VeggieBoards - Reply to Topic
Thread: Vegan or plant-based 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)
03-29-2016 09:02 PM
tanyae47 I call myself vegan because I feel it better explains what I do, as some people do call themselves plant *based* but still eat other foods. And maybe I'm crazy, but I feel like "vegan" does better imply that I do it out of a care for animals- which is true.
03-26-2016 08:57 AM
Dan Bukowski I have let go of the titles. I have used vegan and plant-based. As long as I don't consume animal products, purchase items that were made from animals I'm good. We all should just take pride in the choice we made and that it is doing great things for the environment and the animals. Share our message, those who are open will listen and maybe they will follow our lead.

~Dan
vegmaste.com
03-21-2016 09:36 AM
Joan Kennedy The thing is that vegans in the real world are all over the map on this one. Vegans tend to be nonconformists and cultural outliers, and trying to get all vegans to agree on semantics is like trying to coordinate an International Council of Cats. I don't identify as vegan, but my practices are far closer to meeting the definitions than most people I meet who do identify as vegan. Like Poppy's friend who's "vegan but eats fish." My favorite personal example is the couple who stayed with us and said "We're vegan, but we're on vacation." Sometimes people's eating habits haven't gelled (and maybe never will) into going completely off animal products, or even completely off meat. I think one important reason for this is that dairy, egg, and slaughterhouse byproducts find their way into more familiar processed foods than the person dreamed of when first deciding to stop buying milk and eggs. And of course people find they get horribly hungry between meals when they haven't gotten used to life without their calorie-dense comfort foods.

Also, Gary Francione has written and said on numerous occasions that the threshold for being considered vegan is to follow a vegan diet. I understand that veganism goes far beyond diet to him, which he says every time he writes or speaks. But in his blog he also writes this:

"Veganism" means at the very least not eating any flesh, dairy, or other animal products. In this sense, "vegan"means "vegan diet."

http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/.../#.Vu_qYce_slI

I'm quoting Francione not because I agree with very much of what he writes (I blame him for the term "ethical vegan"), but because many view him as the public face of abolitionist veganism, which makes him a credible source on this point. I completely understand that he sees a hierarchy among vegans, his fellow abolitionists with him at the top, that he sees the leather-wearing slackers on the bottommost rung of veganism, and that he wants them to start climbing. But if they want to call themselves vegans, this hard-nosed "going vegan is incredibly easy" abolitionist vegan writer is apparently okay with that.
03-21-2016 02:49 AM
silva
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave in MPLS View Post
That was a painful thread. Especially when read together with the thread that argued that meat substitutes/analogs/look-alikes/whatever weren't actually vegan.

I was thinking about those threads myself the other day. I don't see WHY the whole food plant only diet people would want to appropriate the word vegan, since ultraprocessed, sugary foods packed with trans fats and bursting with refined grains (thus simple carbohydrates) can fully qualify as 'vegan', and a vegan can eat them, even gorge on them.
What I come across more often than "potential" vegans are the health based whole foodies who identify themselves, and their diet, as vegan. Look up some vegan cookbooks on amazon and you find one star reviews, saying they're not vegan because they use some unhealthy, though truly vegan, ingredients. Even Deva vitamins have been accused as non vegan because of something added (vegan)
It's not the title but the meaning I fear getting lost. I have to fight more ignorance about my diet because of the wfpb fad than i've ever had to say 'I don't eat fish". More people feel vegans now don't eat sweets, wheat, any processed food, processed foods, carbs---but there's no issue with trace ingredients like meat broth, or by products in foods as long they come under the scrutiny of healthy.
In my opinion, it's vegans being pushed around.

And how many here have been just fine with "killing cats to help the native species"? Huh? Or Beyonce eating vegan while wearing skins?

What the heck is so bad about saying your eat plant based, or vegetarian? Why demean the word vegan to a diet that excludes so many foods that are vegan?
03-21-2016 01:40 AM
Dave in MPLS
Quote:
In fact I remember the old thread we had that started with someone (?) saying it wasn't vegan to eat processed foods.
That was a painful thread. Especially when read together with the thread that argued that meat substitutes/analogs/look-alikes/whatever weren't actually vegan.

