| Topic Review (Newest First) |
| 11-01-2009 01:08 AM | |
| dormouse |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas
 'Flesh' is probably the wrong term. I see something strange in defining the vegetarian diet by appealing to rare scenarios and practices (such as producing eggs without killing the male chicks) that have nothing to do with the consumer practices of most vegetarians. Technically, we could avoid the objections by specifying the definition and saying that vegetarianism is the "avoidance of such edibles as are a) made from an animal X and b) customarily require the killing of X", but a question would naturally follow: why? Talking about killing seems to hint at some kind of an ethical philosophy, but no ethical philosophy is inherent to vegetarianism. People can have a vegetarian diet solely for health or some other reason that has nothing to do with what they think about the role of killing in producing what they eat. That's definitely true. I suppose this is why the term "vegetarian" has been tossed about by people with such wildly different diets to mean totally different things. And why some sort of labeling system for American products would not solve our problems. Perhaps we should just say that vegetarians don't eat anything that is a product of slaughter. Or perhaps any body part of an animal? Eggs and dairy are certainly animal products, but I wouldn't call them animal body parts. This seems like a pointless game. |
| 11-01-2009 12:28 AM | |
| Sevenseas |
'Flesh' is probably the wrong term. I see something strange in defining the vegetarian diet by appealing to rare scenarios and practices (such as producing eggs without killing the male chicks) that have nothing to do with the consumer practices of most vegetarians. Technically, we could avoid the objections by specifying the definition and saying that vegetarianism is the "avoidance of such edibles as are a) made from an animal X and b) customarily require the killing of X", but a question would naturally follow: why? Talking about killing seems to hint at some kind of an ethical philosophy, but no ethical philosophy is inherent to vegetarianism. People can have a vegetarian diet solely for health or some other reason that has nothing to do with what they think about the role of killing in producing what they eat. |
| 10-31-2009 11:43 PM | |
| dormouse |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas
Attempts to define 'vegetarian' in terms of whether killing is needed to produce something are a major FAIL. On the one hand, you could cut a piece of an animal's body without killing that animal, and eat that. Would that be vegetarian? On the other hand, killing is quite strongly attached to dairy and egg production. 'Vegetarian' means 'not eating flesh (or flesh by-products)', and that's all it means. I hadn't ever thought of the idea of cutting off a chunk of an animal, but not killing it. I suppose it can be said that the idea of "necessarily killing" an animal is a useful guideline, but not an absolute rule. Though, saying "flesh" to me does not include bones or other animal tissue (like monkey brain, for example), which vegetarians also do not eat. Perhaps my idea of what "flesh" entails is skewed, but I think of muscles and skin. |
| 10-31-2009 09:17 PM | |
| jeneticallymodified |
Quote:
Originally Posted by WonderRandy
VeggieBoards has never been, nor will it ever be, an exclusively vegan site. The definition of "vegetarian" in use here has always included eggs and dairy. If you eat a plant based diet that includes eggs and dairy, but no animal flesh, you are considered to be a vegetarian. Rennet is not vegetarian. Rennet-free cheese is. Eggs are vegetarian, whether they come from battery cages or free-range, organic, cruelty-free chickens. Fish is not vegetarian. Chicken is not vegetarian. Cochineal is not vegetarian. Gelatin is not vegetarian. Ethics, animal rights, etc. do not need to be motivating factors for your vegetarian diet. We don't care why a person is a vegetarian. All vegetarians are welcome here.  we use the western slant on vegetarianism here. i know that in india the umbrella term 'vegetarian' generally excludes eggs, but for most of the rest of the world (including this little patch of cyber-space), as far as i know, it includes eggs.
