Why do vegans in america eat honey and still call themselves vegan?

[Veganite]

This has nothing to do with morality or philosophy.

According to whom? Even Wiki calls it a philosophy: "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."

Veganism has everything to do with morality and philosophy, and not to mention, ethics. The problem with this higher than holy attitude of not including all the other animals in this morality equation, is their endless suffering, exploitation, and occasional extinction, for our pleasure, entertainment, and/or taste buds.

Like saying bees owe us something or they have to pay their rent is ridicules. That statement alone is a prime example of speciesism. How blind can non-vegans be? This is what speciesism is and it directly relates to veganism philosophy.

We live in a capitalist society and must obey the laws of the land.

You meant we created a capitalist society, where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer? The fact here is the animal kingdom owes us nothing.

"I am vegan,“ which encompasses many more aspects of my life than just my nutrition. Being vegan means not only that I abstain from eating animal products, but also from wearing them, from using them, and from supporting the exploitation of other species in any way that I can. So whilst my diet is vegan, veganism, as a whole, is not a diet; it‘s so much more. It's a complete philosophy based against speciesism.

There are a number of people who do not eat animal products, for a range of health and environmental reasons, yet do use them in other ways, either by choice or due to their personal circumstances. This constitutes a vegan diet, otherwise known as a plant-based diet, but can be differentiated from veganism as a lifestyle or a philosophy.


Edit: to address tolerance among vegans.

We need to be a little more tolerant and accept one another's differences.

We are having a discussion on a vegan discussion forum. Just because we disagree on something does not mean I'm intolerant or disrespect you in any way. Furthermore, just because I debate your opinion, it also doesn't mean I'm pointing the finger at you, personally. I don't know you, personally. I am simply disagreeing with your statement(s) in this thread. Nothing more.

So according to popular belief, veganism is considered a philosophy, and does not warrant proof. You are either for animal exploitation, for whatever purpose you see humanly fit, or....you're not. There's no gray area there.

Making an exception for bees in my humble opinion, is not vegan. It has nothing to do with us being a minority. This is a fundamental vegan belief. It's not like I just made this all up. The below definition of veganism sums up what I am trying to convey here. It's not like any of the bullet points state "exceptions for beekeepers allowed".

Vegan - a Philosophy of Life
We can define veganism as a "philosophy of life", guided by a core of values and principles:

• A vegan sees life as a phenomenon to be treasured, revered and respected. We do not see animals as either 'the enemy' to be subdued, or the materials for food, fabric or fun that were put on Earth for human use.

• Vegans see themselves as a part of the natural world, rather than its owners or its masters.

• Veganism recognizes no expendable or superfluous species that humans are free to hurt or destroy. Species of life-forms need not justify their existence to vegans, nor plead for protection from extinction on the grounds of their potential usefulness as food or medicine for humans. We continue to be burdened and misguided by adages such as "a weed is a plant we have not yet found a use for".

• Veganism acknowledges the intrinsic legitimacy of all life. It rejects any hierarchy of acceptable suffering among sentient creatures. It is no more acceptable to torment or kill creatures with "primitive nervous systems" than those with "highly developed nervous systems". The value of life to its possessor is the same, whether it be the life of a clam, a crayfish, a carp, a cockroach, a cow, a chicken, or a child.

• Veganism understands that gentleness cannot be a product of violence, harmony cannot be a product of strife, and peace cannot be a product of contention and conflict.

• Vegan ideals encompass much more than advocacy of a diet free of animal products, or a fervent defence of animal rights. Veganism excludes no sentient being, animal or human, from its commitment to compassionate, gentle benevolence. To show tender regard for the suffering of animals, yet treat humans with callous contempt, is a disheartening contradiction of vegan principles.

• "Every time I bend down to pick something up, I find it is connected to something else". There is an equivalent ecology to our behaviour. Everything we do connects to something else; every action touches on the world around us, either close at hand and noticeable, or far away and unperceived, immediate in its effect or distant in time.

• If veganism has a primary value, it is simply that life-respecting compassion overrides individual issues of custom, convenience, comfort or cuisine.

• If there is a single article of faith, it is that commitment to vegan values will bring us closer to a world in which the fate and fortune of a planet and all its life forms do not hang on the judgment or the generosity of one species.

