VeggieBoards - Reply to Topic
Thread: Don't be a junk food vegan: keep a whole food plant based diet Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

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


  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
10-02-2015 02:49 PM
ToriannB
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naturebound View Post
I couldn't help but share this photo that has been floating around on social media like Facebook as of late. This is what happens when "vegan" is lumped in as a diet. It tends to get made fun of by the omnis.
Hahaa but this funny. It's only poking fun at diet trends. The truth is that for some veganism is a trend. If we as a community find fault with everything we may never be able to enjoy the positive things that are happening because we only choose to see the negative. I would have been concerned if it was offensive. It's ice! Smile a little!
10-02-2015 11:23 AM
Capstan MOD POST- Several posts have been deleted, having to do with name-calling. A reminder: personal attacks against members is against VB posting rules.
10-02-2015 11:08 AM
no whey jose
Quote:
Originally Posted by LedBoots View Post
It is against the Terms of Service to call someone a troll. If you feel a post is trollage, please just report it. No Whey Jose is not a troll, she is an active member here. She just gave birth to her first child, so perhaps she hasn't been as active as of late.
Thank you. There's nothing troll-like about me, aside from my affinity for bridges.
10-02-2015 10:48 AM
LedBoots
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enthios View Post
So a dietary vegan is not a vegan? ...And come-on lets not get too dumb.
NO, NOT IF THE DIETARY VEGAN USES ANIMAL PRODUCTS FOR CLOTHING, ETC. Veganism is about non-exploitation of animals.

Sorry to yell, but how many times does this have to be repeated?
10-02-2015 10:36 AM
Enthios So a dietary vegan is not a vegan? ...And come-on lets not get too dumb.
10-02-2015 05:58 AM
Marjoram I have the feeling this discussion is leading no where, we keep repeating ourselves lol. When someone doesn't want to accept a fact what can we do? I'm done with this thread
10-02-2015 12:02 AM
Werewolf Girl
Quote:
Originally Posted by no whey jose View Post
You aren't a vegan, nor is anyone who doesn't care about animals-- which undoubtedly isn't 50% of those who call themselves vegan. If you don't care about animals, why do you care about this? Seriously, what do you imagine that label will grant you? I ask this of every plant-based dieter who complains about the definition of veganism being inextricably linked to animal rights, and I've yet to receive a satisfactory answer. It seems that you people think of veganism as some club from which you're being unfairly excluded, which only serves to highlight the point that you're missing: veganism is about the billions of animals being tortured and killed, not about you or your ego. To shift the focus from the animals to yourself, to your physique or your bloodwork, is profoundly disrespectful and indicative of the very dismissive attitude toward animals which veganism condemns.
It's similar to meat eaters who only eat fish or chicken (or sometimes burgers but only on weekends) wanting to be called vegetarian. It just makes things confusing for everyone.

If you don't eat any animal products and you only eat plants then that's great, it's fantastic actually and it does have a positive impact for the animals for sure but calling yourself vegan while wearing a fur coat for instance would be as silly as calling yourself a vegetarian while gnawing on a chicken bone.
10-01-2015 09:24 PM
no whey jose
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enthios View Post
If I was not really a vegan for all those years then the same would apply to a pretty large percentage of vegans - who were introduced to it and followed it specifically for health reasons.
I wonder what percentage that would knock off the list 40 - 50 percent?
You aren't a vegan, nor is anyone who doesn't care about animals-- which undoubtedly isn't 50% of those who call themselves vegan. If you don't care about animals, why do you care about this? Seriously, what do you imagine that label will grant you? I ask this of every plant-based dieter who complains about the definition of veganism being inextricably linked to animal rights, and I've yet to receive a satisfactory answer. It seems that you people think of veganism as some club from which you're being unfairly excluded, which only serves to highlight the point that you're missing: veganism is about the billions of animals being tortured and killed, not about you or your ego. To shift the focus from the animals to yourself, to your physique or your bloodwork, is profoundly disrespectful and indicative of the very dismissive attitude toward animals which veganism condemns.
10-01-2015 08:51 PM
Capstan I like the Oxford definition. "A person who does not eat or use animal products."

Wiki is hardly an authority on anything. According to Wiki, a vegan is also-

  • An inhabitant of the town of Vegan, West Virginia.
  • A science-fictional native of the star, Vega.
  • A resident of Las Vegas.
  • A fictional, evil creature that preys on the half-human/half-botanical Mound creatures.