I was thinking about those threads myself the other day. I don't see WHY the whole food plant only diet people would want to appropriate the word vegan, since ultraprocessed, sugary foods packed with trans fats and bursting with refined grains (thus simple carbohydrates) can fully qualify as 'vegan', and a vegan can eat them, even gorge on them.
03-20-2016 02:35 PM
Poppy To me, plant-based doesn't necessarily mean "only plants", just primarily plants, plants "most of the time."

Labels have limited use, in actuality. I have a friend who I've heard say on more than one occasion, "I'm vegan, except I eat fish."

I would suggest people not attach so much value to the label, but to the life. Walk the walk, friends.
03-20-2016 02:23 PM
ModVegan I started this thread primarily because I want to be as accurate as possible when writing As you guys have pointed out, the general public isn't all that picky, but lord forbid someone from ecorazzi catch you using the wrong term!

I suppose I may have upset some on this forum because I just realized I'd probably be considered more of an animal rights vegan (I certainly don't claim to have a zero carbon footprint, etc., so perhaps that means I shouldn't call myself an ethical vegan. I merely meant that my veganism is based on ethical beliefs concerning the equality of animals). Funny thing is, I actually don't even like animals that much! (I certainly don't go gaga over photos of cute kittens). I simply believe they have a clear right to live without humans murdering them and exploiting them.
03-20-2016 02:21 PM
silva It seems we're all relating to what we've been accustomed to. In Cleveland it's common to hear plant based diet, for health reasons. Unfortunatly, I've been in painful discussions where doctors use the term vegan incorrectly, causing strife for those who are vegan.
I've had argue that I wasn't vegan if I ate sugar (not because of bone char either), white flour or any processed foods. Vegans don't eat anything but whole plant foods. Attempts of educating on what being vegan means did not help. Leather, silk, wool, testing were all inconsequential and all that was about peta, and animal rights groups.

what is wrong with saying plant based? it is a vegetarian diet, and while some strictly adhere to plants only, most I've come across will have on occasion fish, and not think to exclude by products. they have no reason not to consume gelatin, honey, fish oil, or D3

In fact I remember the old thread we had that started with someone (?) saying it wasn't vegan to eat processed foods. That vegan was about being healthy as you can be. Well, no, it's not. If you're going to criticize a vegan for eating oreos it better be because they might have bone char processed sugar and not because they junk food.

Dr Neal Barnard, Dr. Furhman and others refer to plant based more often than vegan diets, but at least they do refer to plant based eating as dietary
03-20-2016 12:08 PM
BlackBoxed
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spudulika View Post
The problem with saying dietary vegan for convenience is that there is a more accurate word for it: plant-based.

Sorry to be a nerd. But "plant-based" is probably more flexible than "dietary vegan"; the word "based" implies foundations but not totalities, thus "plant-based" eaters can have "cheat days" and still correctly refer to themselves as "plant based"
That was my point.

Quote:
The much older (but sadly underused) term "strict vegetarian" (a diet which excludes all kinds of flesh, dairy and eggs) exactly and accurately describes what those who use the term "dietary vegan" actually mean.
True, but I was mostly trying to make a distinction from a person who wishes to live as a vegan vs. a person who only wants to eat like vegans do and how they aren't actually the same. Strict-vegan works as well, but it's not something I hear very often (or ever really have before this forum). I also wonder if plant-based wouldn't be a broader term since inevitably since strict vegetarian would be implied and doesn't have the same kind of ethical weight, if you will, but that's just my thinking through text. Interesting food for thought, though!
03-20-2016 11:49 AM
Spudulika The problem with saying dietary vegan for convenience is that there is a more accurate word for it: plant-based.

Sorry to be a nerd. But "plant-based" is probably more flexible than "dietary vegan"; the word "based" implies foundations but not totalities, thus "plant-based" eaters can have "cheat days" and still correctly refer to themselves as "plant based"

The much older (but sadly underused) term "strict vegetarian" (a diet which excludes all kinds of flesh, dairy and eggs) exactly and accurately describes what those who use the term "dietary vegan" actually mean.
03-20-2016 11:40 AM
BlackBoxed
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thalassa4 View Post
I'm sorry but I don't share your world view.
I hope it's all right that I re-formatted your posts. Breaking up the paragraphs a bit at a time just made it much easier for to address some of your comments. If I took anything out of context by re-editing the way it was originally written it wasn't intentional.

