Is being vegan an all or nothing thing?

[Danielle]

I just think that vegans should be able to refuse to buy non vegans animal products. I don't see buying them meat/dairy as a positive thing.

 

[Second Summer]

I don't agree with you on all the counts.

- Buying non-vegan products for others - sure, I can see that this would not make you a non-vegan.

If you refuse to buy some non-vegan products for your old, ailing mother, who is bed-ridden, she will likely be unhappy with you and send somebody else to buy it.
If your significant other asks you to bring something from the supermarket on your way home and you refuse, they will likely get it themselves. You have only very limited ways to protect animals in this way. More likely is that people will stop to ask you for favours.

- Consume non-vegan products.

I think you should only call yourself a vegan if you consciously go out of your way to not consume non-vegan products. When my mother celebrates her birthday, she knows that I will not eat a piece of cake. I typically bring my own banana instead. As a matter of fact, it is my impression that people would be confused if I told them that I am morally opposed to harming animals ... apart from exceptions. If I join others for lunch at a restaurant and there is nothing vegan for me to eat, then I will drink something instead. I will not starve from that one missed lunch. I will learn from that and bring something the next time. Sure, it might make others moderately uncomfortable, but we will all just have to live with that.

- Use non-vegan products.

Yes, I can see if somebody who goes vegan does not throw out his leather jacket and shoes, but rather might decide to keep them. I personally kept some leather shoes from my pre-vegan days for very cold winter days, but realized later that I simply would not put them on anyway, as they gross me out. I would rather wear my Vegetarian Shoes boots with some more extra socks instead. So ... after some time, I gave them away, too. But, as I said, I can understand everybody who keeps using leather items he might still have. I have little understanding, however, for anybody who would then go out and buy a new pair of leather shoes, while at the same time insisting that s/he was a vegan.

I probably should have elaborated more on what I meant regarding the sentence you quoted. I didn't intend it to come across quite so open-ended, but had to finish off the post so I could get off my bus at the right stop

I agree with a lot of what you said here, though there are more exceptions, and also I don't want to go around telling people they're not vegans.

For example, families on a low income might struggle to purchase comfortable all vegan shoes for their children, especially certain winter/skiing shoes. They may have to resort to second-hand shoes, most of which are not vegan.

 

[KLS52]

I don't go around telling people they are not vegan, but I remember, a few years back, making sure that people knew the difference. I had a co-worker who was identifying as vegan but she ate chicken, occasionally. So while I didn't say, "you are not a vegan", I didn't have a problem saying, "well, vegans don't eat chicken", even if it is only once a week. Same thing but not as challenging, I suppose.

I still feel like "vegan" should have its definitive lines. I just don't understand why it's so important for someone to call themselves vegan if they are not (except for the fact that vegans are so cool, lol). It is about trying to change the definition and blur the lines and I don't agree with that. It shouldn't be a big deal. Because, bottom line, I agree with everyone who is saying that any reduction in the use of animal products is a good thing.

Another point I would like to bring up...there are so many reasons why people aren't able to make the full transition. I feel like living in today's world comes with so many challenges, and someone who is dealing with an eating disorder, anxiety, depression, poverty, other mental and/or physical disorders...we need to cut people some slack when it comes to the whole judgement thing. The world is not going to go vegan overnight, if ever. But we are lucky, it is getting easier and easier. Availability of vegan products is exploding. I think it makes more of an impact if more people are making "some" changes, than if just a handful of people are doing it hardcore. Positive changes take time if they are going to have a lasting affect.

 

[PTree15]

I don't go around telling people they are not vegan, but I remember, a few years back, making sure that people knew the difference. I had a co-worker who was identifying as vegan but she ate chicken, occasionally. So while I didn't say, "you are not a vegan", I didn't have a problem saying, "well, vegans don't eat chicken", even if it is only once a week. Same thing but not as challenging, I suppose.

I still feel like "vegan" should have its definitive lines. I just don't understand why it's so important for someone to call themselves vegan if they are not (except for the fact that vegans are so cool, lol). It is about trying to change the definition and blur the lines and I don't agree with that. It shouldn't be a big deal. Because, bottom line, I agree with everyone who is saying that any reduction in the use of animal products is a good thing.

