Why was the definition of veganism changed from "excluding all forms of animal exploitation" to "trying t!
Why was the definition of veganism changed from "excluding all forms of animal exploitation" to "trying to
exclude all forms of animal exploitation"?
This question sponsored by Elizabeth J. Additional Details
2 days ago
trace---yeah I couldn't log in for a bit
I'm not riling people up, I posted the question in repsonse to a hateful question regarding me by Elizabeth J.
2 days ago
umm...that would be "response" :-)
2 days ago
ashley-I sould? Great!!
2 days ago
trace---I only saw a question from 14 hours ago about "emos" was that it?
2 days ago
allie--
http://www.vegetus.org/honey/honey.htm...
2 days ago
anti---ummm, what?
2 days ago
allie---that's my whole point. The vegan society CHANGED the definition to make it easier for people to meet the standards. That's why you people adhere to THAT definition because it enables you. The vegan society realized that it's very difficult to be a true vegan as the founder dictated, so as opposed to being a philosophy with little or no members, they changed the definition so more people can make the cut.
What's strange here in V & V is that those who follow this changed definition are the ones who mostly go around telling people that they are or aren't some designation of vegetarian or vegan. They can judge but cannot be judged. That is elitism. It's also hypocrisy. I abhor hypocrisy and it is the sole reason I post unpopular facts and it's the sole reason it's received so unfavorably.
When a philosophy is changed to make it's standards more feasible, it's not the same thing. It's just a watered down copy of the original.
Your cause IS admirable nonetheless.
Answers: 2 days ago
trace---yeah I couldn't log in for a bit
I'm not riling people up, I posted the question in repsonse to a hateful question regarding me by Elizabeth J.2 days ago
umm...that would be "response" :-)2 days ago
ashley-I sould? Great!!2 days ago
trace---I only saw a question from 14 hours ago about "emos" was that it?2 days ago
allie--
http://www.vegetus.org/honey/honey.htm...2 days ago
anti---ummm, what?2 days ago
allie---that's my whole point. The vegan society CHANGED the definition to make it easier for people to meet the standards. That's why you people adhere to THAT definition because it enables you. The vegan society realized that it's very difficult to be a true vegan as the founder dictated, so as opposed to being a philosophy with little or no members, they changed the definition so more people can make the cut.
What's strange here in V & V is that those who follow this changed definition are the ones who mostly go around telling people that they are or aren't some designation of vegetarian or vegan. They can judge but cannot be judged. That is elitism. It's also hypocrisy. I abhor hypocrisy and it is the sole reason I post unpopular facts and it's the sole reason it's received so unfavorably.
When a philosophy is changed to make it's standards more feasible, it's not the same thing. It's just a watered down copy of the original.
Your cause IS admirable nonetheless. You gave this definition:
"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."
Where did you find that?
You said that was the definition according to the founder.
So provide a link.
Just curious...
Edit:
Thank you.
It's funny that you only did enough research to support your opinion. If you'd dug any deeper into that link you gave, you'd see that your definition is only partly right, because it omits the most important part.
Donald Watson is recognized as the founder of the Vegan Society (which I'm sure you know by now).
If I wanted HIS definition of veganism, the first place I'd look for it would be on the website of the organization that HE founded.
But you obviously don't want the Society's definition, because it doesn't prove your "point".
Here is the Vegan society's definition:
"In this Memorandum the word "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."
-->> http://www.vegansociety.com/html/downloa...
If ANY definition of veganism is correct, it is this one.
Not the one that you gave which seems like an adapted version of the actual definition that I provided.
Edit:
I am not a vegan...
You got all of the information you just posted from the link that you provided earlier?
I don't think so...
The link that you gave gives that definition and nothing else about the "true" meaning of "veganism".
Where on the Vegan Society website(or any other website) did it say anything about them changing the original definition?
If there is a link, I'd be interested in seeing it.
I honestly don't get what your point is. Why do you feel the need to prove that vegans are hypocrites? Unless you have something against them.
Look up the user "Nice Guy" in Yahoo Answers. And you wonder why people think you are a troll?? Source(s):
My 360 :]
http://360.yahoo.com/profile-vhtvuj05cqp... it wasn't changed..
Possibly it was CLARIFIED after people like you started trying to claim veganism is stupid because you can never REALLY be vegan..
EDIT: tried to make this edit earlier, but had internet problems..
Me-troll.. So you knew that you'd not get any favorable responses, so you had to use your newest profile "meat lover" To answer your question in a way that YOU would answer it??
Oh.. and good one, using your ashley profile to be "mean" to you so we wouldn't realize that it is you as well...
SIgh.. You are trying to rille up everyone today!! I think that when it was first written (1960's) that it was a little easy to obtain that level then it is today. There wasn't as many processed foods, cars weren't quite as luxerious and a lot of our everyday items we take for granted weren't available then. It is almost impossible to live up to the defination as it was origianlly slated. At least in our culture, other asain cultures seem to be able to adapt to it better then Amercians.
Did anybody else have hard time getting on YA a little bit ago?
edit- Hey you know you love me- look up the fake traceilicious profile. She asked a ? earlier today. It proves she is a big fraud. I would look quick because I called "her" out on it and I am sure it will disappear! Thought you might find it funny!
edit 2- yeah that is it. just look at her profile and some of the q & a. I think you will get a kick out of it. you can email me with your thoughts if you like. Are you trying to acheive the most immoral person on the planet award? Because you win. You sould get your plaque in the post tomorrow. Buggar whatever changing was done, you did it. Allie hit it right on the nail :)