in 1944 some people got together and created the Vegan Society.

Formed from the word "vegetarian" the society was tired of all the misconceptions that came from that word. You would label yourself a vegetarian, but people would have to ask, "do you eat chicken?" "do you eat fish?" "do you eat milk?".

So they got together and formed a new label that would stand for complete abstinence from animal products, a label that would mean more then just a vegetarian. A vegan would be one that would not wear or consume any animal product, and going further, one that would strive for all animals, not supporting things like the circus, and animal testing.


The name and label has become wishy-washy again. When I claim to be vegan and someone asks me if i still eat honey. The name has become too gray. We need a new name. There are "dietary vegans" "honey vegans" "whatever vegans".

We need a new name that stands for what the Vegan Society wanted when they formed the name vegan years ago. Complete abstinence from animal products, as far as humanly possible.

How about 'Plantarian'?

Or 'I don't eat anything that has to do with animals so stop asking stupid questionsarian'?

I suggestion sanulon (from the Esperanto word sanulo, "healthy person").

Plantarian would be easier to understand for a lot of people, but it would give off a really weird and negative image. "I'm a plantarian. I only eat plants."

I suggestion sanulon (from the Esperanto word sanulo, "healthy person").

Plantarian would be easier to understand for a lot of people, but it would give off a really weird and negative image. "I'm a plantarian. I only eat plants."

Plus I can just imagine people saying 'You're a planetarium? What?!'

Maybe we should just have t-shirts listing everything we don't eat.

How about 'caring person'?

we need less labels. not more.

-george carlin

Plantarian could be misunderstood as an umbrella term for both vegetarians (and vegans) and fruitarians, though. Both eat mostly what comes from plants.

we need less labels. not more.

-george carlin

It is not so much needing a new label as it is the need to stay true to the one there already is. "Vegetarian" faces the same problem. Countless omnis 'explain' to me the 'degrees' of vegetarianism, from not eating red meat, to only eating chicken, to only eating fish, to just not eating meat off a bone (yes someone who claimed to be veg actually said that), what have you, and I'm like look up the word and see for yourself.

The problem is people use "vegetarian" as way of limiting meat intake, for whatever reasons, when it really only should be used for one who completely abstains from meat altogether. Don't get me wrong, the less meat eaten the better, not don't call yourself vegetarian just because some health issue keeps you away from red meat and you eat everything else.
Opps, I think that may have turned into a rant, Troub, sorry.

But in a nutshell, I mean to say that the problem (I think) seems to be people wanting to use the term but with concessions to it.

I was half-joking when I suggested plantarian. It's pretty much the same as herbivore, which is not the same as vegan.

Re: the labels thing - I'm not one of those 'anti-labels' people. Whilst I don't think it's a good idea to go around sticking everyone in categories, I don't fight not to belong in them, and am happy to admit that I'm pretty 'labellable' myself.

PS. 'fewer' labels, not 'less'. Sorry, I'm too much of a grammar nerd, I know.

PS. 'fewer' labels, not 'less'. Sorry, I'm too much of a grammar nerd, I know.

Oh, I didn't catch that. But don't dis yourself for being a grammar nerd!! What do you think a classical languages major like me is? lol

I am also an etymology nerd. Maybe a will look up vegetarian, vegan, herbivore, and fruitarian. hehe.

The name and label has become wishy-washy again. When I claim to be vegan and someone asks me if i still eat honey. The name has become too gray. We need a new name. There are "dietary vegans" "honey vegans" "whatever vegans".

sucks, but its true.... at the risk of feeling the wrath of the vegan police, i'd say i often describe myself as being 'vegan' when i'm really a 'strict vegetarian who is making a conncerted effort to buy any more leather shoes, or use animal tested (or petro-chemical based full of cr@p style) cosmetics, but isn't hugely into animal rights to the extent that many vegans are- and has regular store bought jeans despite knowing (since yesterday) how they're made.' *sigh*

i often call myself vegan, despite it not being accurate, because many people do tend to know what it means more than they would if i said i was a 'strict vegetarian'- though i think i'll make an effort to use the right term, and not to muddy the waters, from now on.