Another point I would like to bring up...there are so many reasons why people aren't able to make the full transition. I feel like living in today's world comes with so many challenges, and someone who is dealing with an eating disorder, anxiety, depression, poverty, other mental and/or physical disorders...we need to cut people some slack when it comes to the whole judgement thing. The world is not going to go vegan overnight, if ever. But we are lucky, it is getting easier and easier. Availability of vegan products is exploding. I think it makes more of an impact if more people are making "some" changes, than if just a handful of people are doing it hardcore. Positive changes take time if they are going to have a lasting affect.

The judgmental issue is what turns so many people off, for a variety of societal and psychological reasons. Just the other day, a good friend posted on FB what he thought was a humorous take on judgmental vegans. I watched the video, and of course I found it offensive, and of course, it's been getting lots of "likes." I get really discouraged when I see the proliferation and continuation of vegan stereotypes, as it seems to make nonveg*ns dig their heels in even further, allowing them to continually justify their cruel choices.

I take the path of trying to be less judgmental of nonvegans because I feel like a fraud calling people out when I used to be just like them before I decided to live as cruelty-free a life as possible. I feel I would have more of a right to criticize had I been vegan for life. That said, I couldn't let the opportunity pass to inform my friend that not all vegans are like the ones in the video.

I keep hoping that by setting a good vegan example and gently informing when asked about my choices that it will effect change, however small. Big change often starts with small steps. Over the years, I have noticed small, subtle changes in how people treat my choices, mostly in a good way. My boss, for example, has made sure that today's company-paid lunch from (the hideous) Chik-fil-A includes a vegan option. Granted, it's salad, lol, but the fact that he even thought about me (the only vegan in the office) is great progress. Members of my family have started making some non-cruelty choices, like choosing almond milk over dairy milk, and veggie burgers over animal-based ones. My mom has even stopped asking me to pick up dead animal flesh at the store, and takes care to make sure I don't have to handle any flesh-tainted dishes when we dine together. Some of my friends, conscious of the fact that their chowing down on dead flesh might offend me, even though I have not uttered a word about that, will order less offensive-looking food when we go out.

It starts with awareness, as that is how I came to change. Admittedly, it took a while, but I feel hopeful overall that if someone like me can change, then others can and will as well.

Getting back to the video... I work with this man's wife, who is also a good friend, and she came over to me and told me that he felt bad about possibly offending me, but he found humor in satire about harvesting vegetables possibly causing global warming (they have a small farm.) By not staying silent, and not getting (the dreaded, lol) preachy and completely turning him off, he will most likely think twice about posting such ridiculousness in the future. Now, if I could only convince him and his wife that raising their own animals for food is an awful practice...small steps.

 

[Dedalus]

I take the path of trying to be less judgmental of nonvegans because I feel like a fraud calling people out when I used to be just like them before I decided to live as cruelty-free a life as possible. I feel I would have more of a right to criticize had I been vegan for life.

I think that the internet / social media has been both a boon to vegans/veganism and also a curse. The lack of tone and nuance in the words one writes, the ability to cut someone to ribbons with a single sentence, the 'likes,' ganging up and piling on in discussions that others initiate, etc - it amounts to a kind of bullying. (Of course, I'm referring to individuals on both sides of the issue.) I've been guilty of this as well - it's difficult to take the high road sometimes. Over the years, this has resulted in my being disgusted with everybody, vegans and non-vegans alike, so much so that I really don't call myself vegan unless I am in a restaurant and have to let the server know the difference between that and being vegetarian. Or when I am educating someone because they ask. Otherwise, I just say that I don't eat animals and leave it at that. If they press me further - I go on to explain how it is a lifestyle, not a diet, etc. But I almost feel like labeling myself a vegan to a total stranger already casts me in a somewhat negative light.

In a related story, I was in a class for work not long ago and part of my grade was to present a topic of my choice. The name of the class was How to Influence without Direct Authority. (A really great class, btw, for those of us who have to work closely with people whom we aren't the bosses of. It's a great study of how you can use every day behavioral skills to persuade and motivate people to work for/with you.) The instructor urged us to pick a topic and present information that was challenging / possibly uncomfortable for us - to use the exercise as a great opportunity to develop our message. So of course I picked veganism. Without going into a lot of detail, that exercise really changed me. My opening line was - Today I am going to raise your awareness and attempt to build on something you already have - compassion. The set up was: Who here loves animals? Then I told my personal story about being raised on a farm, educated about the societal disconnect we have when it comes to eating animals, the awakening - (facts on what really happens to animals, though we try to ignore this - and why the meat and dairy industries want desperately for us to ignore it) And then I hit them with facts - not many, just ones that I thought would make the most impact, like how many animals are killed each year, etc. (I only had ten minutes for this whole thing.) I explained how not eating meat benefits the environment and one's personal health. I closed with a plea, and it was here that I believe I won them over. I just asked that they think about it - that they consider the information. I made it a point not to preach, but to appeal to them as individuals who shared the same compassionate values as myself. Everyone has their own path and people want to feel empowered to make their own choices. When eating animals is not a necessity, it is a choice. Our choices stem from our beliefs. If we believe we are a compassionate people, then why do we disregard that conviction 3 times a day when we sit down to eat?