• If there is one single concept that both generates and sustains the meaning and the power of the vegan world-view, it is found in the word 'mindfulness'. As vegans, we strive to be thoughtful, aware and concerned about the impact of our choices, our actions and our decisions. The fruit of this awareness is inner peace, the quiet strength of ethical confidence, and an uplifting sense of fulfillment.

Source






*

 

[Deleted member 2263]

for our pleasure, entertainment, and/or taste buds.

Then vvhat do vve produce and vvhat consumes from us?
I understand some of the purposes of life. (a more immediately performed one I had not earlier thought of):

Since vve all are interconnected, vve partake in connecting and generating connections betvveen stars, planets, moons, solar systems, galaxies etc.; like streams running through us.
Sex and love addiction..

I vvas more focused on like moving about planets and asteroids and things like cosmic radiation based entropy selecting output of lazers to partake in the radiant interconnection that can be described vvith a bats echolocation and things like that (like hovv one chemical in one places does one thing and something different in another; like a human body can need maintenance, so can planets and stars; matter moved about). Think of like a car moving about asteroids based on big data and things like that.

So all the sustainance and pleasure; holding us to certain environments and habits and things like that.
Its not okay to scapegoat humanity, even though it indeed is perceivable as effective domestication.

Like one of these things I really like vvorking in the direction of; entropy, like massive entropy; like opening channels to outside this universe/reality vvhere not even vvhatever guides me through entropy can affect and select content; thus a greater connection vvith something divine in nature.

I just enjoy thinking about hovv the exploitation of us vvill eventually manifest in stellar-stage life and the inhumanities and systems generated around this grovving.
Also this vvhole thing about buddhists and that life vvill become nothing; I am not certain if connected to above, though I am certain that life does not disappear, even if entering nothing or a temporary state of nothingness: There is no getting rid of us and "the karma". 12 step programmes 9th step is just a fundamentally good idea.
Especially considering the manipulation around the situation of Gautama Siddharta and hovv his parents vvere manipulated a little resulting a predictable series of events etc.; at least akin to stories (such stories).

Veganism should also be there to not unencompass stars and planets, riiiiiight? Even if some are very angry at astrological layers and that might be a hindrance; vvanting the bad karma to hit such.

So whilst my diet is vegan, veganism, as a whole, is not a diet; it‘s so much more. It's a complete philosophy based against speciesism.

For me its not a diet: Frankly a philosophy is disrespecting it. Its a principle, a point of honor, a key point of character and integrity.

I much have akin issue on the point of karma, I hope not for me to describe this; despairing for it to be understood.
Might be because of something I support? Possibly unvvillingly? I am interested in hearing the other side of the story, as alvvays. But not if like from psychiatric sources, they are too stupid and manipulative.

Vvell frankly I probably should add; its a strength and a military advantage. Though such vve tend to keep to ourselves. Poisoning the vvell and factory farms + microbial understanding might point in a direction (I have shared much of all this already).

• A vegan sees life as a phenomenon to be treasured, revered and respected. We do not see animals as either 'the enemy' to be subdued, or the materials for food, fabric or fun that were put on Earth for human use.

Nor through human use.
Also try not undefining people as vegans accidentally. I am not disagreeing on the point of life though I perceive this as a structure vvith purpose, just as I do the universe.

• Vegans see themselves as a part of the natural world, rather than its owners or its masters.

Disagreeing; vvhile indeed a part of life, not separate from not subjugating (even if tempted possibly by astro-layers) then humans and other animals living in the civilization structure are not partaking in the self-regulation that vvolves, deer, trees and consumption cycles are. The trees part I am uncertain of, though probably consumed through the planet, affecting the universe. A good reason for ecology.

Species of life-forms need not justify their existence to vegans, nor plead for protection from extinction on the grounds of their potential usefulness as food or medicine for humans.

Thank you. Novv look to prisons and psychiatric places and apply perception of zoology and above. The same I hope vvont exist for stars, moons, planets etc.

