What does the word vegan mean to you? - Page 3 - VeggieBoards
Forum Jump: 
 49Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#61 Old 01-19-2017, 10:03 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 229
That's fine that you're putting me on "ignore." I stand by everything I said in this thread, and I will note that Leedsveg is the one who pursued this line of questioning with me. However, this entire thread has left a bad taste in my mouth.

Last edited by Dilettante; 01-19-2017 at 11:03 AM.
Dilettante is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#62 Old 01-19-2017, 12:32 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dilettante View Post

But as to animal agriculture, including dairy, it's much harder to convince the mass of the population of its cruelty than in the case of human slavery because the animals are unable to speak for themselves and describe their plight. That, along with people's magical thinking in believing in religion and god-given "rights" to eat animals, is ultimately the distinction which makes this a tougher sell than ending slavery.
Possibly what I'm about to say is getting a bit off topic for the main point of the thread, but possibly an important point more generally.

I think fundamentally speciesism is the problem. The IS slaves don't have much of a voice, and even most non-religious people would probably be more appalled by IS slaves by far than animal slavery, even if it were 10 human slaves vs. millions or billions of animal slaves to consider. It's harder to convince people because at a more fundamental level they don't care about other species, not really.
Jamie in Chile is offline  
#63 Old 01-19-2017, 12:54 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 489
I''m going to try another angle on this. And before I do I am not trying to criticize, I am also mostly vegan like you so we are in a very similar situation, I have actually eaten cheese in social situations within my first year of a mostly vegan lifestyle, for instance. I don't know if there is anything in the argument or not, just philosophical food for thought.

So imagine we lived in a society where it was commonplace, legal and accepted by society to steal things. The believe was that if you don't protect your goods they are up for grabs. Breaking into someone's unattended house and stealing something in this society would be considered cheeky at worst, a little like taking something left on a park bench for a fair while with no-one around.

Imagine a soceity of people, analogous to vegans, was developed to promote the idea that it shouldn't be an accepted right to steal unattended things or break into people's houses.

You might say that you still steal things occasionally in social situations, and you point out that you only steal things a couple of times a year, whch is negligible in statistical terms to the overall problem since most people steal things hundreds or thousands of times a year. Would that make it OK?

Of course, you can repeat the argument but instead of theft change it to rape and murder. There have to be some activities where we can agree that there should be an absolute abolition, rather than a reductionist attitude.

The question then becomes whether meat and dairy are, or are not, so immoral that they should be abolished completely, or whether they should be simply reduced. In my judgement meat, fish, and eggs I avoid 100% because I think they are blatantly immoral. Cheese, butter and milk I avoid 99% because I think they are clearly immoral, but not so immoral that it matters if it is 100%. Things with trace or small products derived from animals I probably avoid 50% of the time because I don't consider the products immoral or if they are they are at least no more immoral than using petrol or swatting at a fly or walking out of the room and leaving the light on or many other things I do. This is clearly a subjective judgement where I may be wrong or it may just be impossible to say for sure one way or another.

But to spin the argument around again, occassional cheese in social situations IS arguably rape and murder. OK, it's only 0.01 rapes and murders or whatever you can calculate but still....that could be why some vegans or animal activists could be annoyed with you.

You are obviously very analytical and logical, but for others, it is more about their emotions and heart. And, to them, starting with a love of animals and following through completely, is more important.
leedsveg likes this.
Jamie in Chile is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#64 Old 01-19-2017, 01:06 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 489
I am going to try yet another angle on this. It's possible that I'm going off the topic of what defines veganism here, but I think implictly the thread has become more about whether or not it's better to be vegan rather than mostly vegan, or whether it makes no difference.

Now Dilettante, you can say that you have reduced animal cruelty by, say, 99% or more in your lifestyle, but aren't too fussed about the last 1% or less. I personally could not care less whether someone eats cheese or not occassionally in social situations and I think you should be applauded for the first 99%.

However it may be that whether or not you eliminate that 1% may have a greater effect than 1% in terms of impact on others.

One argument is that by people seeing you eating cheese in social situations they think oh this mostly vegan thing doesn't seem too strict, I'll give it a try. In which case you causing that 1% of animal suffering could in a bizarre way be beneficial and an overall net gain of animal cruelty reduction, whereas if people say you quizzing the waiters about the provenance of the bread in a restaurant it could be a turn off and they are less likely to even give up meat in the first place.