Did they go vegan? I have no way of knowing - but 4 out of the 6 in my group came up to me afterwards to tell me how moved they were.

I had no visual aid beside what I could write and draw on a large notepad. Much of my content / approach to this exercise came from a presentation by Dr. Melanie Joy - if you have not seen it - check it out.

 

[FortyTwo]

I disagree with this statement completely. It sends the wrong message that animal products are okay if they're from "happy" animals.

Before I say any more - understand that I actually agree with you here. I am a vegan for a lot of reasons, and one of them is the ideological one that humans should not be exploiting animals under any circumstances.

What I have difficulty with is that I'm really not sure how bad, on a basic level, using products that come from "happy" animals is. And I don't mean like the "happy cows" on those dumb California Dairy commercials or whatever, where you know it's just a label slapped on a thing that came from a factory farm. Nor do I mean animals living under corporations that do the bare minimum required by the FDA to be able to say they were ~free range~ or ~organic~ when it's barely any different from any other factory farm. And I definitely don't mean meat - killing animals is horrific and there's no "humane" way to do it because the act itself is inhumane.

I mean the fact that it is entirely possible to give chickens an amazing, quality life while still occasionally picking out a few of their eggs and eating them. The fact that beekeepers are almost singlehandedly preventing honeybees from becoming critically endangered, contribute massively to pollination of wildflowers and fruits, and generally don't harm their bees at all, as "kept" bees actually produce a crapton more honey than they need. (There are a lot of myths about honey in the vegan community, and I've spent years coming to terms with the fact that many of them really are just myths and beekeepers aren't terrible.)

Personally, I am 100% on the same page as you. Honey is essentially vomit and comes from animals that work themselves dizzy to make it while we steal it from under their noses. Eggs are chicken periods, also stolen from an animal, and I'd never in a million years intentionally eat one again, for the rest of my life. But on another level, I have to acknowledge that these animals don't possess the ability to understand the concept of human motivation and, as such, don't really give a **** if we take their stuff. They don't even really have a concept of ownership, if we're being honest. This doesn't make them less than us, it just makes them different. I can't be too high and mighty over someone who has chickens, works to keep them happy and healthy, and occasionally fries one of their eggs for breakfast, because despite my personal moral opposition to taking things from animals, what effect is it honestly having on those chickens? Maybe they'd get territorial if they caught someone taking an egg? Maybe they'd throw a small fit about it and then forget about it ten minutes later because it wasn't even fertilized anyway? This is just the reality of it.

Now, does this describe the vast majority of situations? Hell no. But I think it's important that we, as a community, recognize that it's not just "vegans versus everyone else." That's not how morality works. It'd be nice if it were - I'm autistic and I struggle a lot with moral grey areas, believe me - but it just isn't like that. The human relationship to animals is a complex one, and exploitation is not always a black and white issue. For instance: when I was younger I kept snails for a while in a terrarium, where they were always nice and damp, gorged themselves on vegetables constantly, never had to deal with any threat from predators in the slightest, and got to live long full lives in a consistent environment with plenty to explore. Keeping those snails was not entirely altruistic - it was selfish. I wanted to have snails and watch them do their thing, and I was willing to restrict their outdoor freedom to do so. By any definition, isn't that exploitation? But the snails themselves didn't know that. They were snails. For them it was eat, poop, sleep, crawl on wet ground, crawl on other object, over and over and over again. The same thing they do in the wild. It'd be a hard argument to say that those snails actually grasped the concept of "outdoors" or that they were missing out on anything. Now, snails are obviously a very different example from traditional farm animals - again, not a lower example, but a different one, because evolution doesn't work like that - but the basic concept still stands, I think.