• Veganism acknowledges the intrinsic legitimacy of all life. It rejects any hierarchy of acceptable suffering among sentient creatures. It is no more acceptable to torment or kill creatures with "primitive nervous systems" than those with "highly developed nervous systems". The value of life to its possessor is the same, whether it be the life of a clam, a crayfish, a carp, a cockroach, a cow, a chicken, or a child.

Thank you! That one vvas nevv, I had not encountered that before/thought of that, thank you! Very and utterly useful, the part about not accepting hierarchies of suffering.
(During being very angry, psychiatry 2016, angry due to psychiatry, I ended up thinking that demons that ate souls should go for carnists (have improve/gone deeper than this since; vvell they exist anyvvay, right?) - not that religions help much except as belief-misuse and illusion of safety; gotta be vegan and things like that, you knovv).

• Veganism understands that gentleness cannot be a product of violence, harmony cannot be a product of strife, and peace cannot be a product of contention and conflict.

Vvell not real peace, though principally you can generate peace in an area as a temporary thing (even if overall causing conflict) though such in a manner causing something to come to be that overall causes peace.

• "Every time I bend down to pick something up, I find it is connected to something else". There is an equivalent ecology to our behaviour. Everything we do connects to something else; every action touches on the world around us, either close at hand and noticeable, or far away and unperceived, immediate in its effect or distant in time.

You also talk of stars, galaxies, planets, black holes and moons! Neat! I have come to fear talking in being perceived as insane in lacking dependencies for vvhat is conveyed/conversed.
I enjoy this at the loss of those connected to vvhat did so to me; since thats kind of vvhere that gets directed. Except vvhen made to be an issue for others, something seeming more temporary in nature.

• If there is one single concept that both generates and sustains the meaning and the power of the vegan world-view, it is found in the word 'mindfulness'. As vegans, we strive to be thoughtful, aware and concerned about the impact of our choices, our actions and our decisions. The fruit of this awareness is inner peace, the quiet strength of ethical confidence, and an uplifting sense of fulfillment.

That one is just beautiful. Thanks. I dont use like buttons; its an enslavement system. Also simply a driver of decision-making, depending on hovv you perceive such and the people going by it.

 

[Veganite]

@Ieei

As much as I'd like to take credit for the blogged definition on vegan philosophy, most of the points you are trying to discuss cannot be answered by me, as I did not write them. I did provide the source at the bottom of my last post. The definition is originally by Dr. Stanley Sapon.

 

[Deleted member 2263]

To ansvver this:

Because other people call themselves vegans vvhile taking drugs and medication (to differ betvveen the tvvo, despite being distributed through same, similar and akin channels), that are not vegan: Involving severe exploitation of beings for "certainty" and "learning".

That regardless of vvhether such causes illusions more so than is of any real use and damages medicality. This though, if vve look at it from a non-humancentric perspective, may be something of a deeper level of life/using life that is figuring out hovv to hack the bodies/minds/spirits/souls of various such beings - possibly for future, techbased, endeavours. Human bodies vvhile highly advanced are but temporary manifestations || of a kind of functionality

 

[Kate]

Can someone please explain to me why it is not acceptable to do this to large animals but it is acceptable to do this to the small living things affected by farming? They also do not have a choice where you decide to plant your food. Does it bother you to know that millions of living things are affected by eating the lettuce on your plate? Or how do you justify living in your home knowing that it was built by demolishing an entire habitat?

 

[Forest Nymph]

I have met lots of vegans who eat things I know are not vegan. Like when they eat popcorn slathered in butter that isn’t vegan. I saw a vegan video that says it’s ok to eat bivalves. Honestly it’s not a grey area honey isn’t vegan eating bivalves isn’t vegan. I don’t know

People who argue for eating bivalves are arguing the sentience point. Some define veganism by "team sentience" rather than strictly plant v. animal products. I'm not defending them, but I do see their rationale as someone familiar with the biology courses science majors take on a university level. There are huge discussions on sentience, including sessile sponges which are technically animals but they neither move nor show self-awareness of any sort (much like a plant). And what of carnivorous plants?

Vegans who eat eggs from friends' backyard chickens tend to call themselves "veggan" rather than vegan, from everything I've observed. I also understand their argument, because if forced into an off-grid situation or a developing country where I couldn't obtain B12 supplements, I understand that backyard eggs are pretty much the most ethical animal product one can consume (if the chickens are treated kindly, even the shells can be fed back to the chickens, as can the apple cores and other compost items that their humans don't consume). It's an especially ethical form of vegetarianism that doesn't allow for ******** arguments about cow's milk.