Warning: wall of text incoming

Spoiler
Quote:
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.
Watson started 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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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).

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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?
03-20-2016 11:30 AM
Dave in MPLS
Quote:
Donald Watson created the term vegan to mean dietary restrictions
Read Vegan News #1. It's the first mention of the word 'vegan', and probably the most accurate expression of his thinking at the time.

Here's how he described the 'health' argument for a vegan diet: "we consider the time perhaps premature to make any great claims for the physiological superiority of our diet". He considered the timing premature because "we are still without much data concerning the merits of diets free from animal food".

Still, he does seem to mention dietary restriction a lot. To understand why, we have to examine the context of Watson's writings, particularly who he was addressing. He explicitly addresses his audience by name in the second paragraph (emphasis mine): "For years many of us accepted, as lacto-vegetarians". He was talking to vegetarians. A strong argument can be made that these were ethical vegetarians. Things like not wearing animal skins were shared opinions. The only point of contention was whether or not certain animal products that were not direct products of slaughter should be consumed. Of course that's what he'd talk about! Why argue for a point that your audience already agrees with?

That's a really brief summary of an argument. Watson's words are often read out of context and effectively (often without malicious intent) misrepresented.

But read for yourself. Here's a link. Scroll down to see the text.
03-19-2016 03:00 PM
Thalassa4
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackBoxed View Post
Well worth the read, and thanks for posting. I do very much agree with a lot of the points, but also a select few in the original post as well. It's seems to be a matter of intent where I get lost or have trouble conveying my feelings, and perhaps we're talking about different people:

- The girl who has watched the documentaries, says she's vegan and that it's helping her lose weight while buying a brand new fur coat.
- The family member who has heard all of the facts you have to share, and makes a stir fry only to say, "It's pretty much vegan, it just has a little bit of meat in it."
- The spouse who lets you plan the meals and buy the ''nice'' household products only to say, "I know you're upset that I made steak for dinner last night, but at least I'm vegan today."

These are the example of people I'm specifically talking bout. They all follow a plant-based diet but aren't strict vegan. They have no intention of becoming so which is completely different than someone who is starting with health and is curious about the other aspects of veganism while gradually transitioning their lifestyle. That being said, There's a point to having limits/lines/concrete definitions, I think. There is a definite need for there to be a clarification between "I'm in it for the diet." and "I'm in it for the environment, my health, my mind of peace, the animals, ect." While I wouldn't ever yell "NOT VEGAN! YOU. ARE. NOT. VEGAN!" at someone who said they were plant-based, nor would I pull out my netbook to set up a 30 minute powerpoint presentation, I would eventually ask about the other aspects of their life and maybe, just maybe I could suggest a few things for them to try.

Since what I'm hoping to say doesn't get translated very well, I guess I'll concede. But I would never undermine someone who is curious about veganism or just starting out at the very beginning of the journey, nor would I ever say that someone who only cut meat consumption isn't helping to reduce suffering. If what I said in any of my posts came across in that way then I do apologize.

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, though your fur coat example is definitely annoying and unsettling, I don't have a problem with someone who is making an effort to call themselves "mostly vegan" or "eating vegan meals every other day" ...my mom has used the term to pledge to me her effort to consume less animal products, 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.

I put transitioning to vegan on my profile out of respect towards purists, but I certainly don't expect this out of the average American. I think it's self-defeating to do so.
03-19-2016 02:49 PM
Thalassa4
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackBoxed View Post
I don't assume dietary vegans know they're not real vegans, not all of them at least. No one knows it all when they start out vegan, I'm still learning, and ignorance is part of the process. I was speaking of the other people who know that diet doesn't equal vegan. I re-edited my reply but it might've been missed.



Is dietary vegan really a thing? Do you really get to pick and choose which parts of vegan you want to be?

"A man goes into the grocery store. He buys a leather wallet and sticky glue mouse traps along with his clearly labeled vegan meats. To which the cashier asks, 'Oh, are you vegetarian?' The man then smiles and replies, 'I'm vegan, actually.' before walking away."

