"as far as possible and practicable" and vegetarianism

[Blobbenstein]

The Vegan Society now defines veganism as "...a way of living that seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing and any other purpose."

I have been wondering, does this apply to vegetarianism, that is the "possible and practicable" part?

 

[Second Summer]

I'm not aware of any widely accepted definition of vegetarianism that has such a clause. That said, I think it would make sense if there was.

 

[flyingsnail]

I've always found that definition of veganism to be vague, what exactly do they mean by "possible and practicable"? For example it would seem that avoiding parks (the construction and maintenance of which results in animal cruelty) and avoiding vaccines and similar medical care would be "possible and practicable" and therefore someone that uses a park or gets a vaccine wouldn't be vegan. I just can't wrap my head around the various definitions of veganism.

 

[Clueless Git]

I have been wondering, does this apply to vegetarianism, that is the "possible and practicable" part?

To whatever degree it applies to vegetarianism it also applies to omnivorism.

That is because the impossibility and impracticality of living without animal exploitation in both instances are absolutely identical at absolutely ZERO.

 

[Blobbenstein]

I was wondering if a vegan and a vegetarian were stuck on the moon in a Nazi moon base, with only a meat sausages to eat, if they both eat the sausages, the vegan could still be considered a vegan, but the vegetarian would lose his veggie status.?

 

[Clueless Git]

I'm not aware of any widely accepted definition of vegetarianism that has such a clause. That said, I think it would make sense if there was.

If you wanted to make sense out of that you'd first have to make sense of how NOT exploiting animals for their ovulations and lactations could in any way be impractical or impossible.

It would be dangerous ground to try and make sense out of that nonsense, mind.

Anything that makes sense out of "life with milk and eggs" is impractical and/or impossible is 100% guaranteed to make sense out of "life without pate foi gras" is equaly impratical and/or impossible also.

 

[Clueless Git]

I was wondering if a vegan and a vegetarian were stuck on the moon in a Nazi moon base, with only a meat sausages to eat, if they both eat the sausages, the vegan could still be considered a vegan, but the vegetarian would lose his veggie status.?

Aha! The old "stuck on a Nazi moon base with only meat sausages to eat" conundrum ...

Can we not add an evil alien who will destroy the Earth if both the vegetarian and the vegan don't eat the sausages to the equation?

 

[Blobbenstein]

;-)

well we could have more down to earth(literally) examples of homelessness or being stuck in some prisons.

 

[flyingsnail]

Anything that makes sense out of "life with milk and eggs" is impractical and/or impossible is 100% guaranteed to make sense out of "life without pate foi gras" is equaly impratical and/or impossible also.

I don't see how this would be the case, in most western countries dairy and eggs are far more difficult to avoid than something like foi gras which most people haven't even eaten. There is also a major difference in the level of suffering/exploitation one has to, in principle, inflict. But the Vegan Societies definition isn't in terms of what is practical, but instead what is practicable. That is, I think, a huge problem because many things like the avoidance of parks and vaccines are practicable (and possible) therefore should be done by vegans according to this definition.

 

[flyingsnail]

I was wondering if a vegan and a vegetarian were stuck on the moon in a Nazi moon base, with only a meat sausages to eat, if they both eat the sausages, the vegan could still be considered a vegan, but the vegetarian would lose his veggie status.?

According to the above definition the answer would seem to be yes, but according to this definition vegans shouldn't do a number of things that they currently do on a daily basis. Vegans should, for example, reject any medical care that depends on animal exploitation and cruelty.

 

[Clueless Git]

;-)

well we could have more down to earth(literally) examples of homelessness or being stuck in some prisons.

Is this the plan by which we use prisoners as food for homeless animals and then use homeless animals as food for homeless people?

 

[Blobbenstein]

Is this the plan by which we use prisoners as food for homeless animals and then use homeless animals as food for homeless people?

I was thinking about homeless people either having to eat out of rubbish bins, or having no choice at soup kitchens. And also prisons in some parts of the world where you either eat meat or go without. Not everyone has the option of eating vegan food.

 

[Clueless Git]

Not everyone has the option of eating vegan food.

Well, all food starts out as 100% vegan food.

The fact that the omni/vegetarian "animals are ours to abuse for no reason other than that we are a bunch of total ***-hats" coalition is capable of contaminating the food supply so as no vegan food remains in some places is not at all disputed.

 

[Blobbenstein]

contaminating the food supply

I hate it when that happens.

 

[Clueless Git]

I hate it when that happens.

I fondly imagine that the billions tortured and killed to provide the contaminants aren't totaly ecstatic about it either, Blobbers.

 

[Clueless Git]

Every now and again I get bored and look at ignored content. Usualy I wish I hadn't ...

According to the above definition the answer would seem to be yes, but according to this definition vegans shouldn't do a number of things that they currently do on a daily basis. Vegans should, for example, reject any medical care that depends on animal exploitation and cruelty.

By that logic people who are against water and air pollution should stop drinking and breathing.

 

[Blobbenstein]

have you ever spoken at Speaker's Corner, in Hyde Park, CG?

You might enjoy it.

 

[Clueless Git]

have you ever spoken at Speaker's Corner, in Hyde Park, CG?

You might enjoy it.

Lol! No, I've been there but never spoken, Blobbers.

My dad took me there when I was a kiddie. He heckled a couple of well dressed old spinsters who were raving in a way that suggested they may have been slightly anti-semitic.

The ensuing 'debate' consisted largely of them shouting "BIG SHRONKED B'STARD!!" whilst hitting my dad with their umbrellas.

 

[Joe]

I've always found that definition of veganism to be vague, ...

Perhaps you can convert to vague-anism.

 

[Second Summer]

I'm not aware of any widely accepted definition of vegetarianism that has such a clause. That said, I think it would make sense if there was.

Actually, what I meant to say was that I wasn't aware of any such written definition. In practice, people will allow for similar deviations for vegetarians from vegetarian food as do the veganism definition for vegan food/products.

I've always found that definition of veganism to be vague

In one sense, yes, and that's actually a good thing. It allows people to keep identifying with the vegan philosophy despite some of the factors that make it virtually impossible for everyone to use only vegan products throughout their lifetime.

Anything that makes sense out of "life with milk and eggs" is impractical and/or impossible is 100% guaranteed to make sense out of "life without pate foi gras" is equaly impratical and/or impossible also.

Did you mean to say "life *without* milk and eggs"? Sometimes your logic seems a bit confusing! (And wrong!)