Is it more important to be thought of as a vegan than to actually be a vegan?!
Is it more important to be thought of as a vegan than to actually be a vegan?
People who aren't actually vegans call themselves "vegan". So is it a status symbol of sorts? Is that why they call themselves a vegan, while admitting they are just "trying to be a vegan"?
I apologize to those who have been offended by my line of questions and answers. The YA section V & V is for questions and answers regarding V & V, not for the promotion of V & V exclusively though.
Let it be understood that I agree with your cause. I think your cause is noble. To give any negative connotation to your cause or beliefs has not and will not be my agenda.
So please, either answer the question/questions or just ignore it if it bothers you. Additional Details
1 day ago
awwdree---just a vegetarian? You underestimate yourself :-)
1 day ago
angua----30 years? Keep up the good work!
1 day ago
evil---a case of changing a definition to make something difficult to attain more convenient. When someone invents a concept though, you can't just go and change it for convenience sake. That's weak. If you want to be a true vegan you can move to a temperate climate, grow your own food and do whatever you need to do to be a true vegan. If that's what you really wish to do is be a true vegan.
Your argument is like saying I have $50M and I'm trying to be a billionaire, so I'll call myself a billionaire because after all, I AM trying.
A true vegan is only one who follows what the creator of veganism defined it as. You can't change someone's idea for convenience sake and say it's the same thing.
1 day ago
evil---I may have miscomprehended your answer......my apologies if that is the case.
1 day ago
black byrus---I've agreed with you on other posts but when you say this:
""Because I walk on the road, which has dirt underneath, which probably has animal feces and animal corpses in it. Really, I'm not even vegetarian, because I was walking by McDonald's a few days ago and accidentally breathed in and I think I got a couple of meat molecules in my mouth. Even my very computer is... well, I don't know what all is in it, but I can only assume it must have SOMETHING non-vegan in it...""
I can't take your answer seriously. I've been making a simple point with absolutely no gray area whatsoever.
1 day ago
shelly---I applaud your vegetarianism but:
"But the definition of VEGAN has been only no meat, dairy, or milk. So someone who may use leather, or even eat honey, can fit this definiton."
does not fit the defintion as coined by the creaotr of the concept of veganism and you will likely be chastised here by "vegans" who will tell you "you are Not a vegan" while at the same time they are not vegans either.
20 hours ago
blackbyrus---"as far as is possible and practical"---to me this says as long as it's convenient....If a person really wants to be a true vegan they can.....they would have to make more than superficial sacrifices but they could do it. But no one is willing to give up their cushy lives to become a true vegan. As soon as it becomes inconvenient, further sacrifice is considered "absurd". Vegan-lite is the vegan of today. Deciding their own limits of sacrifice to qualify as a vegan as opposed to living their lives according to the definition of veganism's creator. As time went by, the inconvenient portions of veganism were doctored to make it easier to qualify as a vegan. Thus today's vegan is vegan-lite compared to it's creator's definition. There are no sacrifices anymore. The standard has been lowered like the standards are lowered in U.S. schools. To accomodate those who can't pass the test.
20 hours ago
blackbyrus--BTW I appreciate your ability to exchange ideas without condescension.
Answers: 1 day ago
awwdree---just a vegetarian? You underestimate yourself :-)1 day ago
angua----30 years? Keep up the good work!1 day ago
evil---a case of changing a definition to make something difficult to attain more convenient. When someone invents a concept though, you can't just go and change it for convenience sake. That's weak. If you want to be a true vegan you can move to a temperate climate, grow your own food and do whatever you need to do to be a true vegan. If that's what you really wish to do is be a true vegan.
Your argument is like saying I have $50M and I'm trying to be a billionaire, so I'll call myself a billionaire because after all, I AM trying.
A true vegan is only one who follows what the creator of veganism defined it as. You can't change someone's idea for convenience sake and say it's the same thing.1 day ago
evil---I may have miscomprehended your answer......my apologies if that is the case.1 day ago
black byrus---I've agreed with you on other posts but when you say this:
""Because I walk on the road, which has dirt underneath, which probably has animal feces and animal corpses in it. Really, I'm not even vegetarian, because I was walking by McDonald's a few days ago and accidentally breathed in and I think I got a couple of meat molecules in my mouth. Even my very computer is... well, I don't know what all is in it, but I can only assume it must have SOMETHING non-vegan in it...""