To avoid being a giant ass (which isn't my intention, I promise) I find it incredibly difficult to agree with that statement and it surely doesn't seem sincere to me. I don't want to speak for anyone else, but I know I would certainly be taken aback. Would I think him a bad person? I don't know him, so why would I? But I would call him out on it, and in the case that he's simply ignorant, then I would feel obligated to educate him so that he at least has the knowledge that what he's doing isn't correct. Just as I would want someone to do for me.

Now, if he replied with something like, 'I know it's bad... but..'

No buts. He is doing nothing more than clearly stating, "I'm entitling myself to this very label and all that goes with it, despite what I know it actually means." He is still a hypocrite because he knows vegans do not kill mice and buy leather wallets. If Veganism has re-written it's definition to allow for this, then I apologize and will cease the debate.

I will say that this very topic is exactly why I think we need to use plant-based at appropriate times so that the line doesn't become blurred. To echo my original post a little, people, young people especially, are coming into Veganism on this hype train from what they see on youtube largely thinking that it's a diet and they're going to lose weight while maybe helping out the planet at the same time. Great for them, truly, but some never further educate them or don't really feel like educating themselves. It's important to call these people out. Not to be mean or rude or insulting, but merely to inform them that what they're doing isn't right/correct/accurate.

What would happen if everyone who decided they'd go vegan just stopped somewhere in the middle and said 'all right, this is good enough'. Would it make a difference? For a while, definitely, but I'm not sure how sustainable that is long term.

I suppose what I was trying to say in all of my posts was that to my knowledge there was only one type vegan, different diets, sure. But ultimately it's under one central belief/moral standard. Saying you are something you are not, regardless of if you preach it or not, under whatever adjective you wish, it's still inaccurate. Neither of your definitions of a hypocrite are incorrect, but neither was mine.

Perhaps the definition has changed suddenly and vegan no longer means simply 'vegan'...
I'm sorry but I don't share your world view. 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 don't see the problem with calling someone a "dietary vegan" and no I don't think they're a hypocrite. I honestly think people with your mindset push people away from veganism, or plant based diets.

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) ..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.
03-19-2016 08:38 AM
BlackBoxed
Quote:
Originally Posted by terra biped View Post
Not long ago I ran across the following blog post which I think is relevant here. I offer it as food for thought...



Continue reading at http://veganstrategist.org/2016/02/0...rself-a-vegan/
Well worth the read, and thanks for posting. I do very much agree with a lot of the points, but also a select few in the original post as well. It's seems to be a matter of intent where I get lost or have trouble conveying my feelings, and perhaps we're talking about different people:

- The girl who has watched the documentaries, says she's vegan and that it's helping her lose weight while buying a brand new fur coat.
- The family member who has heard all of the facts you have to share, and makes a stir fry only to say, "It's pretty much vegan, it just has a little bit of meat in it."
- The spouse who lets you plan the meals and buy the ''nice'' household products only to say, "I know you're upset that I made steak for dinner last night, but at least I'm vegan today."

These are the example of people I'm specifically talking bout. They all follow a plant-based diet but aren't strict vegan. They have no intention of becoming so which is completely different than someone who is starting with health and is curious about the other aspects of veganism while gradually transitioning their lifestyle. That being said, There's a point to having limits/lines/concrete definitions, I think. There is a definite need for there to be a clarification between "I'm in it for the diet." and "I'm in it for the environment, my health, my mind of peace, the animals, ect." While I wouldn't ever yell "NOT VEGAN! YOU. ARE. NOT. VEGAN!" at someone who said they were plant-based, nor would I pull out my netbook to set up a 30 minute powerpoint presentation, I would eventually ask about the other aspects of their life and maybe, just maybe I could suggest a few things for them to try.

Since what I'm hoping to say doesn't get translated very well, I guess I'll concede. But I would never undermine someone who is curious about veganism or just starting out at the very beginning of the journey, nor would I ever say that someone who only cut meat consumption isn't helping to reduce suffering. If what I said in any of my posts came across in that way then I do apologize.
03-19-2016 07:02 AM
terra biped Not long ago I ran across the following blog post which I think is relevant here. I offer it as food for thought...

Quote:
Don’t you dare call yourself a vegan!

FEBRUARY 1, 2016 ~ TOBIAS LEENAERT

I felt I needed to write a response to an article on Ecorazzi called “If you are on a plant based diet, stop calling yourself vegan!”