There's a counter argument to that though that being a pure vegan sends a different sort of powerful message about the need for complete animal liberation which could result in more positive progress in the long term.

Again, it's hard to say for sure which is more true.
Jamie in Chile is offline  
#65 Old 01-19-2017, 02:09 PM
Beginner
 
Lipps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 134
There is an old science fiction story that I am reminded of when I read this thread. In it a group of religious fanatics create a powerful weapon to protect themselves from heretics.

The creator of the weapon designed it so that it would work automatically and could only be turned off by someone who was considered "pure" and proceeded to turn the weapon on.

The weapon exterminated the entire population of the planet. You see, the problem was that because a fanatic defined the parameters of "purity", no one was in fact, "pure". The weapon saw heretics everywhere and no one was "pure" enough to turn it off.

The symbol of the race ought to be a human being carrying an ax, for every human being has one concealed about him somewhere, and is always seeking the opportunity to grind it.
- Mark Twain, a Biography
Lipps is offline  
#66 Old 01-19-2017, 04:25 PM
Super Moderator
 
silva's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 8,955
I'm baffled how anyone here would argue that limiting the use of the word vegan to mean ethically against animal exploitation is tantamont to attainting 'purity'.
I also think it's disingenuous to compare accidental deaths of insects and small animals to the planned slavery and slaughter from use of animal products

The misuse of vegan seems to be mostly from the promotion of plant based diets for health. I have corrected so many people that say vegans don't eat anything that isn't healthy. Vegans only eat organic. Vegans stay away from grains.These comments come from people who have encouraged to eat WFPB, or have parents that do. Doctors use the word vegan without any sense of it's broader meaning, only focusing on the idea of mostly no dairy, even a little healthy fish, lean meats. Those people review books like the Happy Herbivore with hostile reviews that it isn't 'vegan' because she uses sugar and oils!

I'd rather everyone knew what vegan meant, regardless of their diet. I know many people who strongly believe people should eat plant based, that animals shouldn't be exploited, but with so many things pulling them in other directions they don't personalize those ideals. They're thinking how to get through school, pay bills, take care of family, fix the car, get from one day to the next.

The more education of what we put animals through, animals that are so very much like us, yet wonderfully different. So unconcerned with technology, but so much more advanced than us in other ways. Rather than use them as products and materials we could instead discover what we lack. That's the basis of veganism. That we all have rights to our own lives in the best possible way. No one has total freedom-that's a myth. some have more, some have less, some have health, others struggle. It's the idea that we all should try to limit what we take out of this earth to our own share--just enough, no more

People will choose products that say no tested on animals. People would choose foods that are made without animals if they're offered and presented as normal.
The thought of health conscious plant based folks presenting 'vegan' as nothing unhealthy, and nothing about concern towards use of animals does nothing to encourage thought about how very wrong, how very massive this animal holocaust is. It really turns people off, and turns them away, and keeps them from ever thinking maybe it doesn't need to be this way.

Woman were property of their husbands when given the right to vote. Luckily they didn't feel that was enough, so no, vegans are far from the "extremists" Dilattente seems to think
leedsveg and Thalassa like this.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good
silva is offline  
#67 Old 01-20-2017, 06:38 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 4,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by silva View Post
I'm baffled how anyone here would argue that limiting the use of the word vegan to mean ethically against animal exploitation is tantamont to attainting 'purity'....etc
Thank you for presenting the case for animals and veganism so forcefully and cogently, silva. As the saying goes Keep it simple, keep it true and you have done.

Lv
silva and Thalassa like this.

Last edited by leedsveg; 01-20-2017 at 09:20 AM.
leedsveg is offline  
#68 Old 01-25-2017, 04:31 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by leedsveg View Post
Hi Avril

If you want to go vegan, then by all means do it, but only in the way, and for the reasons, that seem right for you. Just ignore distractions on this forum and elsewhere. At the end of the day, going vegan is travelling in what may be seen as the right direction, rather than having reached a destination.

Whatever you decide, my good wishes to you.

Lv
Thanks. Definitely I wasn't saying "someone said something I don't like and so I will eat a chicken" or anything. I was just saying I don't want to feel what I was feeling when I read this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie in Chile View Post
Avril, unfortunately, if you want to avoid the odd heated discussion, you pretty much have to avoid the internet. These more passionate debates do, however, seem to be in my experience relatively rarer on these civilised vegan and vegetarian forums.