I can't take your answer seriously. I've been making a simple point with absolutely no gray area whatsoever.1 day ago
shelly---I applaud your vegetarianism but:
"But the definition of VEGAN has been only no meat, dairy, or milk. So someone who may use leather, or even eat honey, can fit this definiton."
does not fit the defintion as coined by the creaotr of the concept of veganism and you will likely be chastised here by "vegans" who will tell you "you are Not a vegan" while at the same time they are not vegans either.20 hours ago
blackbyrus---"as far as is possible and practical"---to me this says as long as it's convenient....If a person really wants to be a true vegan they can.....they would have to make more than superficial sacrifices but they could do it. But no one is willing to give up their cushy lives to become a true vegan. As soon as it becomes inconvenient, further sacrifice is considered "absurd". Vegan-lite is the vegan of today. Deciding their own limits of sacrifice to qualify as a vegan as opposed to living their lives according to the definition of veganism's creator. As time went by, the inconvenient portions of veganism were doctored to make it easier to qualify as a vegan. Thus today's vegan is vegan-lite compared to it's creator's definition. There are no sacrifices anymore. The standard has been lowered like the standards are lowered in U.S. schools. To accomodate those who can't pass the test.20 hours ago
blackbyrus--BTW I appreciate your ability to exchange ideas without condescension. it depends on the person. Unfortunately, to some people vegetarianism/veganism is the "Cool thing to do" and that is their only real reason for doing it. But there are those of us who are proud that we are Vegetarians or Vegans, because we feel good about our lifestyle choice, but don't try to force it on others or go around saying "LOOk at me.. I'm a Vegan!!) (Actually I do not claim to be a vegan, because I still do eat dairy (although not much). I am a vegetarian (although I'd like to be vegan) But I do fit the definition of a Vegetarian.. have for 17 years.. So I'm happy to call myself a vegetarian, and I have multiple reasons for being vegetarian, which I'm not going to go into, because i've done it in this forum half a dozen times allready..
However, please understand that what you see as hipocricy may just be a misunderstanding on your part..
there is more than one definition of vegan
Vegan ORIGNIALLY meant no meat, dairy, or eggs
LATELY it has come to include a whole lifestyle of no honey, leather, etc etc..
So there is a whole spectrum of veganism.. Well, mostly 2 kinds (Eat no meat, dairy, or eggs as oposed to those who do that and more).
it depends on WHY someone is vegan. If for health, then they simply exclude meat, milk, eggs.. if for extreme activism.. then that and all the other stuff...
Now the definition of a VEGETARIAN has never included eating fish or seafood, poultry.. It has always been no MEAT.. those things are all meat..
People calling themself vegetarian while eating fish does not change the definiton.
But the definition of VEGAN has been only no meat, dairy, or milk. So someone who may use leather, or even eat honey, can fit this definiton.
Simply excluding meat, dairy products, and eggs from the diet is an acceptable definition of vegan. There are plenty of people who do this, so they are rightfully calling themselves Vegan. I know plenty of people who are even careful to buy bread with no whey, vegan cheeese with no Cassien, soy meat with no egg... THey are not preachy or pushy, they are just trying to avoid all dairy and eggs..
Maybe we should come up with distinctive terms for the different types of vegans?
Vegan- Eats no meat, dairy, or eggs
strict vegan- uses NO animal products in their life, as much as is reasonably possible.. I think a lot of people do think its a status symbol, because it takes a lot of strength to really be vegan, I was vegan for six years before I got pregnant with my son and started having cravings for cheeseburgers. I tried making boca burgers with veganrella but it did not work. it took a lot to get to where I am now, almost six years later, I am still only vegetarian, and not even striving to be vegan again. It's hard. I try to trust humans, in general, and living the lifestyle of a vegetarian for the last 30 years, I trust someone who says he or she is a vegan. It takes a lot of commitment to adhere to that life style. I've tried to, and been unable to (I'm to close to being anemic, and donate blood).
Considering the fact vegans are frequently looked down upon by others in society (omnivores, PETA-haters, etc.), I fail to see why someone would say he or she _was_ vegan and not be one; the hassle on the other end of it isn't worth it. However, those dedicated to doing what it takes to live this way -- and it isn't easy -- should be commended. The term "vegan" was coined by Donald Watson in 1944, and was at once adopted by the group who founded The Vegan Society in England later that year. The Vegan Society was the first organized secular group to promote a compassionate lifestyle. Their definition of "veganism," which is accepted as the decisive standard worldwide, is as follows:
"Veganism is a way of living which excludes all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal kingdom, and includes a reverence for life. It applies to the practice of living on the products of the plant kingdom to the exclusion of flesh, fish, fowl, eggs, honey, animal milk and its derivatives, and encourages the use of alternatives for all commodities derived wholly or in part from animals."
