Indeed. This T-shirt cropped up a year or 2 ago in my feed, and seemed to fit the flow of posts.
And I too like a drop of wine sometimes, maybe even a nip or 2 of malt whisky or even whiskey if it's from your neck of the woods...
Let's Make Veganism Less Strict
- Thread starter Jamie in Chile
- Start date
And I too like a drop of wine sometimes, maybe even a nip or 2 of malt whisky or even whiskey if it's from your neck of the woods...
Veganism may seem clear but I'm of the opinion that some aspects are up to interpretation and priorities. For instance, a vegan still wears their 10-year old leather shoes that they bought before turning vegan because for them it's not very reasonable or eco to just throw them away.
Or a vegan takes non-vegan medicine because there are no alternatives or they are just too expensive. Healthy vegan is better than ill one. Are those persons vegan? Some say yes, others wouldn't do the same.
So I agree that there are some very basic foundations for veganism but as a philosophical idea it's sometimes complicated when it comes to details. As I mentioned earlier, if I can't find a vegan detergent, I'll choose regular one. Plus we gain knowledge with age so we may not be aware of every single issue and learn it later. It's doing as much as we can to reduce cruelty, that's how I understand it and that's one of the most popular definitions.
And I hope one day everything will be fully vegan so we don't need to deal with such absurds as milk powder in non-dairy products...
Hey there @Natnik98
I don’t disagree with any of what you said…
What bothers me is the idea that Veganism should or could be made “less strict” - No, if it was - it Wouldn’t be Veganism!
One day Hopefully the World will be Vegan - unfortunately I think that it is in a future that I won’t see…
Lou
Forum Legend
I'm not sure. I think I agree with everyone.
IMHO, we don't have to make it less strict.I'm using the Vegan Society's definition as a "rule book". It includes words like practical, possible and strive. And the meaning of those words depends on the situation and on the individual. So what one person might consider a hard and fast rule another might just see it as a goal.
I know IRL a few people who I call Fussy Vegans. Maybe some of you would call them strict vegans. What I see is Ok, they see as bad. I don't have any problems with minuscule amounts of animal ingredients. They see it as a slippery slope. I don't have any issues with food contamination, they see it as "to be avoided at all costs".
My personal acid test is this: Does it affect animals in a signifiant negative way.?
IMHO, we don't have to make it less strict.I'm using the Vegan Society's definition as a "rule book". It includes words like practical, possible and strive. And the meaning of those words depends on the situation and on the individual. So what one person might consider a hard and fast rule another might just see it as a goal.
I know IRL a few people who I call Fussy Vegans. Maybe some of you would call them strict vegans. What I see is Ok, they see as bad. I don't have any problems with minuscule amounts of animal ingredients. They see it as a slippery slope. I don't have any issues with food contamination, they see it as "to be avoided at all costs".
My personal acid test is this: Does it affect animals in a signifiant negative way.?
I've said it before, and I'll say it again.
The problem is that of labels and groups and blindly and rigidly sticking to arbitrary rules.
It isn't a religion.
Someone (like me) might have been scoffing steaks weekly, chicken, lamb, pork, bacon, eggs, milk-shakes etc etc every day of the week.
Then they have the epiphany, the red-pill moment. They maybe see a documentary that puts it into focus or maybe they come across a Youtube video that switches a light on in the brain..who knows?
But suddenly they think they must worry about honey, about cross-contamination, get rid of all their leather shoes or jackets, ditch the woolly jumpers.
From almost full on carnivore to squabbling over details.
This is the problem with the label and group-think.
The number one thing is to stop purchasing meat, dairy, eggs from the supermarket. Choose alternatives to leather, wool and silk. Try to get cruelty free cosmetics and bathroom supplies...
Anything beyond that is noise.
To strict definitions and rules and regulations the likes of PETA state, I'm not vegan. To 99% of the population I might as well be. To 0.01% of the population I'm just another omni or at best vegetarian.
I realise now that what that 0.01% of the population thinks about me or people like me is completely irrelevant.
If you can't give up honey, go find a local apiary or see if your local store stocks their produce. If you miss your eggs, try to source those from rescues.
If you feel attached to the wool jumper your grandmother gifted you...wear it.
You need your old leather shoes for an interview...wear them.
None of that is affecting any animals.
Ignore the cries of "It normalises exploitation" blah boody blah. So what? Nobody but the 0.01% gives a hoot and it does no harm.
Veganism doesn't need to be less strict...WE simply need to apply its principles to our lives in any way we can...
The problem is that of labels and groups and blindly and rigidly sticking to arbitrary rules.
It isn't a religion.
Someone (like me) might have been scoffing steaks weekly, chicken, lamb, pork, bacon, eggs, milk-shakes etc etc every day of the week.
Then they have the epiphany, the red-pill moment. They maybe see a documentary that puts it into focus or maybe they come across a Youtube video that switches a light on in the brain..who knows?
But suddenly they think they must worry about honey, about cross-contamination, get rid of all their leather shoes or jackets, ditch the woolly jumpers.
From almost full on carnivore to squabbling over details.
This is the problem with the label and group-think.
The number one thing is to stop purchasing meat, dairy, eggs from the supermarket. Choose alternatives to leather, wool and silk. Try to get cruelty free cosmetics and bathroom supplies...
Anything beyond that is noise.
To strict definitions and rules and regulations the likes of PETA state, I'm not vegan. To 99% of the population I might as well be. To 0.01% of the population I'm just another omni or at best vegetarian.