A decision to be a vegan should in my view, be about the strength of the ethical and environmental arguments rather than how vegans behave and I hope you do stick around and stick with an ethical diet.
Again, I was talking about the environment here and its impact on my decisions. I was saying reading here might make me less likely rather than more likely to continue on my vegan pathway. And so I had decided the solution was to stay away for a bit (maybe longer), not that the solution was to eat a chicken.

I do get annoyed when people say things akin to "the internet is mean" and shrug it off, though. Seriously: not all of it is. I've been on some great, well-moderated forums.
Avril is offline  
#69 Old 01-25-2017, 05:36 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 489
OK, nothing to add on that, but I was thinking more about something that came up earlier in the thread, about Donald Watson who was mentioned earlier who sort of founded veganism (or at least the use of the word) and it's worth noting that he originally was a vegetarian and became a vegan because of moral arguments against dairy, and so in the beginning he was looking at it from a dietary position only, and only later expanded the philiosophy to include lifestyle.

I took a similar approach. I initially wanted to ethically question my meat eating, and that is what led me to consider veganism.
Jamie in Chile is offline  
#70 Old 01-25-2017, 08:53 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 229
I was absent from this for a while, and I see that people are continuing to put words in my mouth:

Woman were property of their husbands when given the right to vote. Luckily they didn't feel that was enough, so no, vegans are far from the "extremists" Dilattente seems to think

I never said that vegans are "extremists." I don't think that I even used the word. Maybe I did and don't remember doing so. If I did, then it would have only been regarding certain vegans (and I could say the same thing for certain members of any ideological group; since in any movement there are always extremists).

I'm baffled how anyone here would argue that limiting the use of the word vegan to mean ethically against animal exploitation is tantamont to attainting 'purity'.

From the beginning of my involvement in this thread, I have said, and I continue to maintain, that the definition of the word "vegan" is not up to self-described vegans. It's an English usage question, and a matter of dictionary definitions. I truly don't have an ax to grind regarding how the word is defined. It's a matter of inquiry, not ideology. So, Silva, I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was arguing that "vegan" shouldn't be limited to mean ethically against animal exploitation, or that doing so is tantamount to purity. I have, in fact, said repeatedly in this thread that the animal rights movement should try doing some public outreach to try to maintain the original, ethical definition of the word "vegan."

Then there is Jamie: "You might say that you still steal things occasionally in social situations, and you point out that you only steal things a couple of times a year, whch is negligible in statistical terms to the overall problem since most people steal things hundreds or thousands of times a year. Would that make it OK?"

Regarding this argument, as I've said before, all humans in developed countries harm human and non-human animals, just by going about their daily lives. Vegans do, and so do non-vegans (which, last I saw on this forum from a couple of months ago, includes you, Jamie). For example, we drive cars, even for discretionary and recreational purposes, which kills non-human animals directly, and causes global warming, which will kill and cause suffering for each kilogram of carbon emitted. I suspect that the number of human and non-human lives lost per mile driven could be calculated. There are other things we all do that are avoidable and which cause human and non-human deaths and suffering.

Vegans are extremely conscious of the suffering caused by animal agriculture. That's a good thing, but criticizing near-vegans for not being absolute in avoiding harm to farmed animals, while disregarding all of the other areas in which harm is caused by humans and could be reduced, makes no logical sense in my opinion. It's ALL about harm reduction, because harm elimination is not feasible.

So, regarding your analogy to stealing, even vegans do something morally equivalent to "stealing" when they drive, right? That's where your analogy leads. Anyone who, other than through necessity, causes harm to human or non-human animals is doing something that is morally equivalent to "stealing." But that doesn't make any sense, which is why the stealing analogy doesn't make any sense in the first place.

Here is what does make sense. We all make compromises with the world we live in. We also all cause harm to human and non-human animals. Many of use try to reduce this harm, especially to farmed animals, who are probably the most abused animals on the planet. I see very little difference morally between vegans and near-vegans, both of whom are big-time harm reducers compared to most people on the planet.
Dilettante is offline  
#71 Old 01-25-2017, 09:06 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 229
I will also note that, as far as I can tell, I am in agreement with the consensus of this thread that, ideally, the word "vegan" is best reserved for ethical vegans. It seems that I do have a slight disagreement in that I believe that the definition of the word is a usage question, essentially a dictionary question, that depends on how the language evolves, though I believe that public outreach to try to preserve the original definition would be a good thing.