Maybe I'm rambling at this point (I'm definitely rambling). It comes down to this - animals are usually incapable of understanding their own exploitation. Content and well-cared-for animals are able to be exploited by humans without interfering with their quality of life. Ideologically I do not want to exploit animals, so I am vegan, because I think this is the best and easiest way to avoid directly exploiting animals. However, I have to acknowledge that exploiting animals does not necessarily align with harming them. I am more concerned about the physical act of harming animals than I am with the ideological act of exploiting them, whatever my personal opinion may be.

 

[Jamie in Chile]

Great discussion. Indian Summer post at 24 I agree with. “Vegan people may at times consume, purchase and/or use non-vegan products.”

I am quite new to veganism and feel that I am progressing and not all that far away from a point where I might call myself a vegan to friends, family, casual acquaintances, restaurant servers etc, for one thing it is going to make things easier. I don’t want to call myself mostly vegan and then refuse to eat something with cheese or butter on, they are going to wonder why I just didn’t say vegan. Or perhaps say I eat a vegan diet since my diet really is 99% vegan, which can’t be said for my non-food products so far.

However I seem to be very far from being a vegan if this forum were to be the judge. I don’t covet the label as such (not much anyway), I just think it would be easier to explain things if I could just say I was a vegan.

I think reducing animal suffering is ultimately more important than being as vegan as possible, and a vegetarian that converts another vegetarian probably has had more positive impact on the world than a vegan. Instead of “is it vegan” yes/no would it be better to ask how much animal suffering is in a product. If the animal ingredient is the 7th ingredient with 0.01% cheese in a product, does it matter? Because sooner or later you are going to reach a point where the pursuit of level 5 veganism means you end up focusing your energies on things where the positive good done is less and less until you reach the point where you would do more good in the world focusing more energies on other things (local, organic, making ethical choices about buying clothes from firms that don’t hire teenagers in sweat shops that fall down and kill them etc, and other things nothing to do with consumption choices).

 

[LorriePaige]

I thought this was a very interesting article, and I'd be curious to know whether VVers agree or disagree. Over time, I think I've become more relaxed in my expectations of other vegans. It's been my experience that vegans online tend to be more "hard core" than those I meet in real life, so I don't make comments or criticize when I suspect they've bent the "rules" , but perhaps my experiences have been unique.


Why being vegan is NOT an all-or-nothing thing

I think Donald Watson's quote is the best definition of being vegan, but the “as far as is possible and practical” isn't always taken seriously by many. I've known vegans who have said, "Can't I eat this and wear that and STILL be vegan? That sounds like to me they just want the title.

I don't like the phrase "all or nothing" since no one is 100% vegan except maybe someone who is dead, as just being alive we kill animals....To me, "hard core" is a word for vegans trying to be as close to 100% vegan as they can (and not constantly asking the question in my first paragraph), and I don't see anything negative about hard core, as well as teaching (not preaching or arguing) that to others.

 

[PTree15]

Before I say any more - understand that I actually agree with you here. I am a vegan for a lot of reasons, and one of them is the ideological one that humans should not be exploiting animals under any circumstances.

What I have difficulty with is that I'm really not sure how bad, on a basic level, using products that come from "happy" animals is. And I don't mean like the "happy cows" on those dumb California Dairy commercials or whatever, where you know it's just a label slapped on a thing that came from a factory farm. Nor do I mean animals living under corporations that do the bare minimum required by the FDA to be able to say they were ~free range~ or ~organic~ when it's barely any different from any other factory farm. And I definitely don't mean meat - killing animals is horrific and there's no "humane" way to do it because the act itself is inhumane.

I mean the fact that it is entirely possible to give chickens an amazing, quality life while still occasionally picking out a few of their eggs and eating them. The fact that beekeepers are almost singlehandedly preventing honeybees from becoming critically endangered, contribute massively to pollination of wildflowers and fruits, and generally don't harm their bees at all, as "kept" bees actually produce a crapton more honey than they need. (There are a lot of myths about honey in the vegan community, and I've spent years coming to terms with the fact that many of them really are just myths and beekeepers aren't terrible.)

