Donald Watson created the term vegan to mean dietary restrictions as a "non dairy vegetarian" so again I don't see the problem with it being used in the dietary sense to succinct.
with diet; the realization that along with meat, the dairy and egg industry was also cruel. Thus blossomed the word "Vegan". After which, he realized there was much more too the cruelty of animals than simply what was being eaten. It ended
with changing his lifestyle, and this was the definition he promoted.
Of course, what you eat is the obvious place for many people to start, but we're talking about a man who gave the word its very meaning, and this man wanted peace for everything that lived, not just what was on his plate.
The problem with saying dietary vegan for convenience is that there is a more accurate word for it: plant-based. I think, possibly the root of this dilemma is that you are using vegan as an adjective to describe the way someone eats. Which is fine I describe things as vegan all the time. But in this context, I use it as a noun. I'm speaking of the idea, the philosophy, the person. Eating a vegan soup doesn't make a vegan person, essentially.
Yes there definitely should be basic perameters for the word vegan (for example vegans don't eat fish or drink cows milk) but being a dietary vegan covers huge ground in terms of preventing animal cruelty and promoting environmental sustainability...I'm a results minded person, rather than a philosophical purist. I would see one of the main problems with a dietary vegan is if they still went out and bought leather. But vegans can still eat honey or sugar or drink alcohol (I personally think honey isn't ok, for environmental reasons).
Definite basic perimeters of vegan doesn't stop with food. Let's take this into a hypothetical situation for a moment. All humans have no desire to eat animal products. In fact, let's say for a moment that eating meat is about as easy as eating genuine leather and any liquids taste like sulfur smells. So we, as a species, don't do it anymore essentially making everyone in the world a plant-based, dietary vegan; a genuine herbivore. In that aspect we have taken away the need to use vegan as an adjective in relation to foods. There would no label on foods, basically. How many people, would still be vegans?
How many animal products are used while the meat is left unused? For example, animal products in "fashion": fur, pelts, leather, wool, silk, feathers. There is still mandatory animal testing. Animals still get exploited for entertainment, dog fighting, elephants, zoos, aquariums, hunting. Not to mention the small industries that might still breed specifically
for the byproducts we currently get from the food industry because there are so many 'convenient' uses for bones, fur, hides, fat, and even the meat--regardless of if humans eat meat, plenty of other animals still would.
I never said that omitting (or even reducing) animal products didn't help. In fact, I've consistently said the opposite, but those results only take you so far. And this still doesn't even cover the fact that, in my original post, the people I initially mentioned are not even 'dietary vegans'
. They simply eat like a vegan person would, mostly... or sometimes. Hence, yes eating a cheeseburger does not make you vegan. Plant-based, possibly.
the truth is the vast majority of vegans are probably about 99% vegan, because no one is perfect, whether it's through accidentally buying a grooming product or eating sugar processed with bone fragments
Of course it's not possible to be perfect and I'm not advocating perfect. I know fair and well that it's not obtainable, but all of the aforementioned non-food items aren't essential to survive. We can live without animal fashion, animal testing, and the exploitation of animal entertainment. It's not a question of accidentally buying a product. It's the knowledge that there is animal products in an item, and still buying it. Which is the same exact example I've used from the very beginning of my first post to this one now.
That is the difference between someone caring (vegan) and someone who doesn't care (not vegan) which is NOT the same as someone who is careless (a vegan making a mistake or many mistakes).
I don't see the problem with calling someone a "dietary vegan" and no I don't think they're a hypocrite.
What is the difference between beef and leather? There isn't one they are both dead cow. What is the difference between cheese and paint with casein? They have both caused a demand for milk which has harmful consequences. But what is the difference between a foundation that is vegan and cruelty free and a foundation that has animal products and tests on animals? It goes without explanation.
A person is incorrect to say they're a pacifist while going hunting.
A person is incorrect to say they're environmentalists while littering on the street.
A person is incorrect to say they're celibate when they're still having intercourse.
A person is incorrect to say they're a vegan when they still contribute to the cruelty of animals.
A person who is incorrect but does not know it is ignorant. They simply do not have the knowledge, and should be educated. That message is in all of my posts no matter how I re-word it, it hasn't changed at any point. A person who says they are 'whatever-noun-best-fits-here' but already
knows they are incorrect and does nothing to change their actions is
a hypocrite. They are walking contradictions and we cannot rewrite that definition for convenience. What they say and what they do are not compatible. Hypocrisy and Hypocrite are both nouns, not adjectives. I used it because it fit in my original post.
I honestly think people with your mindset push people away from veganism, or plant based diets. I think it would be counterproductive and cruel to be technical about it, again as I said in my other post, pushing people away from the effort they are making.
It's counterproductive on both ends depending from what prospective you approach the subject. It's all in a matter of approach and the response depends on a their personality. There are people out there who are rude and aggressive and who do create negative controversy causing people want to avoid veganism and all that has to do with it. There are also people who view the aggression and blunt rudeness as passion, and those people sometimes respond well to that kind of thing.
But not everything has to be an aggressive confrontation, particularly since this is a rather delicate subject to many people.
Educate not berate. If someone lacks knowledge, I'm willing to share what I do know, and if I don't know something I encourage people to seek out the knowledge for themselves if they like. I've never been rude or ugly. I've never called someone nasty words or used foul language. And I've never met a person who has been offended by being reminded of something. I've been humbled myself when starting out vegan and because of it it has helped me maintain a clear view of how I want and need to live. While sometimes the truth hurts, truth is essential to be honest.
To my omnivore friends who have no wishes to become vegan then I have no need to push and prod at them. I let them be. I can not make anyone feel or do anything, however; when they come to me and proudly say that they cooked a vegan soup, or found out their favourite shampoo is cruelty free, of course I praise them. I never say "that's a start, now do better". BUT if a person came to me and said "I'm going to be a vegan now" only to turn around and ask me "Wanna go to McDonalds", isn't it better to speak up? If people are never educated, reminded, humbled, pushed... where would we be?