As for honey, I think some vegans draw the line at insects in the same manner that the bivalve people argue about sentience. However, since honey bees are so critical to environmental health, the continuation of the human race, and show remarkable social structure, I'm not one to purchase honey.

There are rational arguments which can be made, and I feel that all of these do...on the other hand, someone who says they meat on holidays because their family does aren't vegans, that's not even logic or science, that's just garbage.

 

[Forest Nymph]

Can someone please explain to me why it is not acceptable to do this to large animals but it is acceptable to do this to the small living things affected by farming? They also do not have a choice where you decide to plant your food. Does it bother you to know that millions of living things are affected by eating the lettuce on your plate? Or how do you justify living in your home knowing that it was built by demolishing an entire habitat?

I bet you also think climate change is caused by the sun only because plants like CO2, amirite? God dammit, Americans are so scientifically illiterate they imagine basing arguments like yours on their 6th grade science class actually challenges people who made it past "biology for liberal arts majors."

 

[Lou]

I read a lot. The vegans who have written articles that argue its ok to eat oysters call themselves bivalve vegans. The vegans who argue it's ok to eat honey call themselves Bee Vegans or Beegans. This sort of copies the logic in using prefixes to modify the descriptor. Kind of like lacto- vegetarians. I guess.

Personally, I don't think people should eat oysters or eat honey. However, no one put me in charge. I've read some of those articles and the arguments are well constructed. I don't think we live in a black and white world. I don't think people need to adhere to strict dogma. I much rather have people think for themselves. And if a vegan can defend their right to eat oysters or honey without using the premise "but I like the way they taste" then - more power to them.

I'm not sure if the bivalve people don't have an environmental point. It has been shown that bivalves, especially oysters, when grown in beds do improve water quality. It seems to me if the oysters are good for water quality we should just leave them IN the water. I guess their argument is that if it wasn't for commercial oyster farms, the beds wouldn't be there. I'm not sure they are right and since I rather not eat oysters anyway I don't put much thought in it. It does occur to me if they are improving the water quality aren't the toxins and pollutants going into their bodies?

I also see the point the bee vegans make. again I'm not sure they are right. And since I have no use for honey I don't put much thought into it. The argument they make is that about half our crops are pollinated by commercial bees (who for the most part are honey bees). So apples and almonds are products of bee exploitation. If we eat apples and almonds, why not honey?

No one knows what has caused the Colony Collapse Disorder. Maybe it's pesticides. The local honey guy probably takes better care of his bees than the big commercial outfits. Maybe his bees are the bees that make it thru this disaster and help preserve the species. I don't know.

Personally, I like to err on the side of caution. Until we know that oysters are not sentient let's not eat them. Until we know that the honey bee farmer is helping, let's not support him. But I will respect anyone else's informed decision that goes the other way.

Two really good Slate articles on honey and oysters.
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/food/2008/07/the_great_vegan_honey_debate.html
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/food/2010/04/consider_the_oyster.html

 

[Deleted member 2263]

Can someone please explain to me why it is not acceptable to do this to large animals but it is acceptable to do this to the small living things affected by farming? They also do not have a choice where you decide to plant your food. Does it bother you to know that millions of living things are affected by eating the lettuce on your plate? Or how do you justify living in your home knowing that it was built by demolishing an entire habitat?

I resented having to paint a fence in black color. It vvas so meaningless. The bugs that died..

 

[Forest Nymph]

1. "eating the egg still kills a potential life" Surely it takes 2 to produce a fertilized egg. I used to be an egg eater and hated the eggs that were fertilized. The ones I ate were 99.99% unfertilized, so incapable of producing life.
2. The flowers are the bees' food source not the honey (just as wheat is our source of food - we don't harvest bread). They make the honey with the pollen from the flowers. Flowers are plants and we compete with other animals to be able to exploit the land the flowers grow on. My labour too is exploited by the owner of capital/land. The land owner is the one who exploits the bees. But just as I need to be exploited to survive (I need the work), so the bee needs to be exploited to survive. The land owner will always use the land to produce something of profit. If the bees were not there, they would build on the land, use it for dairy farming or use it to produce another crop which is profitable. Now you can argue that capitalism is theft but that argument hasn't helped us in the past.
3. I too dislike cholesterol (the bad sort).