Personally, I am 100% on the same page as you. Honey is essentially vomit and comes from animals that work themselves dizzy to make it while we steal it from under their noses. Eggs are chicken periods, also stolen from an animal, and I'd never in a million years intentionally eat one again, for the rest of my life. But on another level, I have to acknowledge that these animals don't possess the ability to understand the concept of human motivation and, as such, don't really give a **** if we take their stuff. They don't even really have a concept of ownership, if we're being honest. This doesn't make them less than us, it just makes them different. I can't be too high and mighty over someone who has chickens, works to keep them happy and healthy, and occasionally fries one of their eggs for breakfast, because despite my personal moral opposition to taking things from animals, what effect is it honestly having on those chickens? Maybe they'd get territorial if they caught someone taking an egg? Maybe they'd throw a small fit about it and then forget about it ten minutes later because it wasn't even fertilized anyway? This is just the reality of it.

Now, does this describe the vast majority of situations? Hell no. But I think it's important that we, as a community, recognize that it's not just "vegans versus everyone else." That's not how morality works. It'd be nice if it were - I'm autistic and I struggle a lot with moral grey areas, believe me - but it just isn't like that. The human relationship to animals is a complex one, and exploitation is not always a black and white issue. For instance: when I was younger I kept snails for a while in a terrarium, where they were always nice and damp, gorged themselves on vegetables constantly, never had to deal with any threat from predators in the slightest, and got to live long full lives in a consistent environment with plenty to explore. Keeping those snails was not entirely altruistic - it was selfish. I wanted to have snails and watch them do their thing, and I was willing to restrict their outdoor freedom to do so. By any definition, isn't that exploitation? But the snails themselves didn't know that. They were snails. For them it was eat, poop, sleep, crawl on wet ground, crawl on other object, over and over and over again. The same thing they do in the wild. It'd be a hard argument to say that those snails actually grasped the concept of "outdoors" or that they were missing out on anything. Now, snails are obviously a very different example from traditional farm animals - again, not a lower example, but a different one, because evolution doesn't work like that - but the basic concept still stands, I think.

Maybe I'm rambling at this point (I'm definitely rambling). It comes down to this - animals are usually incapable of understanding their own exploitation. Content and well-cared-for animals are able to be exploited by humans without interfering with their quality of life. Ideologically I do not want to exploit animals, so I am vegan, because I think this is the best and easiest way to avoid directly exploiting animals. However, I have to acknowledge that exploiting animals does not necessarily align with harming them. I am more concerned about the physical act of harming animals than I am with the ideological act of exploiting them, whatever my personal opinion may be.

I don't agree that an animal's lack of understanding of its own exploitation should be justification for, say, eating eggs from chickens. Children are exploited/abused every day without fully understanding what is happening to them, especially if that exploitation has occurred since a young age, and such exploitation is still considered morally reprehensible. Exploitation comes in many forms, both physical and psychological, and both can cause harm. I'm not sure we really know or understand other animals' levels of cognitive awareness about their day-to-day lives, as we're not in their heads, despite multitudes of studies of animal behavior. Our understanding, or lack thereof, is colored by the human experience.

I suppose I am projecting that human experience on animals and making my judgments based on that. I also supposed there are degrees of exploitation. Having a few eggs from a well-cared-for chicken, on the surface, seems much less offensive than eating eggs that came from a factory farm. The physical suffering is far more palpable than the less visible exploitation of taking an egg from a chicken who is living out its life in comfort under the care of a human.

I do agree that the relationship between humans and other animals is not black-and-white; I myself have a cat as a pet, which really isn't considered vegan. Again, we come to degrees of exploitation and whether it's actually harmful; my cat is a rescue, and perhaps it was presumptuous of me to think he would enjoy a better life under my care than he would fending for himself in the wild. At the time, I felt compelled to give him a home, as I do enjoy the company of cats and other animals, and I thought I was doing a good deed. The evolution of the domestic cat is another factor to consider, I suppose. All that said, it technically isn't vegan to have a pet. But I don't have a problem with people providing sanctuary to animals who've been rescued from awful conditions so that they at least can be free of physical harm or abuse. And to be honest, I'm not sure I will have any more pets after Theo, as I really do want to live and let live, which would mean forgoing a pet. The issue of rescue, though, is another story. I don't think I could ever sit by and ignore the abuse of an animal. Heh, now I'm rambling.

The bottom line for me is that I would find it not vegan to eat eggs under any circumstances, as it perpetuates the belief that animals are here for humans to use. That is the biggest challenge of pushing veganism forward: convincing humans that animals are not here for us to use.