The Vegan Society says-


Quote:
Although the vegan diet was defined early on in the Society's beginnings in 1944, it was as late as 1949 before Leslie J Cross pointed out that the society lacked a definition of veganism. He suggested “[t]he principle of the emancipation of animals from exploitation by man”. This is later clarified as “to seek an end to the use of animals by man for food, commodities, work, hunting, vivisection, and by all other uses involving exploitation of animal life by man.”
Today, the Society, which invented the term, defines it-


Quote:
Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose.
From its defining moment, veganism has excluded the use of animals for any human purpose. It isn't just about diet or human health; it's about animal health and liberty, the same things we value for ourselves. I think it should stay that way. Periodically, someone comes along, wanting to water down the word, for the sake of their own convenience; typically, they want to define honey as a "vegan" food, simply because they like to eat honey, but still want to be known as "vegan," or they want to eat oysters or wear leather shoes, for the same reasons. Cross's original definition states a principle. It is the traditional, accepted meaning of the word. That principle should not be eroded, for the sake of human self-worship or profit. But, while there is a principle at work, I don't think it necessarily implies a morality. I think it's entirely possible for one to actually, vehemently hate animals, yet still be vegan, provided they adhere to the principle, and not interfere in the animals' rights and freedoms.
10-01-2015 06:50 PM
LedBoots
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enthios View Post
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veganism

You are quoting the definition of ethical vegan because that is the only aspect of vegan that you relate to. There are others, another aspect of vegan is dietary - also there are others.
Wikipedia is not a reliable reference.

I just googled "vegan definition" and screenshot the real references. Pick the one you like.

10-01-2015 06:39 PM
Enthios https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veganism

You are quoting the definition of ethical vegan because that is the only aspect of vegan that you relate to. There are others, another aspect of vegan is dietary - also there are others.
10-01-2015 06:15 PM
silva Furhman, Barnard, both John and Ocean Robbins, McDougell, Esselstyn...they've all led the way for vegan health. Intially it seemed more of an additional inclusion, but their diets definitely help many control diabetes, hearth disease, arthritis and more. I have known a man who almost literally brought himself back from the grip of death from heart disease-- but thats an extreme. Few have cured themselves with plant only diets. To think that health will help the animals in a roundabout way is naive.
From my experience, this health is new-and why should it hijack a word that had more value? There isn't anything unhealthy about many animal products anyway. You can't convince people that animals should not be thought of as food with that little evidence.
and it's also my experience that people DO think plant based, or mostly plant based diets are healthy, they just don't want to eat them because they dont like healthy foods.The same reason people dont eat healthy to begin with. They do like many vegan options that health eaters would call unhealthy
@Enthios -I feel this board in general has made it clear no one show be devalued for using products of animals when necessary. Whether it's leather in work clothing, or a medication or even to serve them as food if that's their job--it's the philosophy of working to eliminate those needs that makes a vegan.
10-01-2015 02:27 PM
Beautiful Joe
Quote:
Originally Posted by leedsveg View Post
Over the last 25 years, I must have met hundreds of vegans throughout the UK but I've never before heard this vegan health stuff. Could it be possible that this is a foible/eccentricity relating purely to the US?


I think it's a foible/eccentricity limited to some celebrities and certain other select individuals.
10-01-2015 02:25 PM
Beautiful Joe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enthios View Post
Virtually all animal abuse during egg production is for the meat,
This is simply untrue. Anyone who knows anything about chickens knows that different breeds of chickens are used for egg production versus meat production. Some breeds of chickens have been bred specifically to lay as many eggs as possible. Other breeds of chickens have been bred specifically to put on as much flesh as possible as quickly as possible.

Chicks hatched for use in egg factories are culled, with the male chicks killed (often ground up alive, if not crushed or suffocated in the containers into which they are thrown prior to those containers being emptied into the grinders). It's not efficient to raise the males for meat, because they won't put on as much flesh, as fast, as the breeds bred for meat production. And if you think that laying hens in an egg factory have a life that's any easier than the "meat" birds, you've kept both your mind and your eyes firmly shut.

I'm not going to address the rest of your post because, frankly, I can't be bothered to read it after it started out with such starling ignorance being presented as fact.
10-01-2015 01:50 PM
leedsveg
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enthios View Post
If I was not really a vegan for all those years then the same would apply to a pretty large percentage of vegans - who were introduced to it and followed it specifically for health reasons.
I wonder what percentage that would knock off the list 40 - 50 percent?
Over the last 25 years, I must have met hundreds of vegans throughout the UK but I've never before heard this vegan health stuff. Could it be possible that this is a foible/eccentricity relating purely to the US?