"I need to be exploited to survive"...lol wut? Capitalism isn't "nature's way" or any of that Ayn Rand garbage. Plenty of civilizations have existed that didn't involve capitalism and even now a person can be self-employed, off grid in a farming commune, or become an artist...there are ways to "survive"without exploiting yourself. I wouldn't consider working as a science teacher exploiting myself in the same way I would working a wage job for a corporation or selling sex by the freeway.

Your post on capitalism would be pure comedy if it weren't so sad your perception is so narrowly myopic.

Your later claims that veganism is not a rational philosophy and that you have no proof that it's more ethical than eating animals is utterly incoherent and betrays a lack of exposure to scientific data on sentience, animal suffering, species extinction, land waste, pollution and global starvation.

If your personal reasons for being vegan are irrational - which I believe is possible, I know someone who is vegan out of sheer disgust with violence after surviving a bombing whilst in the military - it doesn't make the vegan movement or philosophy irrational as a whole.

 

[Deleted member 2263]

"I need to be exploited to survive"...lol wut? Capitalism isn't "nature's way" or any of that Ayn Rand garbage. Plenty of civilizations have existed that didn't involve capitalism and even now a person can be self-employed, off grid in a farming commune, or become an artist...there are ways to "survive"without exploiting yourself. I wouldn't consider working as a science teacher exploiting myself in the same way I would working a wage job for a corporation or selling sex by the freeway.

Your post on capitalism would be pure comedy if it weren't so sad your perception is so narrowly myopic.

Your later claims that veganism is not a rational philosophy and that you have no proof that it's more ethical than eating animals is utterly incoherent and betrays a lack of exposure to scientific data on sentience, animal suffering, species extinction, land waste, pollution and global starvation.

If your personal reasons for being vegan are irrational - which I believe is possible, I know someone who is vegan out of sheer disgust with violence after surviving a bombing whilst in the military - it doesn't make the vegan movement or philosophy irrational as a whole.

Now you can argue that capitalism is theft but that argument hasn't helped us in the past.

That is a "viral" ending - attached. Affecting hovv the read is read; making it simply accepted/acknovvledged rather than providing for objective discussion. To me indicates rationalization on usage or fear present.

Honey is misuse of beings; if you dont like being exploited vvhile "needing" to be exposed to such - I suggest distancing yourself from exploitation further and moreso not causing such to grovv in the vvorld to the harm of us all.

 

[SongHyeKyo]

I see a lot of vegetarian, vegan people in youtube that sharing their vegan, vegetarian recipe but included bread, chicken, and other not listed not should be eat to be vegan, vegetarian. IMHO as long the person use 90% of the recipe in their food are veggies and rarely eating meat or any not to eat. I can still called them a vegetarian, vegan.

 

[Veganite]

I can still called them a vegetarian, vegan.

You are entitled to call them whatever you like, but the fact is, a 90% vegan or vegetarian is neither. In my humble opinion, they're definitely omnivores. There's really no gray area here. You either are vegan or you're not, which would mean no intentional exceptions. I say intentional, because sometimes a vegan might inadvertently eat something with egg or dairy without knowing it.

 

[Lou]

How vegan do you have to be to be a "vegan"?
How many times do you have to go to Mass to be a Catholic?
How many games do you have to watch to be called a baseball fan?

No one can be 100% vegan. Well not without living in a hut in the woods. and even then maybe not.
Although I suppose a person could watch every baseball game.

So most of these things come down to intent. If you want to call yourself a baseball fan, then you are a baseball fan. If you want to call yourself Catholic, go ahead. God can figure it out later. But since there is no vegan test, it's just a matter of intent. If you want to be vegan. Poof! You are vegan.

Sometimes I hear people call it transitioning. Which I think is fair. But I also think we are all transitioning. Being vegan is not a destination, it's a journey. Every day I get a little further along the road.