 

[FortyTwo]

I don't agree that an animal's lack of understanding of its own exploitation should be justification for, say, eating eggs from chickens. Children are exploited/abused every day without fully understanding what is happening to them, especially if that exploitation has occurred since a young age, and such exploitation is still considered morally reprehensible. Exploitation comes in many forms, both physical and psychological, and both can cause harm. I'm not sure we really know or understand other animals' levels of cognitive awareness about their day-to-day lives, as we're not in their heads, despite multitudes of studies of animal behavior. Our understanding, or lack thereof, is colored by the human experience.

Oh, no, of course not. I couldn't ever justify it to myself, so I wouldn't do it.

As for lack of understanding - I think the issue there is that the exploitation of children has the potential to keep hurting them for the rest of their life, depending on what kind of exploitation you mean. It's probably not best to compare sexual abuse of children to agricultural exploitation of animals, as it's a sensitive issue and, by any account, incomparable. Any exploitation of an animal for agricultural purposes, short of killing them, modifying their bodies in a way that harms them, or depriving them of physical and emotional necessities, cannot be compared to something like that. It can hurt the animal, sure, but I think we can all agree that psychologically destroying someone is a million times worse than any emotional distress a chicken might have upon finding that its eggs are gone.

As for economic exploitation, such as child labor - the issue for me there is the potential for harm. The reason child labor is so reprehensible as compared to, say, a child helping to dust the shelves for their parents or something, is due to the extreme risks and safety hazards it presents. Exploitation of a safe, comfortable child would still be exploitation, don't get me wrong. Like if you had a baby crawling on a big hamster wheel or something to generate power for your house, waving animal crackers in front of their face to get them to move forward. You'd be exploiting that baby, but the baby would have no idea what the hell was going on and wouldn't be in any danger. I know that's a ridiculous example, but it's closer to the chickens and the eggs for me than the idea of harmful exploitation and abuse.

I suppose I am projecting that human experience on animals and making my judgments based on that. I also supposed there are degrees of exploitation. Having a few eggs from a well-cared-for chicken, on the surface, seems much less offensive than eating eggs that came from a factory farm. The physical suffering is far more palpable than the less visible exploitation of taking an egg from a chicken who is living out its life in comfort under the care of a human.

I'd say that the "visibility" of the exploitation is more like "tangibility" - for the well-cared-for chicken, it's occurring, but it's not having any real effect on the animal. On the other hand the factory farm is both exploitative and harmful.

I do agree that the relationship between humans and other animals is not black-and-white; I myself have a cat as a pet, which really isn't considered vegan.

If having a cat as a pet isn't considered vegan, then I must be the least vegan person on Earth - the amount of pets I have that eat other animals in some form is absurd. I think it'd be difficult to argue that having pets which eat meat makes someone not vegan, although the ethics of keeping pets in the first place are definitely debatable. Another area of the vegan community which regularly pisses me off with misunderstandings and extremism, but that's a separate issue, I think. A possibly related, but separate issue.

Again, we come to degrees of exploitation and whether it's actually harmful; my cat is a rescue, and perhaps it was presumptuous of me to think he would enjoy a better life under my care than he would fending for himself in the wild. At the time, I felt compelled to give him a home, as I do enjoy the company of cats and other animals, and I thought I was doing a good deed. The evolution of the domestic cat is another factor to consider, I suppose. All that said, it technically isn't vegan to have a pet. But I don't have a problem with people providing sanctuary to animals who've been rescued from awful conditions so that they at least can be free of physical harm or abuse. And to be honest, I'm not sure I will have any more pets after Theo, as I really do want to live and let live, which would mean forgoing a pet. The issue of rescue, though, is another story. I don't think I could ever sit by and ignore the abuse of an animal. Heh, now I'm rambling.

The bottom line for me is that I would find it not vegan to eat eggs under any circumstances, as it perpetuates the belief that animals are here for humans to use. That is the biggest challenge of pushing veganism forward: convincing humans that animals are not here for us to use.

I'm not sure if I agree with your definition of veganism? I agree with the second bolded part but not the first. Then again, my point here isn't about what's vegan, but about what's moral and what does the most in a real-world context where idealism often falls flat on its face.

As for the part in italics, I'm not sure I agree with that either. I think that on some level, most humans realize that eating meat and exploiting animals isn't okay. The issue is their ability to justify it to themselves because it makes their life more comfortable. I think that the second obtaining meat/animal products becomes more of a pain in the *** than what it's worth to the vast majority of the population is the second where we start to see a shift toward plant-based diets worldwide.