i think that its good that many omni people know the basics of what it means to be vegan, even if they still ask the honey and leather shoes questions, (it opens a dialogue, which is always a good thing) and i think that maybe introducing a whole new name into the mix would be confusing, especially when mainstream society is just starting to get the hang of the term 'vegan' (though perhaps not so well as they might be, had i not been muddying the waters).

i guess part of it is that even if you give something (like veganism) a name, not everybody is going to 100% understand what that name means, and some people who don't fulfil all of its criteria, may still affiliate themselves with it, without following all of its rules to 100%, all of the time. like people who say they're vegetarian but aren't always strict on their cheese not containing rennet, or those few mistaken pescatarians who think they're vegetarian, and who like me, (eeek!) are causing confusion in the eyes of others.

you could always rename yourself as a 'nonwishywashynohoneypropervegan'?

What do you call a militant vegan?

Lactose intolerant.

How about vegan mafia?

[QUOTE=troub]
The name and label has become wishy-washy again. When I claim to be vegan and someone asks me if i still eat honey. The name has become too gray. We need a new name. There are "dietary vegans" "honey vegans" "whatever vegans".
[QUOTE]

I know, a bazillion people (omnis) ask me if I eat fish when i say i am vegetarian, and half even presume to tell me we do.

PS. 'fewer' labels, not 'less'. Sorry, I'm too much of a grammar nerd, I know.

ps. I quoted someone else.

I know, I was just being pedantic.

And ReginaCeltarum - re: the fish thing, see the 'Stupid Things Omnis Say' thread re: a recent conversation I had.

it'll be hard to get everyone to agree on degrees and catagories of veganism.

and what purpose does it serve? to show another vegan that you are more vegan than them? omni's still think vegetarians eat fish, so it will just further confuse them.

I know, I was just being pedantic.

And ReginaCeltarum - re: the fish thing, see the 'Stupid Things Omnis Say' thread re: a recent conversation I had.

then write George and let him know. or at least don't start a sentence with "and".

I don't even like the term "lacto-ovo vegetarian."

Dairy and eggs are not plant-based foods. :notvegan:

then write George and let him know. or at least don't start a sentence with "and".

There are no rules set in stone re: starting sentences with 'and'.

Let's not turn this into a grammar argument - peace, maaaaan.

[PS. "Write to George"... :tired:]

purpelle... are you with the grammar police? post 15 you started a question with an 'and' :P

hahahahaha

Sorry, that should read "Ha ha ha ha ha."

HCJ: I never call people out on grammar on a message board. it's not school.

I also think it's impolite.

Vez: and my grammar sucks often, so unless you're going to follow me around the board you should cool it.

I offered a truce. Picking out 'fewer' was light-hearted teasing. You were the one who turned it into a war.

So... can we kiss and make up?

hey, i'm sorry, i misunderstood, i thought thats what you were doing in your post earlier... its cool. i probably got it mixed up cos i'm foriegn, and i have a weird sense of humour which probably doesn't help. i'll try and rein it in a little and be more polite.

I know this is off-topic but why does one say "fewer" and not "less"?

And as to "write George" or "write to George", isn't the former the American grammar and the latter British grammar? I've always heard Americans use the former, but never people who speak British English.

I like it when people correct grammar and spelling (unless the person is obviously a foreigner, a young kid or a dyslexic - then it's rude). It's nice to know when one is making grammar mistakes. Grammar is important.

As to "vegan". I think it's fine. It's up to the Vegan Police to be on their toes and to come to the rescue and gives fines to those who are misusing the term. Like those honey eating "vegans" for instance.

Fewer = countable numbers
Less = measurable quantities

Re: 'write' versus 'write to' - I am indeed British.