There is, however, a separate question that has evolved on this thread. It's not one that I originated. It's a question about the morality of people who are vegetarians and near-vegan. I believe that there is very little difference morally between this, and being actually vegan. Most commenters on this thread disagree with this proposition. I will also note that this thread is not in the vegan part of this forum, which is a forum for vegans and vegetarians. I will stick up for the morality of "vegetarian, mostly vegan," a category in which I fall, for the reasons I have described in various comments in this thread. I doubt that there is much more to be said by the various parties, as I believe that all of our respective views are well-articulated.
Dilettante is offline  
#72 Old 01-27-2017, 12:30 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 4,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie in Chile View Post
OK, nothing to add on that, but I was thinking more about something that came up earlier in the thread, about Donald Watson who was mentioned earlier who sort of founded veganism (or at least the use of the word) and it's worth noting that he originally was a vegetarian and became a vegan because of moral arguments against dairy, and so in the beginning he was looking at it from a dietary position only, and only later expanded the philiosophy to include lifestyle.

I took a similar approach. I initially wanted to ethically question my meat eating, and that is what led me to consider veganism.
Hi JiC.

Regarding Donald Watson, not sure when he went veggie but I understand that he joined the Vegetarian Society when he was in his early 20s so that would have been around 1931/32. By that time the Vegetarian Society would have been in existence over 80 years, and nearly 100 years, when the Vegan Society was founded in 1944. We know that Donald was a non-smoking, teetotal conscientious objector, so his strong principles were not only to do with what he ate. For all I know, he might have had a vegan lifestyle in the 1930s, soon after going veggie?

We have to remember that 80 years ago, both agricultural and poultry farms in the UK were not set up on the industrial scale that they are now. Also in both clothing and household goods, choice was extremely limited. By 1944 when 6 people met in a small room to found the Vegan Society, Britain had already been fighting a world war for over 5 years and food rationing was to carry on for another 10 years. It may therefore have been that initially the Vegan Society had to have a more limited scope, than what became feasible a few years later.

Lv
Thalassa likes this.
leedsveg is offline  
#73 Old 01-27-2017, 01:01 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 489
Thanks LV, with regards my personal position I said I came to the vegan lifestyle after considering diet first which is the main truth. However, it's also true that after visiting Toronto Zoo in 2001 I decided never to go the zoo again, and I never have, and I think that was probably, in retrospect, the first step on my way to a mostly vegan lifestyle.
leedsveg likes this.
Jamie in Chile is offline  
#74 Old 01-27-2017, 01:13 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dilettante View Post
I doubt that there is much more to be said by the various parties, as I believe that all of our respective views are well-articulated.
I think you are probably right in that we are winding down here. Do you agree with my views as articulated below:

1. Some activities (e.g. murder of an innocent person, and rape) are extremely immoral and one should, instead of looking to reduce these activities, never do them even once.

2. Other activities (such as emitting large amounts of carbon emmissions) are morally questionable, but it is not critical morally, nor practical, to eliminate them 100%, so we just seek to reduce as best we can.

3. Some other activities it may not be obvious whether they are a category 1 or category 2 activity, this may be subjective, and some people may define a certain activity (e.g. eating eggs from battery hens) as a category 1, whereas others may say it's a category 2.
Jamie in Chile is offline  
#75 Old 01-28-2017, 02:04 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 4,325
...

Last edited by leedsveg; 01-28-2017 at 02:06 PM.
leedsveg is offline  
#76 Old 01-28-2017, 02:06 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 4,325
...
leedsveg is offline  
#77 Old 01-28-2017, 02:54 PM
Super Moderator
 
silva's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 8,955
I didn't intend to single out Dilattante posts. I believe they just meant that the use of words is up to it's most popular use. For me to think vegans, or anyone respecting vegans, there needs to be a pushback from the use of 'diet' without the ethics.