The title, and especially the exclamation mark, made me almost physically unwell (I’m only exaggerating a little bit here). As far as titles go, it kind of says it all. Probably the author has the best intentions (though they may be unpure, like with all of us), but this way of thinking and communicating is so unproductive and so damaging, I just don’t know where to start.

The author believes that the health vegans – which obviously she doesn’t want to call vegans but rather plant-based people or something – are “hijacking” the vegan movement. She wants to kind of forbid health vegans to call themselves vegan. Apart from the fact that telling people not to use a word is kind of annoying and nasty, it is also very unproductive to ostracize health vegans from “our club”....
Continue reading at http://veganstrategist.org/2016/02/0...rself-a-vegan/
03-19-2016 05:22 AM
LedBoots I'm just happy when people stop eating meat. Triply happy if they don't eat dairy or chicken eggs.

They can call themselves anything they want. There's a learning curve to anything, and new dietary vegans will discover the animal products in the rest of the things in stores as time goes on.

The vast majority of the animals saved will be from people not eating meat.
03-19-2016 05:00 AM
BlackBoxed
Quote:
Originally Posted by terra biped View Post
I don't agree with your definition of a hypocrite. In my book, a hypocrite is a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he or she knowingly does not hold in order to conceal his or her real feelings or motives. I don't assume dietary vegans know they are not real vegans, as you assume. But I understand your definition, and I can see how from your perspective, calling people hypocrites isn't meant to be harsh. So I won't take it that way. Thank you for the clarification.
I don't assume dietary vegans know they're not real vegans, not all of them at least. No one knows it all when they start out vegan, I'm still learning, and ignorance is part of the process. I was speaking of the other people who know that diet doesn't equal vegan. I re-edited my reply but it might've been missed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thalassa4 View Post
The word hypocrite indicates to me "do as I say, not as I do." Like a religious hypocrite would publicly shame others and have a good image at church, but have a secret lifestyle. ..these are the sort of people Jesus referred to as the Pharisees, who prayed loudly on street corners or made a huge show of religious legalism, but in their hearts and in private knew they were only doing it to be thought well of, or in order to have power over others. There are a lot of people like this in the politically motivated "religious right" who are also sometimes called "cultural Christians" or "Constantine Christians" whose faith and spirituality don't seem sincere.

In terms of that line of thought, a hypocritical vegan wouldn't actually believe what they said. Like someone who pretended to be vegan in yoga class or something equally stupid. Or Anne Hathaway, she makes me mad, she was a very preachy celebrity vegan who dropped it like a hot potato for paleo...didn't even bother trying to be lacto-ovo or something still vegetarian.

A dietary or health vegan isn't a hypocrite, then. They practice what they preach. ..what they preach is diet or health. Not animal rights. No hypocrisy there.
Is dietary vegan really a thing? Do you really get to pick and choose which parts of vegan you want to be?

"A man goes into the grocery store. He buys a leather wallet and sticky glue mouse traps along with his clearly labeled vegan meats. To which the cashier asks, 'Oh, are you vegetarian?' The man then smiles and replies, 'I'm vegan, actually.' before walking away."

To avoid being a giant ass (which isn't my intention, I promise) I find it incredibly difficult to agree with that statement and it surely doesn't seem sincere to me. I don't want to speak for anyone else, but I know I would certainly be taken aback. Would I think him a bad person? I don't know him, so why would I? But I would call him out on it, and in the case that he's simply ignorant, then I would feel obligated to educate him so that he at least has the knowledge that what he's doing isn't correct. Just as I would want someone to do for me.

Now, if he replied with something like, 'I know it's bad... but..'

No buts. He is doing nothing more than clearly stating, "I'm entitling myself to this very label and all that goes with it, despite what I know it actually means." He is still a hypocrite because he knows vegans do not kill mice and buy leather wallets. If Veganism has re-written it's definition to allow for this, then I apologize and will cease the debate.

I will say that this very topic is exactly why I think we need to use plant-based at appropriate times so that the line doesn't become blurred. To echo my original post a little, people, young people especially, are coming into Veganism on this hype train from what they see on youtube largely thinking that it's a diet and they're going to lose weight while maybe helping out the planet at the same time. Great for them, truly, but some never further educate them or don't really feel like educating themselves. It's important to call these people out. Not to be mean or rude or insulting, but merely to inform them that what they're doing isn't right/correct/accurate.