A few days ago I lamented that I made an impulse purchase. Dark Chocolate covered Power Berries. Afterwards, I discovered that it was a mistake. The product contained milk. According to Veganite, that's ok. It was not intentional. I'm still vegan. But I didn't throw the bag away. I finished them. As far as I'm concerned the damage was done. The tiny amount of milk in them can't harm me (like most vegans I drank milk for years before becoming vegan). And the product was already bought and paid for. The support I gave to the dairy industry when I bought the product can't be recalled.

Am I no longer vegan because I intentionally finished the bag of berries?

Veganite himself uses the same kind of rationalization. He bought his leather jacket before becoming vegan. And still wears it. Is he no longer vegan? (see Veganite, there are grey areas).

That all being said,
A vegan recipe cannot include chicken. A vegan chef cannot use chicken. A vegan meal cannot include chicken. It can include bread.

A Whole Food Plant Based diet can include chicken - many of Dr Fuhrman's does. but WFPB is just a diet. It doesn't contain the ethical imperative.

 

[Veganite]

And the product was already bought and paid for.

No judgment here, but personally, I would've given it away once I knew it contained dairy. That's just me, but that's coming from a vegan that still wears leather. Even if I did buy the leather long before going vegan, it is kinda unveganly of me, nonetheless.

I still firmly believe if you knowingly consume products that you know are not vegan, you are most definitely not a vegan in the true sense of the definition. I threw out cupboards of non-vegan stuff when I went vegan. However, I'm not the vegan police, and really don't care to play that role.


*

 

[Lou]

I called the vegan police, they said that you don't have to throw out your leathers. Just don't wear them to animal rights rallies.

As far as the power berries go, I now have to go outside, turn around three times, and spit.

 

[Veganite]

I now have to go outside, turn around three times, and spit.

Don't forget the hail Mary's

 

[SongHyeKyo]

You are entitled to call them whatever you like, but the fact is, a 90% vegan or vegetarian is neither. In my humble opinion, they're definitely omnivores. There's really no gray area here. You either are vegan or you're not, which would mean no intentional exceptions. I say intentional, because sometimes a vegan might inadvertently eat something with egg or dairy without knowing it.

I respect your opinion and also i want to clarify only that i'm a Flexitarian - s a term recently coined to describe those who eat a mostly vegetarian diet but occasionally eat meat. Most of the time i eat only meat when there is a occasion ( birthday, christmas, new year ). By the way i eat also egg but according to google there is no exact term for those vegetarian who eat egg but not eat dairy. Maybe it is ovo vegetarian but i eat meat rarely.

I'm agree with Lou - No one can be 100% vegan.

 

[Veganite]

@SongHyeKyo

I believe you are correct, ovo-veg is the term used. Furthermore, we are not here to judge you for your flexi lifestyle. Although, this is strictly a vegan forum, but as long as you post within the guidelines of the forum and its vegan theme, you are as welcome here as much as anyone else.

I also agree with Lou, no one can be 100% vegan. It's a strange term to use with veganism. 100% could imply many things beyond even consuming animals. Maybe I have to be a 100% activist too, in order to be vegan. It's ridiculous, is it not? Well so is being 100% vegan. I kill bacteria every time I wash my hands. I'm sure I've stepped on lots of bugs too. I honestly don't think vegans claim to be 100 percent. It's not a claim I've heard any vegans make.

In my humble opinion, the 100% thing is an outside argument, usually used to argue against veganism by non-vegans. The argument is "if you can't be 100% vegan then don't call yourself a vegan". It's as puerile as it gets. The argument is as I said, ridiculous, but people still use it.

Since I do still wear leather to ride motorcycle, I might fall into some strange non-vegan category among the militant vegans, myself. Do I care? I do not. I'm still a new enough vegan that I can still say it's transitional. I do my very best to do as much as the definition below states.

According to the Vegan Society:

Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose.

The key words in this above are, "as far as possible and practical".


*

 

[veganDreama]

Am I no longer vegan because I intentionally finished the bag of berries?

Yes, I suppose so. Just be more careful next time. I once accidentally ate a nutritional bar with honey in it. It was a shame as I actually liked the taste of it but I don't eat honey so I never bought the bar again.