 

[Moll Flanders]

I do agree that the relationship between humans and other animals is not black-and-white; I myself have a cat as a pet, which really isn't considered vegan. Again, we come to degrees of exploitation and whether it's actually harmful; my cat is a rescue, and perhaps it was presumptuous of me to think he would enjoy a better life under my care than he would fending for himself in the wild. At the time, I felt compelled to give him a home, as I do enjoy the company of cats and other animals, and I thought I was doing a good deed. The evolution of the domestic cat is another factor to consider, I suppose. All that said, it technically isn't vegan to have a pet.

I'm really surprised that you would say something like that.

 

[PTree15]

I'm really surprised that you would say something like that.

I hope I haven't offended as that so was not my intention. I apologize if I have. I was just raising an interpretation/opinion regarding veganism that I have seen elsewhere online, that having pets is exploiting animals for human pleasure. Perhaps I could have worded it better.

 

[KLS52]

I like that we, as a community, are opening up more about important issues. We are, after all, a pretty amazing bunch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ledboots]

I hope I haven't offended as that so was not my intention. I apologize if I have. I was just raising an interpretation/opinion regarding veganism that I have seen elsewhere online, that having pets is exploiting animals for human pleasure. Perhaps I could have worded it better.

It is a touchy subject. I love dogs so much but feel guilty even for a rescue. Maybe if I could feed him vegan or maybe ovo-veg. Maybe a bunny I have been thinking, but there are so many big birds around here that I would be nervous about outside, even in the yard. And other predators of course, it is tropical here. I am torn. Not thinking nonvegan, as of course there are huge benefits for rescues. Just is it consistent for me and my lifestyle to give a companion animal a good life?

Idk but dream of living on a huge rural property, in a little little house with solar and a wood burning stove, garden, pets and rescues free to roam.

 

[PTree15]

It is a touchy subject. I love dogs so much but feel guilty even for a rescue. Maybe if I could feed him vegan or maybe ovo-veg. Maybe a bunny I have been thinking, but there are so many big birds around here that I would be nervous about outside, even in the yard. And other predators of course, it is tropical here. I am torn. Not thinking nonvegan, as of course there are huge benefits for rescues. Just is it consistent for me and my lifestyle to give a companion animal a good life?

Idk but dream of living on a huge rural property, in a little little house with solar and a wood burning stove, garden, pets and rescues free to roam.

That's pretty much what I was trying, I guess poorly, to express. I was really tired last night when I posted that. Not an excuse or anything, just where my fatigued self was at that point. The last thing I want to do is hurt anyone here. I love this place and the people here so much.

 

[Moll Flanders]

I hope I haven't offended as that so was not my intention. I apologize if I have. I was just raising an interpretation/opinion regarding veganism that I have seen elsewhere online, that having pets is exploiting animals for human pleasure. Perhaps I could have worded it better.

No, you didn't offend me. I just always think about people who might be interested in becoming vegan and then reading something like that and it putting them off even trying it because it seems like there are so many inflexible rules.

I think it is fine for vegans not to have pets if they feel it is animal exploitation, just as it is fine for some vegans to have rescues if they want to help unwanted pets.

IMO the views amongst vegans really differ on the subject of companion animals and there isn't one right answer. ETA - most vegans are against breeding pets though, most usually agree on that.

 

[PTree15]

Oh, no, of course not. I couldn't ever justify it to myself, so I wouldn't do it.

As for lack of understanding - I think the issue there is that the exploitation of children has the potential to keep hurting them for the rest of their life, depending on what kind of exploitation you mean. It's probably not best to compare sexual abuse of children to agricultural exploitation of animals, as it's a sensitive issue and, by any account, incomparable. Any exploitation of an animal for agricultural purposes, short of killing them, modifying their bodies in a way that harms them, or depriving them of physical and emotional necessities, cannot be compared to something like that. It can hurt the animal, sure, but I think we can all agree that psychologically destroying someone is a million times worse than any emotional distress a chicken might have upon finding that its eggs are gone.

As for economic exploitation, such as child labor - the issue for me there is the potential for harm. The reason child labor is so reprehensible as compared to, say, a child helping to dust the shelves for their parents or something, is due to the extreme risks and safety hazards it presents. Exploitation of a safe, comfortable child would still be exploitation, don't get me wrong. Like if you had a baby crawling on a big hamster wheel or something to generate power for your house, waving animal crackers in front of their face to get them to move forward. You'd be exploiting that baby, but the baby would have no idea what the hell was going on and wouldn't be in any danger. I know that's a ridiculous example, but it's closer to the chickens and the eggs for me than the idea of harmful exploitation and abuse.