What would happen if everyone who decided they'd go vegan just stopped somewhere in the middle and said 'all right, this is good enough'. Would it make a difference? For a while, definitely, but I'm not sure how sustainable that is long term.

I suppose what I was trying to say in all of my posts was that to my knowledge there was only one type vegan, different diets, sure. But ultimately it's under one central belief/moral standard. Saying you are something you are not, regardless of if you preach it or not, under whatever adjective you wish, it's still inaccurate. Neither of your definitions of a hypocrite are incorrect, but neither was mine.

Perhaps the definition has changed suddenly and vegan no longer means simply 'vegan'...
03-18-2016 11:21 PM
Thalassa4
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackBoxed View Post
Plant-based, from my understanding, is strictly related to diet and has nothing to do with a person's ethical standpoint. I think the term came after vegans wanted people to know that ''Veganism is not a diet!'', especially after quite a few celebrities went plant-based to lose weight and received mass media coverage from it; Beyonce and Adam Richman being the two most well known for being non-vegans on a "vegan diet!". Immediately after their weight loss, they did go back to consuming animal products which left a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths. I've noticed that a lot of people on a plant-based diet still have 'cheat' days where they'll eat either/or animal foods and junk. Of course, as we all know there is no such thing as a vegan cheat day. You're either all it or you're not in at all.

I can see how someone would say they're vegan even if they're only in it for the diet. It's hugely hypocritical, yes, but I get it. If I describe my diet (typically HCLF) with "I'm plant-based" my friends/family just look at me blankly until I finish up with... "Vegan". Then I get nods.

So, to answer your question if you say plant-based I will probably assume you are not vegan (to me there is no ethically or not, there's just vegan). If you say you're plant-based vegan then I know both your type of diet AND that you're ethically vegan. And as far as pre-vegan (not sure if that had anything to do with your question), but yes, I'd still consider you vegan because everyone has lingering shampoos, laundry detergents, makeup products, what-have-you that they just haven't replaced yet.


The word hypocrite indicates to me "do as I say, not as I do." Like a religious hypocrite would publicly shame others and have a good image at church, but have a secret lifestyle. ..these are the sort of people Jesus referred to as the Pharisees, who prayed loudly on street corners or made a huge show of religious legalism, but in their hearts and in private knew they were only doing it to be thought well of, or in order to have power over others. There are a lot of people like this in the politically motivated "religious right" who are also sometimes called "cultural Christians" or "Constantine Christians" whose faith and spirituality don't seem sincere.

In terms of that line of thought, a hypocritical vegan wouldn't actually believe what they said. Like someone who pretended to be vegan in yoga class or something equally stupid. Or Anne Hathaway, she makes me mad, she was a very preachy celebrity vegan who dropped it like a hot potato for paleo...didn't even bother trying to be lacto-ovo or something still vegetarian.

A dietary or health vegan isn't a hypocrite, then. They practice what they preach. ..what they preach is diet or health. Not animal rights. No hypocrisy there.
03-18-2016 11:08 PM
Thalassa4 I have seen plant based interpreted different ways.

One way is a vegan who only eats whole foods, like indicating they don't do anything processed.

The second is a dietary vegan who does not live an ethical vegan lifestyle.

Third is some one who is "mostly vegan" and eats whole foods but still might eat some cheese or eggs moderately. I've even seen such people be pescetarian.
03-18-2016 07:51 PM
terra biped
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackBoxed View Post
You wouldn't need to think of him as anything. Maybe, you confuse me calling someone a hypocrite with a judgement (of character, possibly?) which isn't the case. If he says, "I'm vegan" but knows he isn't, that means his actions don't match the essential rules of being vegan. That is, by definition, a hypocrite. I did also say that I fully understood why a person would say they're vegan knowing their not. Hand in hand with forum topic, he's plant-based not vegan. It's not meant to be harsh and I don't think it should be taken as harsh. It's more like "Hey, there's untruth to that statement."