|
| 10-31-2009 04:53 PM | |
| Kiz |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Werewolf Girl
He would only be correct if we were still living in the 1800's. I can't walk around speaking in Old English and then getting mad when people don't understand me because that's the way the language originally was. Well, no. It is still a meaning of the word, just not a common one. As I said before, words can have a few different meanings, layers and flavours. I agree with the second point, though, you can't pick an obscure and outdated, even if it is still correct, definition of a word and expect people to understand what you mean, especially when there is another, vastly more popular and still correct definition that the vast majority of people use. |
| 10-31-2009 04:50 PM | |
| Paradox |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiz
The Vegetarian Union is s different group from the Vegetarian Society of the UK in the 1800s. I'm not talking about colloquial use, or what's more common, I'm talking about the etymology (origins, history) of the word. The statement I quoted from the Vegetarian Union was referring to the Vegetarian Societies use of the word. I'm talking etymology too, and I can't find a source that says that the original use of the word excluded eggs and milk. |
| 10-31-2009 04:47 PM | |
| WonderRandy |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunestrider
Don't worry about it. I now see what "www.veggieboards.com" is all about. This is my last post. Goodbye. VeggieBoards has never been, nor will it ever be, an exclusively vegan site. The definition of "vegetarian" in use here has always included eggs and dairy. If you eat a plant based diet that includes eggs and dairy, but no animal flesh, you are considered to be a vegetarian. Rennet is not vegetarian. Rennet-free cheese is. Eggs are vegetarian, whether they come from battery cages or free-range, organic, cruelty-free chickens. Fish is not vegetarian. Chicken is not vegetarian. Cochineal is not vegetarian. Gelatin is not vegetarian. Ethics, animal rights, etc. do not need to be motivating factors for your vegetarian diet. We don't care why a person is a vegetarian. All vegetarians are welcome here. |
| 10-31-2009 04:44 PM | |
| Werewolf Girl |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiz
The Vegetarian society claims to have coined the word in the early to mid 1800's, from the Latin word "vegetus" (lively). There is some evidence the word might have been used prior to that, but they formally defined it at this time with the meaning I gave, and certainly popularised it, promulgated it, and are the reason we use it today rather than using something like "Pythagorean". I agree with you on this point, which is why I hate fish-eating vegetarians. It does matter when you use a word loosely, it does end up changing the meaning of a word. This can be seen in the evolution of the word from meaning "plant-based diet" to "non-flesh diet". Sometimes evolving words are good, sometimes not, I don't want to see "vegetarian" further diluted to include fish, for example. The reason I spoke up was not to say that people were wrong, I use "vegetarian" to include egg and cheese eaters myself, but that I felt Dunestrider was feeling kind of attacked (and that was before I read his "not posting here again" post). I felt a lot of the "You are wrong, you can't change the meaning of a word" posts were just going a little far. He's not wrong at all, the way he uses it is a correct definition. He didn't change it or make up that meaning himself, The Vegetarian Society did in the 1800's. He's quite correct. The people like me who use it to mean cheese-eaters are correct, too. Words often have several meanings. He would only be correct if we were still living in the 1800's. I can't walk around speaking in Old English and then getting mad when people don't understand me because that's the way the language originally was. |
| 10-31-2009 04:40 PM | |
| Kiz |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paradox
I have heard before that it's original meaning was closer to a vegan diet than it's current meaning but I can't find anything to support it, all I found was this, which contradicts that claim. http://www.ivu.org/faq/definitions.html The Vegetarian Union is s different group from the Vegetarian Society of the UK in the 1800s. I'm not talking about colloquial use, or what's more common, I'm talking about the etymology (origins, history) of the word. Most of the other points I'd agree on, I think we should use what is most common and understandable for labeling, I'm just taking issue with the people who claim Dunestrider somehow invented his meaning, when he did not. |
| 10-31-2009 04:34 PM | |
| Paradox |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiz
The Vegetarian society claims to have coined the word in the early to mid 1800's, from the Latin word "vegetus" (lively). There is some evidence the word might have been used prior to that, but they formally defined it at this time with the meaning I gave. I have heard before that it's original meaning was closer to a vegan diet than it's current meaning but I can't find anything to support it, all I found was this, which contradicts that claim. Quote:
The original definition of 'vegetarian' was "with or without eggs or dairy products" and that definition is still used by the Vegetarian Society today.