I'd say that the "visibility" of the exploitation is more like "tangibility" - for the well-cared-for chicken, it's occurring, but it's not having any real effect on the animal. On the other hand the factory farm is both exploitative and harmful.



If having a cat as a pet isn't considered vegan, then I must be the least vegan person on Earth - the amount of pets I have that eat other animals in some form is absurd. I think it'd be difficult to argue that having pets which eat meat makes someone not vegan, although the ethics of keeping pets in the first place are definitely debatable. Another area of the vegan community which regularly pisses me off with misunderstandings and extremism, but that's a separate issue, I think. A possibly related, but separate issue.



I'm not sure if I agree with your definition of veganism? I agree with the second bolded part but not the first. Then again, my point here isn't about what's vegan, but about what's moral and what does the most in a real-world context where idealism often falls flat on its face.

As for the part in italics, I'm not sure I agree with that either. I think that on some level, most humans realize that eating meat and exploiting animals isn't okay. The issue is their ability to justify it to themselves because it makes their life more comfortable. I think that the second obtaining meat/animal products becomes more of a pain in the *** than what it's worth to the vast majority of the population is the second where we start to see a shift toward plant-based diets worldwide.

I am really sorry if I hurt or offended you, FortyTwo, or diminished the horrendous experiences that people have suffered. Again, so not my intention, as I think you are awesome. And maybe it was an extreme comparison, but I sometimes feel that as humans we place ourselves above other animals who may suffer greatly without our being aware of it because we simply don't have the knowledge of how/if those animals feel the depth of emotion/suffering that humans feel. I think part of the problem with the continuation of inflicting harm on animals for food production is that humans feel superior to animals and thus feel entitled to do with them as they please. The food chain argument from non-veg*ns I hear on pretty much a daily basis is just one example of this pervasive sentiment.

 

[PTree15]

No, you didn't offend me. I just always think about people who might be interested in becoming vegan and then reading something like that and it putting them off even trying it because it seems like there are so many inflexible rules.

I think it is fine for vegans not to have pets if they feel it is animal exploitation, just as it is fine for some vegans to have rescues if they want to help unwanted pets.

IMO the views amongst vegans really differ on the subject of companion animals and there isn't one right answer. ETA - most vegans are against breeding pets though, most usually agree on that.

I would never want to put people off from trying veganism, but I think it's important that people be exposed to the many facets of it, unpleasant as they may seem. I had never even thought about pet ownership as being an issue until I had stumbled upon a very interesting discussion of it elsewhere, and I guess it turned around in my brain a bit and really made me think. Again, I could have worded it better in my original post.

I remember, before going vegetarian, being totally put off by a veggie friend who commented on the chicken I was eating, telling me that I would never eat it again if I knew what it went through to get to my plate. It was not long after that that I went veggie, after I really started thinking and learning about the horrors of factory farming. I recently thanked her for being so blunt with me, as it helped lead me to where I am today even if initially it put me off.

I think it's sad that people would put off giving something a go because they think there are too many so-called rules that make it too hard. Every step toward cruelty-free living is a step in the right direction, however small those steps are. IMHO, something always is better than nothing. It's a journey, after all, not so much a destination, IMHO.

 

[Calliegirl]

I think having rescues is fine and look at it as another way to save animals, but buying an animal from a breeder and contributing to the market for them isn't. I would have trouble viewing someone as vegan who is creating a market for them to be bought and sold as products.

 

[LorriePaige]

I hope I haven't offended as that so was not my intention. I apologize if I have. I was just raising an interpretation/opinion regarding veganism that I have seen elsewhere online, that having pets is exploiting animals for human pleasure. Perhaps I could have worded it better.

I think you are right on in your thoughts.

Humans weren't being vegan in taking them from their natural habitat and domesticating dogs and cats to a point where they can't fend for themselves. So now we do things technically not vegan by keeping them and continuing the domesticating, robbing them of their natural instincts of survival (which is why I am very minimal in "training" the dogs that live with me; I don't want them to act like humans).

Sadly, it's a fait accompli.

Some animal rights people feel all domesticated animals should become extinct which is why they REALLY promote spaying and neutering all domesticated animals for extinction.