EDIT: Adding on after reading the above reply. I'm not saying this applies to people who are giving it a good effort in transitioning. I'm speaking strictly of people who don't eat animals but don't really care about anything else, nor do they want to put effort in changing anything else.
I don't agree with your definition of a hypocrite. In my book, a hypocrite is a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he or she knowingly does not hold in order to conceal his or her real feelings or motives. I don't assume dietary vegans know they are not real vegans, as you assume. But I understand your definition, and I can see how from your perspective, calling people hypocrites isn't meant to be harsh. So I won't take it that way. Thank you for the clarification.
03-18-2016 04:40 PM
ModVegan
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackBoxed View Post
You wouldn't need to think of him as anything. Maybe, you confuse me calling someone a hypocrite with a judgement (of character, possibly?) which isn't the case. If he says, "I'm vegan" but knows he isn't, that means his actions don't match the essential rules of being vegan. That is, by definition, a hypocrite. I did also say that I fully understood why a person would say they're vegan knowing their not. Hand in hand with forum topic, he's plant-based not vegan. It's not meant to be harsh and I don't think it should be taken as harsh. It's more like "Hey, there's untruth to that statement."

EDIT: Adding on after reading the above reply. I'm not saying this applies to people who are giving it a good effort in transitioning. I'm speaking strictly of people who don't eat animals but don't really care about anything else, nor do they want to put effort in changing anything else.
Agreed. T.Colin Campbell, who eats a "plant-based" diet, has repeatedly said that he is not a vegan, because that entails commitments to animal welfare that aren't really part of his worldview. Interesting. At the same time, I think he has done a great deal to reduce animal suffering by pointing out the pointlessness and downright harm of eating meat.
03-18-2016 03:16 PM
BlackBoxed
Quote:
Originally Posted by terra biped View Post
I have a good friend who eats vegan because of some serious health problems. And he calls himself a vegan. The AR conversation isn't something he thinks about one way or the other. Should I think of him as a hypocrite who is "only it for the the diet." I don't think so. That seems really harsh to me.
You wouldn't need to think of him as anything. Maybe, you confuse me calling someone a hypocrite with a judgement (of character, possibly?) which isn't the case. If he says, "I'm vegan" but knows he isn't, that means his actions don't match the essential rules of being vegan. That is, by definition, a hypocrite. I did also say that I fully understood why a person would say they're vegan knowing their not. Hand in hand with forum topic, he's plant-based not vegan. It's not meant to be harsh and I don't think it should be taken as harsh. It's more like "Hey, there's untruth to that statement."

EDIT: Adding on after reading the above reply. I'm not saying this applies to people who are giving it a good effort in transitioning. I'm speaking strictly of people who don't eat animals but don't really care about anything else, nor do they want to put effort in changing anything else.
03-18-2016 02:39 PM
Spudulika
Quote:
Originally Posted by terra biped View Post
I have a good friend who eats vegan because of some serious health problems. And he calls himself a vegan. The AR conversation isn't something he thinks about one way or the other. Should I think of him as a hypocrite who is "only it for the the diet." I don't think so. That seems really harsh to me.
Whatever reasons he's personally in it for, it doesn't really matter now you "think of" your friend (it won't affect him or what he does after all), so you should probably think of him in whatever way works for you both.

Whether it's his core motivation or not (and from what you say he has adopted 'veganism' just for the diet) you obviously also don't want to "think of him" as an "only in the diet" kind of "vegan" because that has negative "hypocrite" connotations for you.

In case you think so, there's nothing hypocritical about people adopting a plant-based "vegan" diet for themselves. There's nothing hypocritical about being "in the diet, just for yourself" rather than because of the animals who are spared as a consequence of your dietary choice. A lot of people come to this place because they are seeking answers to health problems. It's all good.

As such - and as has been suggested on this thread - maybe it would be more productive for you to think of him as a "beginner vegan" who's on a journey into veganism? I can't speak for others, but I'd probably go that route myself.

There's no reason why you couldn't introduce him to the fuller side of the vegan perspective (animals/environment), once he's begun to understand and fully embrace the personal benefits to himself. There's absolutely nothing "harsh" about honest, friendly education and engagement.
03-18-2016 02:17 PM
terra biped
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackBoxed View Post
Plant-based, from my understanding, is strictly related to diet and has nothing to do with a person's ethical standpoint. I think the term came after vegans wanted people to know that ''Veganism is not a diet!'', especially after quite a few celebrities went plant-based to lose weight and received mass media coverage from it; Beyonce and Adam Richman being the two most well known for being non-vegans on a "vegan diet!". Immediately after their weight loss, they did go back to consuming animal products which left a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths. I've noticed that a lot of people on a plant-based diet still have 'cheat' days where they'll eat either/or animal foods and junk. Of course, as we all know there is no such thing as a vegan cheat day. You're either all it or you're not in at all.