http://www.ivu.org/faq/definitions.html |
| 10-31-2009 04:07 PM | |
| Kiz |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paradox
Who were those people and where does it say how it was meant to be used? Anyway, how a word is currently understood is far more relevant than how it once was. The Vegetarian society claims to have coined the word in the early to mid 1800's, from the Latin word "vegetus" (lively). There is some evidence the word might have been used prior to that, but they formally defined it at this time with the meaning I gave, and certainly popularised it, promulgated it, and are the reason we use it today rather than using something like "Pythagorean". I agree with you on this point, which is why I hate fish-eating vegetarians. It does matter when you use a word loosely, it does end up changing the meaning of a word. This can be seen in the evolution of the word from meaning "plant-based diet" to "non-flesh diet". Sometimes evolving words are good, sometimes not, I don't want to see "vegetarian" further diluted to include fish, for example. The reason I spoke up was not to say that people were wrong, I use "vegetarian" to include egg and cheese eaters myself, but that I felt Dunestrider was feeling kind of attacked (and that was before I read his "not posting here again" post). I felt a lot of the "You are wrong, you can't change the meaning of a word" posts were just going a little far. He's not wrong at all, the way he uses it is a correct definition. He didn't change it or make up that meaning himself, The Vegetarian Society did in the 1800's. He's quite correct. The people like me who use it to mean cheese-eaters are correct, too. Words often have several meanings. |
| 10-31-2009 03:51 PM | |
| Paradox |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiz
He's actually right about the strict definition of the word "vegetarian" as it was meant to be used. The people who invented the word (which is, surprisingly, not an old one) meant for it to be used the way Dunestrider is describing. Who were those people and where does it say how it was meant to be used? Anyway, how a word is currently understood is far more relevant than how it once was. |
| 10-31-2009 03:42 PM | |
| Kiz |
Quote:
Originally Posted by dormouse
You can't just make up your own definitions of words, just because you don't like them. Yes, vegetarianism is a plant-based diet that excludes flesh. It doesn't have to exclude dairy and eggs. Besides, don't you drink milk? (I gather from the note above your avatar). + at least one of the people correcting you in this thread has been a vegan. He's actually right about the strict definition of the word "vegetarian" as it was meant to be used. The people who invented the word (which is, surprisingly, not an old one) meant for it to be used the way Dunestrider is describing. "Vegetarian" meant plant based, entirely, that is why we add "ovo" to indicate the addition of eggs to the diet, or lacto, to indicate the addition of milk. Vegan does not mean "vegetarian, no eggs, no dairy". Veganism goes further than that. If you are going to argue linguistics you really should look into the etymology of the word you are arguing about. |
| 10-31-2009 03:34 PM | |
| Kiz |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunestrider
Am I being unreasonable in asking for a standardized mark? There are already marks, they are just not used. What you need to do is get manufacturers to use them, not just create more and more. |
| 10-31-2009 02:20 PM | |
| Sevenseas |
Attempts to define 'vegetarian' in terms of whether killing is needed to produce something are a major FAIL. On the one hand, you could cut a piece of an animal's body without killing that animal, and eat that. Would that be vegetarian? On the other hand, killing is quite strongly attached to dairy and egg production. 'Vegetarian' means 'not eating flesh (or flesh by-products)', and that's all it means. Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunestrider
So maybe this all boils down to people who are vegetarian because of ethics and those who are vegetarian because of health reasons. Right? No. I'm vegan, and I reject all animal exploitation whether it's for dairy, meat, wool etc., and whether it's "family farms" or "factory farms", "humane", "cage-free" or whatever, and yet I also accept that the word 'vegetarian' means, as I said earlier, either a lacto-ovo or the general category of not eating / not containing meat. |
| 10-31-2009 01:59 PM | |
| MrFalafel |
Hey lets all start creating our own meaning for words! From now on I'm going to refer to sofas as 'chairs'. That's right, the big upholstered piece of furniture in your house is now no longer a sofa, its a chair. Because I say so. If you don't call it a chair and use that other word for it then you are wrong wrong wrong because its now called a chair. Get used to it! Now what other word can I make up a new meaning for? I know! Vegetarian! From now on I deem that vegetarian means....oh wait, the cat's on my chair again...get down cat! |
| 10-31-2009 01:56 PM | |
| Dunestrider | Don't worry about it. I now see what "www.veggieboards.com" is all about. This is my last post. Goodbye. |
| 10-31-2009 01:40 PM | |
| mlp |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunestrider
Get a hold of yourself, "mip". I apologize for not being on the computer, 24/7. If you are not too lazy, I suggest you look up the difference between "vegetarian" and "vegan". I see there are some egg-eatin', milk drinkin' people here who think that they are vegetarians. But they aren't. And upset when that is pointed out. Oh, I know what the difference is between the accepted definitions of "vegetarian" and "vegan"; however, since you're using your own personal definition of "vegetarian" which appears to exclude anyon who eats dairy or eggs, I am once again asking YOU what the difference is between a "vegetarian" and a "vegan" as YOU define those terms. |