These are opinions I incur regularly:

Vegans don't eat anything unhealthy or processed, namely sugar. popular vegan cookbooks gets trashed on amazon reviews for not being vegan because they include sugar, oil, and processed foods

vegans don't eat wheat. Often vegans don't eat grains

The difference between vegetarians and vegans is that vegans never eat meat where vegetarians can eat some fish or sometimes chicken. Vegans can eat eggs

If we are to accomodate the use of dietary vegan we risk not only excluding those who live according to the ethics of ahimsa, but also support restrictions of everyday foods that many enjoy. What do call someone who makes seitan, loves baking, and believes animals of all kinds deserve the best life they can naturally live? If we don't all voice our admonition to those who give an alternative meaning to 'vegan' we will truly lose our identity.
Some here seem to think that by diluting the meaning we can attract more people to become dietary vegans and somehow that makes a difference in helping animals. Vegetarian, plant based diets already have that meaning. Taking the meaning of vegan away to be used by groups that already exist, with designations of there own, does nothing but diminish the voice of those who activily fight the enslavement of non humans
leedsveg and Thalassa like this.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good
silva is offline  
#78 Old 02-01-2017, 01:42 AM
Bandit
 
Thalassa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lipps View Post
There is an old science fiction story that I am reminded of when I read this thread. In it a group of religious fanatics create a powerful weapon to protect themselves from heretics.

The creator of the weapon designed it so that it would work automatically and could only be turned off by someone who was considered "pure" and proceeded to turn the weapon on.

The weapon exterminated the entire population of the planet. You see, the problem was that because a fanatic defined the parameters of "purity", no one was in fact, "pure". The weapon saw heretics everywhere and no one was "pure" enough to turn it off.
I find it disturbing and unhealthy when vegetarians, and especially other vegans, refer to vegans as "fanatics" just because they have a different ethical outlook than yourself, or because they refuse to compromise their ethics for social pressure, or simply because they dare to define the word vegan as something beyond a diet.

Some vegans will not own pets or have companion animals, others will not eat in restaurants that serve meat or shop at companies that sell leather, wool, fur or silk. That doesn't make them "fanatics" that makes them different from you. When they start bombing civilian neighborhoods in the name of The Great Bunny then you're allowed to call them fanatics, but not until.

I'm really sick and tired of it, frankly. This isn't even about veganism, it's about post-modern society putting a ridiculous amount of counterproductive emphasis on weakening other people's rights to have ethics and morals that aren't some soup of lukewarm meh.
leedsveg and greenmamato3 like this.

"Thinkers may prepare revolutions, but bandits must carry them out"~
Ingrid Newkirk
Thalassa is offline  
#79 Old 02-01-2017, 02:00 AM
Bandit
 
Thalassa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avril View Post
Thanks. Definitely I wasn't saying "someone said something I don't like and so I will eat a chicken" or anything. I was just saying I don't want to feel what I was feeling when I read this.

Again, I was talking about the environment here and its impact on my decisions. I was saying reading here might make me less likely rather than more likely to continue on my vegan pathway. And so I had decided the solution was to stay away for a bit (maybe longer), not that the solution was to eat a chicken.

I do get annoyed when people say things akin to "the internet is mean" and shrug it off, though. Seriously: not all of it is. I've been on some great, well-moderated forums.

I really don't understand this psychology, that you are less likely to become a vegan because of certain other vegans. Your morals are about you, not other people. Becoming vegan isn't like joining the Church of Latter Day Saints, there aren't membership dues, no one will come check up on you if you miss a couple of weekly services, and you won't experience formal banishment for eating cheese pizza then deciding you want to re-commit yourself to being vegan. It strikes me as a pathetic excuse, or a passive aggressive insult. Just admit that you don't want to be vegan.

I think it's people who hold other people responsible for their own decision not to be vegan who are "religious" minded, not the other way around.

Still there are vegans who accommodate people like you. They're usually "people persons" or secular humanists who don't understand what "speciesism" means, but they genuinely are vegan and have strong ethics about wanting to end factory farming, at least, and will martyr themselves to saying it's their fault for being rude if other people don't go vegan.

It takes all kinds. There isn't one type of approach that works on everyone.
leedsveg likes this.

"Thinkers may prepare revolutions, but bandits must carry them out"~
Ingrid Newkirk
Thalassa is offline  
#80 Old 02-01-2017, 07:38 AM
Beginner
 
Lipps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thalassa View Post
I find it disturbing and unhealthy when vegetarians, and especially other vegans, refer to vegans as "fanatics" just because they have a different ethical outlook than yourself, or because they refuse to compromise their ethics for social pressure, or simply because they dare to define the word vegan as something beyond a diet.


Some vegans will not own pets or have companion animals, others will not eat in restaurants that serve meat or shop at companies that sell leather, wool, fur or silk. That doesn't make them "fanatics" that makes them different from you. When they start bombing civilian neighborhoods in the name of The Great Bunny then you're allowed to call them fanatics, but not until.