I can see how someone would say they're vegan even if they're only in it for the diet. It's hugely hypocritical, yes, but I get it. If I describe my diet (typically HCLF) with "I'm plant-based" my friends/family just look at me blankly until I finish up with... "Vegan". Then I get nods.

So, to answer your question if you say plant-based I will probably assume you are not vegan (to me there is no ethically or not, there's just vegan). If you say you're plant-based vegan then I know both your type of diet AND that you're ethically vegan. And as far as pre-vegan (not sure if that had anything to do with your question), but yes, I'd still consider you vegan because everyone has lingering shampoos, laundry detergents, makeup products, what-have-you that they just haven't replaced yet.
I have a good friend who eats vegan because of some serious health problems. And he calls himself a vegan. The AR conversation isn't something he thinks about one way or the other. Should I think of him as a hypocrite who is "only it for the the diet." I don't think so. That seems really harsh to me.
03-18-2016 12:57 PM
Spudulika
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackBoxed View Post
End goals!

I feel like every time I clean I come across something else that needs to go (then again, I'm still a relatively new vegan).
I think most vegans are probably new vegans, and are as a consequence going through the process of becoming vegan.

That's both a good thing (the vegan movement has attracted a lot of interest and a lot of new members in recent years) and a bad thing (most new vegans, sadly don't make it to long-term vegans..)
03-18-2016 12:50 PM
BlackBoxed
Quote:
Originally Posted by LedBoots View Post
Well, not everyone. I think that after this many years, our stuff is all as vegan and cruelty-free as I can find.
End goals!

I feel like every time I clean I come across something else that needs to go (then again, I'm still a relatively new vegan).
03-18-2016 11:33 AM
LedBoots Well, not everyone. I think that after this many years, our stuff is all as vegan and cruelty-free as I can find.
03-18-2016 10:31 AM
BlackBoxed Plant-based, from my understanding, is strictly related to diet and has nothing to do with a person's ethical standpoint. I think the term came after vegans wanted people to know that ''Veganism is not a diet!'', especially after quite a few celebrities went plant-based to lose weight and received mass media coverage from it; Beyonce and Adam Richman being the two most well known for being non-vegans on a "vegan diet!". Immediately after their weight loss, they did go back to consuming animal products which left a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths. I've noticed that a lot of people on a plant-based diet still have 'cheat' days where they'll eat either/or animal foods and junk. Of course, as we all know there is no such thing as a vegan cheat day. You're either all it or you're not in at all.

I can see how someone would say they're vegan even if they're only in it for the diet. It's hugely hypocritical, yes, but I get it. If I describe my diet (typically HCLF) with "I'm plant-based" my friends/family just look at me blankly until I finish up with... "Vegan". Then I get nods.

So, to answer your question if you say plant-based I will probably assume you are not vegan (to me there is no ethically or not, there's just vegan). If you say you're plant-based vegan then I know both your type of diet AND that you're ethically vegan. And as far as pre-vegan (not sure if that had anything to do with your question), but yes, I'd still consider you vegan because everyone has lingering shampoos, laundry detergents, makeup products, what-have-you that they just haven't replaced yet.
03-16-2016 11:36 AM
vegetaliano I think you've made an excellent point, Modvegan.
This dissociation vegans often practice between what they are doing (right..) and what omnivores trapped in occupations that make it tempting to abuse animals to supplement their income because no appropriate safety net is available ( wrong..) is as negative for us as vegans as for omnivores. I see the direct dilemma in rural Canada, and I think it's similar in rural France, where isolated communities have few or no income-generating work options. A case in point is the "foie gras" industry in SW France, where groups of rural and option-poor workers get involved to make a little money. We as vegans condemn the industry, but cannot hope to offer those involved any prospect of alternative work options (and the National or regional govt. administrations don't feel the need to, being omnivore-minded), and meanwhile the unemployment rate is stagnating or rising... I consider myself chastened by your reminder. At least I hope one can say vegans try to avoid hypocrisy if they can.
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