10-01-2015 01:03 PM
Enthios If I was not really a vegan for all those years then the same would apply to a pretty large percentage of vegans - who were introduced to it and followed it specifically for health reasons.
I wonder what percentage that would knock off the list 40 - 50 percent?
10-01-2015 06:08 AM
Marjoram In the Vegan Society definition of veganism the "as far as is possible and practicable " is not there for nothing! I'm not allowed to learn my future job if I don't have safety boots, that falls under it even if it pissed me off. It's super hard to be 100% pure vegan, I doubt anyone is but we all do our best. It's not as if I was buying leather boots because I think they look nice when a cheaper vegan alternative is available! It's like saying a vegan doctor is not vegan because he has to work with silk fiber in his medical textiles. Let's be intelligent a moment. We are not yet in a society that offers an affordable 100% vegan lifestyle.
I'm sorry Enthios if you thought your diet was making you a vegan and animal compassion had nothing to do with it, you got it wrong from the start that's always super frustrating for anyone, but no need to fight so hard for your wiki definition when the ones that coin the term are clear on what it means. Like I said we are one big family of veg*n, ethical or dietary, we all help the planet even if as a side effect, lets not fight and respect each others lifestyle.
10-01-2015 04:40 AM
runnerveggie Let's be clear about one thing. Enthios seems to claim that if a person uses one leather item, the vegan community will excommunicate them. That may or may not be true -- most of the vegan I know are here, not in real life, and some people here can be very judgmental. But personally I would not care if someone calls themselves vegan but continues to use some leather items, or even buys new items if there aren't suitable vegan alternatives.

The problem is if someone doesn't even consider vegan alternatives because they are only concerned with health. What is to stop a health vegan from also trading in exotic animals on the side?
10-01-2015 12:45 AM
Shallot
Quote:
Originally Posted by LedBoots View Post
Well, I am surprised that a 32-year vegan would not understand that it isn't only about diet. And you have a group?

Anyway, in case you don't know, the vast majority of wearable leather is skinned off animals raised for just this purpose. Ever hear of "slink" leather? Vom. I am putting the gross parts in spoilers.

http://www.care2.com/causes/the-shoc...byproduct.html

"Most people are led to believe that leather is a byproduct of the meat industry, that it’s simply a ‘leftover’, and if we don’t use it, it will go to waste. This is a common misconception, and one that I used to believe myself. The truth is that much of the leather sold comes from animals killed primarily for their skins.

Leather is not a byproduct and it is not produced in efforts to minimize waste. It’s produced because it is a highly profitable and lucrative business. A cow’s skin is approximately 10% of her total value, making it the most profitable part of her body. Surprisingly, leather actually makes the meat industry more sustainable (as selling skins is very profitable while meat isn’t always so), not the other way around.

[spoiler]The majority of leather comes from India’s cows, who are abused, beaten and poisoned in order to make leather for high street stores. As India forbids the slaughter of cows, these poor, innocent animals are forced to endure brutal and grueling journeys where they are confronted with an unimaginable end.

.
How interesting - I did not know that leather was a more profitable business. I had assumed that animal hides did not represent a big proportion of profit.

On a separate note - this is why I love these boards! There's always something to learn.
09-30-2015 10:04 PM
Werewolf Girl Also, there are a lot of good options for vegan sports enthusiasts:

http://www.peta.org/living/entertain...r-sports-gear/

http://vegnews.com/articles/page.do?pageId=2042&catId=5

http://allamericanvegan.com/links/sporting-goods/
09-30-2015 09:56 PM
no whey jose Enthios, YOU are the one claiming not to care about animals. That runs contrary to the definition of veganism. It has nothing to do with baseball gloves and everything to do with your statement "We do not need to care about animals to be vegan." I find your attempts to discuss the relative harm of animal products baffling and a bit pathetic in light of your admission that you don't care about animals. Wear whatever shirt you want; if you don't care about animals, you aren't vegan, you never were vegan, and unless you develop a sense of compassion for animals, you never will be vegan. This really shouldn't bother you if you don't care about animals. The word "vegan" isn't a trendy label for you to use to boost your own ego. It's a term used to describe a philosophy of avoidance of animal exploitation and abuse. It's about the victims, not about you and your wardrobe.
09-30-2015 08:28 PM
LedBoots

http://www.zazzle.com/keep_calm_and_...34409883792267




https://www.storenvy.com/products/11...erbivore-shirt



09-30-2015 08:17 PM
Werewolf Girl Enjoy:



http://www.cafepress.ca/mf/62617398/...ctId=598096942
09-30-2015 07:50 PM
Enthios But does anybody know where all the has-been vegans can buy - I am plant based shirts - And I hope you can continue growing your vegan group without them.
09-30-2015 06:59 PM
Werewolf Girl
Quote:
Although the vegan diet was defined early on in the Society's beginnings in 1944, it was as late as 1949 before Leslie J Cross pointed out that the society lacked a definition of veganism. He suggested “[t]he principle of the emancipation of animals from exploitation by man”. This is later clarified as “to seek an end to the use of animals by man for food, commodities, work, hunting, vivisection, and by all other uses involving exploitation of animal life by man”.

