes, exactly.

I think as well that it is easy to judge another vegan but probably every vegan could be doing more to help animals so it doesn't make sense to be so critical of others. I have met other vegans who do far more activism than I do but they have never tried to make me feel bad about myself by putting themselves on a pedestal. Some vegans are insecure/bitchy (not on this forum so much) and they try to put other vegans down for not doing enough or accusing them of not being a "real" vegan. I have had one vegan online say that they would euthanise their meat-eating companion animals rather than feed them meat.

 

[Snowcone]

I feel should be allowed to karate chop people who annoy me.

 

[FortyTwo]

I just read through the last few pages, back to where you posted your first 'sometimes not vegan things are vegan' post and I've come to the conclusion that you just think VV is just too boring, and are trying to turn it into VB. Maybe you should start a 'are eggs vegan?' thread like they have on VB every couple of weeks.

What about honey? It's made from plant products, right?

 

[Pickle Juice]

Why is it bogus? People who choose not to consume or wear non-animal products*, still seem to be perfectly fine with not avoiding animal products in other parts of their lives.

If you mean by "People who choose not to consume or wear non-animal products" vegans - because vegans choose not to consume or wear animal products - you are making a huge personal leap assuming vegans are "perfectly fine" with not avoiding them in other parts of their lives. Again, you are demanding that before anyone dare argue with your "eat meat so it won't be wasted, and buy second hand leather and fur so it won't be wasted, and still call yourself vegan" stance, they must be living in a cave, with no clothes, no store bought food, no electricity, no means of transportation except their own feet, etc. Just because I, for example, live in a rural area with no bus service, and the nearest place of employment is 47 miles away, must drive a car to have a job, doesn't mean that I am either perfectly happy with this, or that I have no right to call you out on the idea that vegans who refuse to eat wasted meat are not really vegan.

Why should their lifestyle get a free pass when they criticize those who seek to reduce the environmental harm that comes from manufacturing by not embracing the consumer culture in the west and instead reusing old clothing?

You can go ahead and criticize vegans all you like. My own idea of what justifies making criticism is that I remain willing to be criticized. I don't need to be perfect, or better than anyone else, in order to criticize what they have to say. All I need is to be willing to take it in turn.

But what you shouldn't be doing, and what I believe most people here are arguing against, is trying to change the definition of veganism to suit your argument. Veganism and environmentalism are very different ideologies. There is very little overlap between them. When it comes to a question of whether to directly benefit from the exploitation of an animal, or "harm" the environment by refusing to benefit from said exploitation, the vegan chooses to avoid benefiting from the exploitation. I don't think anyone in here is saying it is superior morally. They are just trying to make choices that are most in line with veganism.

What you are trying to do is claim veganism encompasses every aspect of environmentalism, so you can accuse vegans who are not environmentailsts of not being vegan enough to criticize you for thinking vegans should eat meat that will otherwise be wasted, or buy second hand leather or fur for environmental reasons. That's what's bogus.

 

[Ansciess]

If you can realistically find someone else (an omni) to eat the non-vegan food in your fridge, then that's more ethical, since that food will displace other food they could eat.

But if you cannot realistically find someone, how is it more ethical to throw out or compost that food, then go out and buy "vegan" food, the same food which has probably indirectly or directly lead to the deaths of animals (through displacement of land for raising food, pesticides, deaths in harvesting, and deaths in transportation)? Does such a choice reduce the amount of animals that suffer? No.

I would say not. I would say it would be more "vegan" to eat the food in the fridge instead of letting it spoil.

You're missing the concept that a significant aspect of "veganism" is the political statement that animals are not products to be used as food/research objects/etc. By eating them because the animal flesh/secretions would otherwise "go to waste," you are affirming that animals are in fact acceptable food. I think in the long run, affirming and demonstrating that it's not acceptable to kill animals for products by not using them/eating them (the same way you wouldn't eat a human body under such trivial circumstances) will go farther towards decreasing animal use than giving lip service to the idea that you prefer not to use animals as food...unless there happens to be extra that might not be eaten by other humans, or because a locally "produced" animal might be less impact on the environment than growing some grain, etc.