I'm really sick and tired of it, frankly. This isn't even about veganism, it's about post-modern society putting a ridiculous amount of counterproductive emphasis on weakening other people's rights to have ethics and morals that aren't some soup of lukewarm meh.

Your fanaticism lies not in the moral code you apply to yourself, but rather your attempt to apply that same code to others. You, and the cult of vegan, can't stand it if someone defines 'vegan' differently than you. What's worse, even many "ethical vegans" don't seem measure up to your particular brand of purity. Here are a few of your own words from this very thread:



Thalassa:
"mostly plant based people don't bother me, until they start complaining about ethical vegans which is actually very bad because they're just perpetuating ignorance and kissing omni ass, which angers me."


Thalassa:
"I'm not on board with humanism, and plenty of "vegans" are actually speciesists, who are ignorant of environmental science or can't see the big picture, and I'm not going to apologize for arguing with those people who obviously don't get it. "


Thalassa:
"the bashing of ethical vegans or prim little social normative corrections from the plant based, or else wishy washy, apologetic ethical vegans creates more bias among meat eaters, then they actually have the nerve to ask why so many vegans become misanthropic or aggressive. "


Thalassa:
"I don't really care if you disagree. You aren't vegan, I am, "


Thalassa:
"you don't even see what I see, because it's impossible,"






Looks like the words of a fanatic if I ever did see them -especially that last little chestnut.






The symbol of the race ought to be a human being carrying an ax, for every human being has one concealed about him somewhere, and is always seeking the opportunity to grind it.
- Mark Twain, a Biography

Last edited by Lipps; 02-01-2017 at 07:42 AM.
Lipps is offline  
#81 Old 02-01-2017, 11:53 AM
Bandit
 
Thalassa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lipps View Post
Your fanaticism lies not in the moral code you apply to yourself, but rather your attempt to apply that same code to others. You, and the cult of vegan, can't stand it if someone defines 'vegan' differently than you. What's worse, even many "ethical vegans" don't seem measure up to your particular brand of purity. Here are a few of your own words from this very thread:



Thalassa:
"mostly plant based people don't bother me, until they start complaining about ethical vegans which is actually very bad because they're just perpetuating ignorance and kissing omni ass, which angers me."


Thalassa:
"I'm not on board with humanism, and plenty of "vegans" are actually speciesists, who are ignorant of environmental science or can't see the big picture, and I'm not going to apologize for arguing with those people who obviously don't get it. "


Thalassa:
"the bashing of ethical vegans or prim little social normative corrections from the plant based, or else wishy washy, apologetic ethical vegans creates more bias among meat eaters, then they actually have the nerve to ask why so many vegans become misanthropic or aggressive. "


Thalassa:
"I don't really care if you disagree. You aren't vegan, I am, "


Thalassa:
"you don't even see what I see, because it's impossible,"






Looks like the words of a fanatic if I ever did see them -especially that last little chestnut.





As I already said in my comments to Avril, there's no vegan "cult"...we aren't the LDS church. No one is going to check up on you, demand a tenth of your wages, or excommunicate you if you struggle in your early days of transition, or even if you struggle and come back.

The "why" and the "how" always concerned me more than the "who else" in my decision to be vegan. Once I had evidence of scientific reasons and resources to help me on the how, I didn't really care if some vegans think it's wrong to have a cat, but I am part of cat rescue. If the existence of Freelee, or other vegans I find obnoxious or don't agree with, affected my decision to be vegan, I would have to be honest with myself, that I wasn't vegan for ethical reasons but bandwagon mentality.

Yes, vegans who put down other vegans in favor of omnis, those people make me angry or annoyed, because it's like they compromise their values to fit in. I never said they were not vegan, because they are, but that they kind of disgust me, because they just enable self-aggrandizing non vegans like yourself and Dilletante, essentially telling them it's OK if they only harm animals a little bit. Like...no. That's not veganism it's vegetarianism.

You can't be a vegetarian if you eat steak. You are not a vegan if you "eat cheese socially" or eat a plant based diet but buy fur coats for fashion, what don't you get? It's not "fanaticism" it's just that words have meaning.