In its Articles of Association, the legal documents of the Society, a slightly different version is presented:
"Veganism denotes a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude - as far as is possible and practical - all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing, or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals, and the environment."
Both interpretations begin by stating that veganism is a "way of life," and "a philosophy." Neither emphasizes diet over other aspects of compassionate living, because in vegan practice no one area is more significant than another; all are expected to be implemented simultaneously. In the second version, a disclaimer about practicality has been inserted, revealing that the founders acknowledged the impossibility of totally divesting oneself of all animal products and derivatives in the modern world. This phrase is also critical because it helps practitioners understand that veganism is not about personal perfection or "purity," but rather the avoidance and elimination of exploitation of and cruelty to animals. The first rendition mentions "reverence for life," with no hierarchy of value given to the life to which it is referring. Therefore, the statement is inclusive, asserting that all life forms are equally deserving of reverence. It also delineates the specific foods that are to be avoided, and both definitions encourage the use and development of alternatives to animal commodities.
http://www.vegsource.com/jo/essays/nameg... It is just fashion. I'm not offended, but I do think it's funny that you've been harping on this in every question you've answered, whether your answer was remotely relevant to the question or not, mostly because your conclusion leads to a rather absurd paradox in real life:
Let's say I am a person who does not eat meat or dairy or eggs or honey or anything else that comes from animals. I also make sure to not buy things tested on animals, or support industries that I feel are cruel to animals, etc. And now let's suppose someone I've been hanging out with has noticed my eating habits, or my black mesh office chair (i.e., not leather), or that my toiletries are not name brands he recognizes. Being a smart person and putting two and two together, the following conversation ensues:
"Hey, are you... vegan?"
"No."
"Oh, well I noticed you seem to never eat meat, or cheese..."
"Yeah, I don't."
"Why don't you then?"
"Because I don't agree with the way the animals are treated to acquire those, so I don't use them myself."
"So you don't eat any animal products?"
"Not on purpose."
"What about leather? Or your soap?"
"I make sure to avoid leather and other animal products in anything I buy or use."
"Oh... well then, how are you not vegan?"
"Because I walk on the road, which has dirt underneath, which probably has animal feces and animal corpses in it. Really, I'm not even vegetarian, because I was walking by McDonald's a few days ago and accidentally breathed in and I think I got a couple of meat molecules in my mouth. Even my very computer is... well, I don't know what all is in it, but I can only assume it must have SOMETHING non-vegan in it..."
"Ooookaaaay...."
You see how ridiculous that sounds? The paradox is that if you define vegan as someone who never, ever has any contact with animal products whatsoever, whether on purpose or accident, it's completely impossible while at the same time failing to describe someone who gives an honest attempt at avoiding these things and succeeds at 99.9% or more of it... so that person fails at being "vegan", and also fails at being "non-vegan". This is why the Vegan Society (who came up with the word vegan and defined it) generally describes the attempt, or the reasonableness as part of veganism (see source) since it's both impossible and undesirable to be OCD about it. So saying someone is "trying to be vegan" is like saying "trying to be trying to avoid animal products". It's redundant.
(P.S. - People like you are most of the reason I've started telling people in real life I am a vegetarian (who tries to avoid eggs, dairy, honey, things tested on animals, leather, wool, etc. and so forth), not vegan. It's more amusing to watch people try to explain to me why they think I'm vegan rather than argue the reverse.)
Edit: For my example, I had taken a handful of reasons people have actually given me, both in real life and on here, for why being vegan is impossible. I'm glad you didn't take it seriously, because I didn't take them seriously when people presented them to me before. :) What are your reasons for thinking people aren't vegan then? If I recall correctly, they were similarly nitpicky, but I have no way to look at your past answers. Feel free to replace my admittedly hyperbolic section you quoted with your personal reasons. I think one of your reasons had to do with pollination or manure being used in crops, which, though a more reasonable charge against vegans than the road and computer examples people are so fond of coming up with, is still pretty unreasonable unless you own your own farm or large garden, do all your work by hand, use no fertilizers, and don't grow anything that requires pollination, which is again, impossible right now for most of the population (in my country, at least). Veganism must be attempted within the world you are given, not a fantasy world, a hypothetical one, or one in which you deny reality or try to live in a bubble. After you've gotten rid of the big things, the minor things like degrees of separation (cow manure in the ground where the corn grew) and trivial unavoidable details (thin wax covering on supermarket fruits and veggies) become more a function on how privileged and obsessed you are, i.e., who can pay several times more for "organic non-manure-fertilized non-waxed-apples" or own their own land, rather than how "vegan" someone is. If you're looking at it as a semantic issue (that is, if all the apples have wax on them, and you eat one, wax comes from bees, thus you are not vegan, period), then I do understand what you are arguing and why, even though I don't agree. It all depends on where you draw the line at "reasonable". Now, I remember you mentioned something about vehicles, and I agree that if someone wants to be vegan and then goes out and buys a car with leather seats because the type of car they want only comes with leather, but they're doing everything else "vegan", that maybe "trying to be vegan" would be a better term, since finding a non-leather vehicle is a whole heck of a lot easier than trying to grow all of your own produce, and would more realistically fall outside of what is "reasonable". if u aren't a "VEGAN" stop complaining about these who are more of one than you u should try to get a hobby other than complaining about those who have one More important to BE a vegan/vegetarian/flexitarian/o...
