---

Answers: They can, but can't be part of regular society. They would have to grow all of their own food and shun all forms of transportation. That would limit their lives to their farms and such. The lifestyle would have to be almost Amish without eating meat or using horses to pull wagons or till fields. Groups of people who wish to be true vegans would probably live together like a commune and you could do that in any nation that can support the growing of crops.

As allie says, you can follow the watered definition of veganism as was adopted by the vegan society (they lowered the bar so it would be easier for folks to meet the standards) that she's provided (""seeks to exclude — as far as is possible and practical —"" this being the part they added) or you can follow the original definition as coined by the founder here:

http://www.vegetus.org/honey/honey.htm

and reiterated here:

http://www.veganwolf.com/veganism.htm

Please note that this wolf has nothing to do with the oxymoron VeganWolf website :-)

Whichever definition you adhere to (as if we can't guess) your efforts to follow your beliefs is admirable.

cool--you have no idea what a vegan is.

kitty---"It's about not harming living creatures when it's so easy not to"----this is exactly what I mean. If it's easy vegans do it, if it's difficult they don't do it but still call themselves vegans. It is about convenience. The vegan society augmented the original definition to make it more convenient.

allie----The author does use vegan society as it's source ( I re-read that part)---the author also clearly states:

"The term "vegan" (pronounced VEE-gn) 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 author also backs my argument in saying directly about the vegan society's augmented definition:

"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."

http://www.vegsource.com/jo/essays/nameg...

It doesn't say when the second definition, the current one, was established though.

The definition was changed and the standards lowered. Regardless, it is a watered down version of the original.

"The vegetus site's definition comes from the Vegan Society's(check the source if you don't believe me), they just adapted it to omit the part about--seeks to exclude-- as far as possible or practical, for whatever reason."-------as you can see, this is quite inaccurate.

allie---the person who is a contributor to an accepted vegan website states the facts about the veganism definition without bias---she is unaware of our discussion and if you've read the entire article, obviously has no motive to deceive----so I guess the ball is in your court now, you have the option of showing me, through reference, that my reference is wrong or to accept my reference as the truth. Show me a reference that proves the definition was NOT changed. Show me a reference that shows my Donald Watson original definition is inaccurate.

---

Yes but it isn't easy.

---

Maybe if you grew your own food and stuff. As for the other aspects of a cruelty-free lifestyle, it can be very difficult, but if you look hard enough it's completely possible.

---

why not? the world is gearing towards to healthy lifestyle and people are turning vegan everyday. futhermore many restaurants are built to cater strictly to vegans. so yes its possible.

---

Is there such thing as a "true vegan"?

If you're referring to the wolf's ongoing debate over vegans being hypocrites, then maybe you'd be interested in the definition of veganism given by the Vegan Society-- the organization that was founded by the same person (Donald Watson) who actually coined the word.
Here is a link:
http://www.vegansociety.com/html/downloa...
PS you'll need adobe reader to view that page.

If you've read the definition that the Vegan Society gives, notice the key words:
"seeks to exclude — as far as is possible and practical —"

So in most people's opinions --that includes Donald Watson's
Someone can call themselves a vegan as long as they are doing what is within their power to live by the philosophy.

As far as actually becoming a vegan. It's not easy, but if that is your goal then you should try to achieve it. I am not a vegan, but I eventually would like to cut out everything that I can that has to do with animals.

The vegetus site's definition comes from the Vegan Society's(check the source if you don't believe me), they just adapted it to omit the part about--seeks to exclude-- as far as possible or practical, for whatever reason. And there is no proof that the vegetus site's definition is the "original definition" like Mr. Wolf suggests.
The Honey site is just a link to explain why vegans don't consume honey, not to provide completely whole and accurate definitions. I'm guessing that they just omitted that part because it's be stating the obvious to the vegetarians/vegans that read the information on the site.

Edit: So wait, now all you have to back up your "fool-proof" arguement is what looks more like someone's blog than anything else? And where are her sources? Wow, convincing...

---

I guess it depends on your definition of vegan, really. To me, a vegan is someone who doesn't use animals. So no eating meat, fish, eggs, dairy products or honey. No wearing wool, silk, leather, fur,... No using products tested on animals. That's the basic idea. No animals are looked up because of a vegan. It's the idea that animals don't belong to us, we have to respect them. Which also means if you're a true vegan, you're not going to voluntarily kill insects, for example. But we are still living creatures ourselves. So yeah, when we walk, we kill small insects. We make mistakes. We live. Being vegan isn't about being perfect. It's about trying. It's about not harming living creatures when it's so easy not to. And we can do, even in an industrialized nation!


Go vegan!

---

as much as is possible to conform and function in society to any degree... but the answer you are looking for as a black and white is no. that's like saying I'm not a vegetarian for swallowing a bug in the middle of the night while I am sleeping... of course I am.... same with the vegans... I do all I consciously can to conform to the life I lead... but I'm not going to drive myself crazy with worry about what I can't help... I do what I can and that is good enough for my conscience to know that I am making a difference by trying.

---

you'd have to live in the woods naked.

some clothes are good to wear, but what about the machines that make them, surely they are made from some sort of animals, in vehicles are made from animals, anything from houses, tents, etc are formed in some way from an animal. I could go on and on.

---

Unless they are living in an isolated farm or something of that sort, I do not think they can. I consider myself to be a vegan, but I eat soy and such frequently, which often kills small animals when being harvested (well, the soy doesn't kill them, the machinery does). In our society, I think when someone say they're vegan it is interpreted to mean that they do not intentionally harm any animal, not that they will never harm an animal in any way.

---

Yes . .. but you'd pretty much have to be isolated from civilization to do so. It is much easier in other cultures.

---

"True vegan" is redundant.

You are either vegan or you are not.

One definition of vegan says that it "encourages" the use of alternatives but doesn't say it requires or demands them.

The other definition includes the phrase "as far as is possible and practical".

Neither definition mentions purity or "100% animal-free", total or complete separation from animal derivatives.

Veganism is mindset coupled with dedication, not obsession coupled with elitism.

---

---

---