"Thinkers may prepare revolutions, but bandits must carry them out"~
Ingrid Newkirk
Thalassa is offline  
#82 Old 02-01-2017, 12:39 PM
Bandit
 
Thalassa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie in Chile View Post
I am going to try yet another angle on this. It's possible that I'm going off the topic of what defines veganism here, but I think implictly the thread has become more about whether or not it's better to be vegan rather than mostly vegan, or whether it makes no difference.

Now Dilettante, you can say that you have reduced animal cruelty by, say, 99% or more in your lifestyle, but aren't too fussed about the last 1% or less. I personally could not care less whether someone eats cheese or not occassionally in social situations and I think you should be applauded for the first 99%.

However it may be that whether or not you eliminate that 1% may have a greater effect than 1% in terms of impact on others.

One argument is that by people seeing you eating cheese in social situations they think oh this mostly vegan thing doesn't seem too strict, I'll give it a try. In which case you causing that 1% of animal suffering could in a bizarre way be beneficial and an overall net gain of animal cruelty reduction, whereas if people say you quizzing the waiters about the provenance of the bread in a restaurant it could be a turn off and they are less likely to even give up meat in the first place.

There's a counter argument to that though that being a pure vegan sends a different sort of powerful message about the need for complete animal liberation which could result in more positive progress in the long term.

Again, it's hard to say for sure which is more true.
I like your examples, especially the earlier one about stealing. Just because something is culturally normalized doesn't make it ethical. "I only keep one slave and treat him nicely." "I only hit my wife when she's been drinking and argues with me." "I only molest children once and a while, and only over the age of ten, and then I send them home, I don't bury their bodies or anything."

There are societies where slavery, child molestation and spousal abuse are still normalized. Just because our culture has normalized animal exploitation, and animal cruelty, doesn't make it OK - especially since even a humanist can argue for the environmental impact and global starvation impact on humans. Veganism is about more than animal rights, and while vegetarians do less harm than meat eaters, cows cheese is still in the top five environmentally damaging foods.

I don't compromise my values to play nicely with strangers, because I see the real concrete dangers of enabling animal agriculture in its present state. If I had a video channel or other platform, I would emphasize why and how over whom, and my "hand holding" would be giving recipes, sending others to ethical restaurants and companies, and other practical tips. I wouldn't engage in the ego stroking to soothe others that it's OK that they're still eating fish or cheese. Obviously I don't attack people over it in daily life, but I think there's a responsibility in defining veganism and doing vegan outreach that should be stricter than how we treat people in face to face interactions with friends and family because above all this should be about truth and justice, not social networking.

That's my opinion and I don't compromise it for people like Dilettante, because I honestly start to wonder what their agenda is in protesting vegans or veganism so much. If you don't want to be vegan and just be vegetarian, why not just shut up and go away? It's not "logical" it's actually manipulative.

I also am a fan of laws being enacted too, because many people are more likely to respond to social responsibility that has real immediate consequences versus "joining the club" (though obviously joining the club works on some kinds of people and I won't try to stop vegans who outreach with the join the club mentality even if I don't personally resonate with it).

"Thinkers may prepare revolutions, but bandits must carry them out"~
Ingrid Newkirk
Thalassa is offline  
#83 Old 02-01-2017, 01:48 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 74
Unhappy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie in Chile View Post

You are obviously very analytical and logical, but for others, it is more about their emotions and heart. And, to them, starting with a love of animals and following through completely, is more important.

Yes! This thread makes me so sad because animal suffering and pain can't be analyzed or put into statistics. Good grief.

Vegan: because I'm being the change I wish to see in the world
greenmamato3 is offline  
#84 Old 02-01-2017, 01:51 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 4,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thalassa View Post
If the existence of Freelee, or other vegans I find obnoxious or don't agree with, affected my decision to be vegan, I would have to be honest with myself, that I wasn't vegan for ethical reasons but bandwagon mentality.
Quote:
You can't be a vegetarian if you eat steak. You are not a vegan if you "eat cheese socially" or eat a plant based diet but buy fur coats for fashion, what don't you get? It's not "fanaticism" it's just that words have meaning.
Good stuff, especially "words have meaning".

Lv
Thalassa likes this.
leedsveg is offline  
#85 Old 02-01-2017, 02:45 PM
Bandit
 
Thalassa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenmamato3 View Post
Yes! This thread makes me so sad because animal suffering and pain can't be analyzed or put into statistics. Good grief.