When the society became a registered charity in 1979, the Memorandum and Articles of Association updated the definition of “veganism” as:

"A philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."
Link: https://www.vegansociety.com/try-veg...ition-veganism
09-30-2015 06:54 PM
LedBoots Well, I am surprised that a 32-year vegan would not understand that it isn't only about diet. And you have a group?

Anyway, in case you don't know, the vast majority of wearable leather is skinned off animals raised for just this purpose. Ever hear of "slink" leather? Vom. I am putting the gross parts in spoilers.

http://www.care2.com/causes/the-shoc...byproduct.html

"Most people are led to believe that leather is a byproduct of the meat industry, that it’s simply a ‘leftover’, and if we don’t use it, it will go to waste. This is a common misconception, and one that I used to believe myself. The truth is that much of the leather sold comes from animals killed primarily for their skins.

Leather is not a byproduct and it is not produced in efforts to minimize waste. It’s produced because it is a highly profitable and lucrative business. A cow’s skin is approximately 10% of her total value, making it the most profitable part of her body. Surprisingly, leather actually makes the meat industry more sustainable (as selling skins is very profitable while meat isn’t always so), not the other way around.

Spoiler
The majority of leather comes from India’s cows, who are abused, beaten and poisoned in order to make leather for high street stores. As India forbids the slaughter of cows, these poor, innocent animals are forced to endure brutal and grueling journeys where they are confronted with an unimaginable end.

When travelling by train, anywhere up to 900 cows are crammed into a wagon that is supposed to hold a maximum of 80 to 100, and upon arrival 400 to 500 come out dead. On some routes they don’t bother with trains and instead they tie them and take them on foot. The cows are not allowed to rest or drink, so to keep them moving workers beat the animals across their hip bones where there is no fat to cushion the blow, break their tails to force them to rise, and torment them by rubbing hot chilli peppers and tobacco in their eyes.

It’s not only cows that are suffering though. Goats, pigs, sheep, lambs, horses, deer, kangaroos, snakes, alligators and elephants are also all among the victims of the leather industry. Perhaps even more alarming is that China, the world’s leading exporter of leather, annually skin an estimated 2 million dogs and cats a year, which is then unknowingly purchased by consumers due to mislabeling and inaccurate indications of the origin. As if that isn’t scary enough, another particularly prized form of leather is ‘slink’, which is made from the skin of unborn calves.


Continued at the link.
09-30-2015 06:51 PM
Enthios Anyone know where we can buy a - I am plant based - t shirt?
09-30-2015 06:49 PM
Enthios A vegan baseball player buys a ball and glove... no you are now plant based? Same with soccer and football players ? I mean a whole lot of vegans would have to throw out their I am a vegan shirt and tell people that don't know what they are talking about that they are plant based?
09-30-2015 06:37 PM
Enthios All I know is that I have been calling myself and everybody I know upon dietary definition of vegan for thirty two years, we wear buttons and shirts and try to help as many people as possible with encouraging and converting to a vegan diet. Now for the first time in my life people on veggie-boards inform me that - there is another definition - and it could exclude a whole lot of us from being what we have always considered ourselves to be... and it would be counter-productive to try and convince us to change our shirts and buttons and speech and considered-status to another phrase (plant based). One reason is because it wouldn't work and would be even counter-productive... for communication reasons and there are too many people that require some, usually fairly minimum form of animal product, to do that as a requirement and not an ideal to follow - in definition.
09-30-2015 05:41 PM
silva
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enthios View Post
Virtually all animal abuse during egg production is for the meat, chicken and fish well over 95% pigs a little more for their skin. Cattle about 90% or so because of the skin value. All other animal abuse may raise that abuse level a percentage or two but the total of percentage of abuse relative to animal by-product is around ten percent or less. That means that the highest percentage by far of animal abuse is due to animal meat consumption and animal by-product usage is just a minor role. Defining vegan along with by-product usage can alienate up to 50% 60% or more of vegans who for some reason cannot or do not follow such a definition. Those are people who do a lot work on helping people become vegan for health reasons. They symbolize the main reason and purpose of discouraging the main issue... consumption? Sure you want to keep going there? Really?
I never felt it necessary to separate types of injustice. Animals used for medical research, product testing, bred for pets, skinned, plucked, kept in small tanks, cages, poked, prodded, electrocuted, tortured for entertainment, on and on. Is this really only 10% and 90% is food? So? Your argument is that people who abstain from animal products for their own good is enough. In addition to pandering to their own selfishness you find it reasonable to call them vegan-- the only term that people who oppose animal exploitation of all kinds have coined.
What bothers me even more is how there isn't even enough evidence that eliminating animal product is any healthier than limiting, as well as the very few that actually adhere to that kind of diet/ AND, you're the one alienating real vegans for not being overly concerned with the latest health trends. Of all the people I've known in real life and online few have been obsessed with wholefoods only
This thread has more than 30 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

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