because, labels arent important.
i do, however, belive that you can think what you think about yourself. Well, if you're harshing on those of us who consider ourselves vegan because we don't eat animal foods and don't wear animal fabrics--all the traditional definitions of vegan--but the workers who harvested the plants we eat may have killed animals in the process, I will ask you to please knock it off. You have been giving a negative connotation because we're not "perfect" vegans. Well, it's impossible to be a perfect vegan. And I am offended because people who ask questions like this do so an excuse to justify their inability to stop REAL exploitation of animals.
It's not a status symbol, but it is part of my identity. This is who I am and what I believe. I strive to avoid products that contain products of animal exploitation. I can't worry that the truck that brought it to the store may have crushed a few bugs in transit. I can't worry that the wheels of the bus I ride to work has animal ingredients. And I can't worry about accidentally stepping on an insect either.
But hey, consider this: If more and more people stop eating animals (okay, okay, sharply reduce their consumption), fewer will be killed, right? As for animals killed in harvesting plants, 70 percent of all grain gets fed to animals who become your food, so even that will go down. With fewer animals killed, that will be fewer animal byproducts. This means that companies will have to find other methods to make the materials and ingredients for all sorts of items. Ta-da! Fewer animals exploited and killed in the course of things. I know people who call themselves vegan then eat butter, cheese, and ice cream in front of me. It drives me CRAZY! Please don't preach to me about it unless you are practicing it. Otherwise how can I respect what you are doing? You need to do something about this!!!!!!!
Think of all of the products on the market that have "vegan" on the label. Think of all of the restaurants that say that they serve "vegan" food. Please, defend the word "vegan" as best you can from this corruption.
You need to file lawsuits against all of these companies and businesses. When you have put all of them out of business and have made yourself rich from all of their court-ordered losses, please, come back here and tell us all about it.
You may also want to get in contact with The Vegan Society, the creators of the word "vegan", and let them know that they have been spreading the wrong definition since 1944. Tell them that if they do not put "100% animal-free" into their definition of a "vegan" you will sue them just like you did to Morningstar and Gardenburger.
http://www.vegansociety.com/phpws/index....
Good Luck =) For some it has sadly come to the fact that being considered ' vegan' is more important then actually practicing it. However there is a need to label oneself with the term 'vegan'. To be politically correct no one can be vegan as discussed before, however to then label yourself with the term vegetarian, when you avoid dairy and other animal products, it creates for a very confusing situation when you have told everyone you are vegetarian, yet are now turning down their offer of a very 'un-vegan' meal. People get so caught up in being vegetarian or vegan, that the ideology overrides their initial reasons for becoming so in the first place. To a true vegan it doesn't matter. They do what they do without fanfare or need for approval or need to preach to others. You find few if any on the V&V forum where these "vegans" are lusting to belong to something, anything that will justify their weird philsophy and behavior.
Normie: "I think animal life is important, but not as important as human life."
Vegan: "You freakin meat eating killer. That's because you aren't a vegan and don't know the truth." i'm a vegan, sometimes i slip
i ddon't really care, i'm doing my things my way
it's my life, and i wish all the people I know are at least vegetarians, if all the food in the world is vegan friendly, i'll be happier, what do you want from us, it's hard as hell
from now on I will eat whatever i want, and i'll call myself a meateater, but i'll still be a vegan in real life
by slip i mean, i ate processed food that contain traces of animal by product, i can't read every lable in the store, and i can't skip a meal if the only food avalible is a bag of noddles that contains flavor pack that's got chicken or beef extract in it, i don't want to eat it, but if i dont' i'll crash, and if i crash, who is going to save the animals?