| 10-31-2009 01:35 PM | |
| dormouse |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunestrider
I see there are some egg-eatin', milk drinkin' people here who think that they are vegetarians. But they aren't. And upset when that is pointed out. You can't just make up your own definitions of words, just because you don't like them. Yes, vegetarianism is a plant-based diet that excludes flesh. It doesn't have to exclude dairy and eggs. Besides, don't you drink milk? (I gather from the note above your avatar). + at least one of the people correcting you in this thread has been a vegan. |
| 10-31-2009 01:31 PM | |
| Dunestrider |
Get a hold of yourself, "mip". I apologize for not being on the computer, 24/7. If you are not too lazy, I suggest you look up the difference between "vegetarian" and "vegan". I see there are some egg-eatin', milk drinkin' people here who think that they are vegetarians. But they aren't. And upset when that is pointed out. |
| 10-31-2009 01:30 PM | |
| dormouse |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunestrider
Please explain how you rationalize (rationalize = rational lies) that statement? At the most basic level, when you eat an egg, you are not eating a dead animal. You do not have to kill an animal to collect the egg. That makes it suitable for vegetarians, which you admit when you say that there is such a thing as an ovo-vegetarian. I understand that the egg industry does kill chickens, but the killing is not necessary for egg production. (Imagine if you had a chicken coup in your backyard, for instance. You would not have to kill any chickens to be able to make omelets). Anyhow, I didn't realize this thread was in the Compost Heap. Was it moved or has it always been here? I still think you are changing the subject a bit by trying to discuss the ethics of eating eggs, rather than just whether eggs fit into the definition of vegetarian. They are two different arguments. By definition, vegetarians can eat eggs. It's not a question of whether they should but whether they can do so and still be considered vegetarian. I agree with you that I would absolutely love to see a better labeling system for vegetarian and vegan products. Perhaps this debate shows why it would be difficult--different people have different ideas of what is vegetarian. Any trustworthy system would come from some centralized organization that had set definitions as to what constituted vegetarian and vegan. |
| 10-31-2009 01:23 PM | |
| mlp |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunestrider
Please explain how you rationalize (rationalize = rational lies) that statement? Maybe you could first answer my question? Or are you intentionally avoiding answering it? |
| 10-31-2009 01:20 PM | |
| Dunestrider |
Quote:
Originally Posted by dormouse
{Eating eggs doesn't} necessitate the killing of an animal. Please explain how you rationalize (rationalize = rational lies) that statement? |
| 10-31-2009 01:20 PM | |
| mlp | So, Dunestrider, in your personal dictionary, is there a difference between "vegetarian" and "vegan"? |
| 10-31-2009 01:16 PM | |
| Dunestrider |
Wow, if the Compost Heap is not the "appropriate place to lecture people on whether eating eggs is ethical", then where? Please advise. |
| 10-31-2009 01:12 PM | |
| dormouse |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunestrider
So maybe this all boils down to people who are vegetarian because of ethics and those who are vegetarian because of health reasons. Right? For example, there are "regular eggs"; eggs from "vegetarian-fed chickens"; eggs from "cage-free chickens"; eggs from "free range chickens". And so on. Even though this differentiation is just a farce. See: http://www.ethicalvegetarian.com/essays.html#eggs In my mind, a person who is concerned with the suffering of others should be concerned about the plight of chickens. But you don't? That's not really the point. The point is that under the most commonly and widely accepted ideas of what a vegetarian is, eggs and dairy are acceptable to eat. They are not meat. They don't necessitate the killing of an animal. I don't think this thread is an appropriate place to lecture people on whether eating eggs is ethical. |
| 10-31-2009 01:09 PM | |
| mlp |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunestrider
What in hell is a "vegab"? In all my 55 years, I have never heard of such a term. Sorry -typo. "Vegan." ETA: Although we could use "vegab" to describe a vegetarian who is extremely talkative. |
| 10-31-2009 01:08 PM | |
| Dunestrider | What in hell is a "vegab"? In all my 55 years, I have never heard of such a term. |
| 10-31-2009 01:05 PM | |
| mlp | Dunestrider, under your personal definition of "vegetarian", there is no need for the label "vegab", since it would be duplicative of "vegetarian." Or am I missing something? |
| 10-31-2009 12:59 PM | |
| Dunestrider |
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockindancer86
I don't see anything wrong with the word vegetarian including eggs or dairy. So maybe this all boils down to people who are vegetarian because of ethics and those who are vegetarian because of health reasons. Right? For example, there are "regular eggs"; eggs from "vegetarian-fed chickens"; eggs from "cage-free chickens"; eggs from "free range chickens". And so on. Even though this differentiation is just a farce. See: http://www.ethicalvegetarian.com/essays.html#eggs In my mind, a person who is concerned with the suffering of others should be concerned about the plight of chickens. But you don't? |
| This thread has more than 30 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | |
| Posting Rules | |