What he is doing is called rationalizing. It doesn't necessarily mean his logic is good, because good logic actually tells us cheese still results in animal suffering and global warming, and actually in extreme suffering due to veal and again, top five environmentally dangerous foods, so I actually don't agree that animal suffering "can't" be quantified, it's just that Dillitantes logic is bad and self serving, which is what "rationalization" is.

It's when you feel guilty about something, or maybe don't even feel guilty, but other people tell you it's wrong, so you start arguing for why it's OK for you to do the thing. That's what I meant earlier by him having an "agenda" because if Dillitante was really cool with being vegetarian and letting others be vegans, he wouldn't be making post after post calling people fanatics or trying to re-define veganism for vegans. White nationalists, sexists, etc do this thing too, I'm very familiar with the style of arguing from elsewhere on the Internet.

Most people like him resort eventually to "well, this is why more people aren't vegan because you guys are too strict" but actually more people aren't vegan because they're either more concerned with social norms than ethics or even facts, or they are ignorant of the facts of why it's rational to go vegan and how to do it.

There's always going to be that ethical component though so to attempt to erase it is really begging the question, and someone else already explained this succinctly pages ago.
leedsveg likes this.

"Thinkers may prepare revolutions, but bandits must carry them out"~
Ingrid Newkirk
Thalassa is offline  
#86 Old 02-01-2017, 08:33 PM
Beginner
 
Vrindavan1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 155
Vegan means living using and eating everything from plant source, including onion and garlic.

Strict vegetarians do not eat onion garlic and eggs.
Vegetarians may utilize or engage animals in some ways or tasks.

ramsss.com
Vrindavan1 is offline  
#87 Old 02-02-2017, 01:50 AM
Veggie Regular
 
jessandreia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: ON, Canada
Posts: 1,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vrindavan1 View Post
Vegan means living using and eating everything from plant source, including onion and garlic.

Strict vegetarians do not eat onion garlic and eggs.
Vegetarians may utilize or engage animals in some ways or tasks.
Uh?

"We have enslaved the rest of the animal creation, and have treated our distant cousins in fur and feathers so badly that beyond doubt, if they were able to formulate a religion, they would depict the Devil in human form." - William Ralphe Inge

jessandreia is offline  
#88 Old 02-02-2017, 05:27 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vrindavan1 View Post
Vegan means living using and eating everything from plant source, including onion and garlic.

Strict vegetarians do not eat onion garlic and eggs.
Vegetarians may utilize or engage animals in some ways or tasks.
This is inaccurate and I'm trying to figure out where you got this info from.

Vegan: because I'm being the change I wish to see in the world
greenmamato3 is offline  
#89 Old 02-02-2017, 05:31 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 489
Dilettante's analytical and logical arguments are actually very valuable and seem to be correct. And you absolutely can have statistics about pain and suffering, of course you can.

However you can also make a good justification for looking at this from an emotional, abolitionist, non-statistical point of view. Starting with the heart and not thinking about it in any numerical way.

Some of you are going to prefer a logical approach, while others are going to prefer a more emotional one. It's important to understand that the type of aproach you use says more about who you are and how your personality type is and how your brain is wired, than any absolute truth.

Being entirely dismissive of the opposing way of looking at the world is perhaps not wise. I don't see that one way is fundamentally superior to the other. You may not wish to engage in detail with the opposing way of looking at it, but at least be aware it may also be a valid approach. At least, it is not going to be possible to prove otherwise.
Jamie in Chile is offline  
#90 Old 02-02-2017, 06:16 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie in Chile View Post
Dilettante's analytical and logical arguments are actually very valuable and seem to be correct. And you absolutely can have statistics about pain and suffering, of course you can.

However you can also make a good justification for looking at this from an emotional, abolitionist, non-statistical point of view. Starting with the heart and not thinking about it in any numerical way.

Some of you are going to prefer a logical approach, while others are going to prefer a more emotional one. It's important to understand that the type of aproach you use says more about who you are and how your personality type is and how your brain is wired, than any absolute truth.

Being entirely dismissive of the opposing way of looking at the world is perhaps not wise. I don't see that one way is fundamentally superior to the other. You may not wish to engage in detail with the opposing way of looking at it, but at least be aware it may also be a valid approach. At least, it is not going to be possible to prove otherwise.
I'm not completely discounting everything Dilettante said, but how can you quantify someone else's pain? Statistics, numbers - they mean nothing when talking about someone's suffering.

Vegan: because I'm being the change I wish to see in the world
greenmamato3 is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off