I realise now that what that 0.01% of the population thinks about me or people like me is completely irrelevant.
If you can't give up honey, go find a local apiary or see if your local store stocks their produce. If you miss your eggs, try to source those from rescues.
If you feel attached to the wool jumper your grandmother gifted you...wear it.
You need your old leather shoes for an interview...wear them.
None of that is affecting any animals.
Ignore the cries of "It normalises exploitation" blah boody blah. So what? Nobody but the 0.01% gives a hoot and it does no harm.
Veganism doesn't need to be less strict...WE simply need to apply its principles to our lives in any way we can...
A long time ago PETA asked vegans not to worry about small amounts of animal products in food. See A Note About Small Amounts of Animal Products in Foods | PETA which is reproduced below:
Some packaged foods have a long list of ingredients. The farther an ingredient is down the list, the less of that ingredient is in the food. People who have made the compassionate decision to stop eating animal flesh, eggs, and dairy products may wonder if they need to read every ingredient to check for tiny amounts of obscure animal products. Our general advice is not to worry too much about doing this. The goal of being vegan is to help animals and reduce suffering; this is done by choosing a bean burrito or a veggie burger over chicken flesh, or choosing tofu scramble over eggs, not by refusing to eat an otherwise vegan food because it has 0.001 grams of monoglycerides that may possibly be animal-derived.
We discourage vegans from grilling waiters at restaurants about micro-ingredients in vegetarian foods (e.g., a tiny bit of a dairy product in the bun of a veggie burger). Doing so makes being vegan seem difficult and dogmatic to your friends and to restaurant staff, thus discouraging them from going vegan themselves (which really hurts animals). And we urge vegans not to insist that their food be cooked on equipment separate from that used to cook meat; doing so doesn’t help any additional animals, and it only makes restaurants less inclined to offer vegan choices (which, again, hurts animals).
Remember that every vegan saves nearly 200 animals a year from horrific cruelty—and by encouraging people around you to follow your lead, you can save many more.
As to the text quoted...I fully agree.
However, they are against pets. They are against service animals. I am not.
I think domestic animals are important. So much so that I doubt veganism would be a thing but for the fact they have been around for millennia.
I think service animals are incredibly important...
Dogs for the blind, deaf and with epilepsy etc.
Dogs for sniffing for explosives, drugs etc
Dogs for finding lost people.
etc etc.
I also think these animals need to be bred. Sure, adopt first if possible, but it isn't always possible...certainly not for service jobs...
Also, whilst I don't eat honey myself, I don't have an issue with it...not in a world where much vegan food is pollinated by professional apiarists.
Nor do I care about oysters, mussels and any other animalia with no ability to feel pain.
So essentially I am not 100% against "exploitation".
I am against cruelty, unnecessary suffering and use of animals for foods, clothes and other products.
So I am very pro "cultured meat", even if it means taking a biopsy...as long as any animal used is unharmed.
These things all go against vegan purity...
Lou
Forum Legend
that is not true. It may have been once but I don't think so.
From PETA.
- Opposition to Ownership: PETA believes animals are not ours to own, use, or sell as commodities, preferring the term "animal companions" over "pets".
- End to Breeding:They actively campaign to end the breeding industry, including puppy mills and breeders, because it causes immense suffering and homelessness
- Support for Adoption: PETA promotes adopting animals from shelters rather than buying them.
you can read more about it here.
Doing What's Best for Our Companion Animals | PETA
In a perfect world, animals would be free to live their lives to the fullest, raising their young and following their natural instincts in their native
www.peta.org
Agree
Are you sure about that? I would rather err on the side of caution. Remember that it's only been recently that scientists have accepted that fish feel pain and even have "feelings".
I think PETA's stance on service animals is strictly about exploitation, more about cruelty. They recognize that a life of service is not always in the animals best interests.
Basically what I mean. I am no opposed to responsible breeding.
Am I 100% sure? No. But then given their lack of nervous system and brain it's pretty unlikely they have anything resembling consciousness..which is necessary for any conscious idea of pain. They act in a very similar way to plants.Their stance on Service Animals is more complex,
you can read more about it here.
Doing What's Best for Our Companion Animals | PETA
In a perfect world, animals would be free to live their lives to the fullest, raising their young and following their natural instincts in their nativewww.peta.org
Agree
Are you sure about that? I would rather err on the side of caution. Remember that it's only been recently that scientists have accepted that fish feel pain and even have "feelings".
Also, the scientific consensus points toward bivalves like mussels not feeling pain in a conscious way due to their decentralized nervous system, classifying their reactions more as protective responses.
This may be true. But again, this is one opinion I have that is why I don't claim to be 100% vegan.
I was at a conference a couple of years ago and there had been some threat. They had dogs in the entrance sniffing for explosives.
This is a good thing IMO. As far as I know there is no alternative.
Lou
Forum Legend
don't want to be argumentative. your opinions are always well considered.
but who decides what is responsible breeding? and with something like a billion dogs world wide there is no need for breeding of any sort.
a bees brain is the size of a pencil point but they are capable of complex behaiors.
Lobsters also have a decentralized nervous system but are capable of complex behaviors, And many scientist think they may have sentience. and there is evidence that they feel pain.
One of the most respected and published animal intelligence researcher has stated that he doesn't believe we are smart enough to evaluate animal intelligence.
We are contstantly learning and discovering amazing facts about animals.
Basically we don't need to eat animals.we don't need to breed dogs and cats. so why not err on the side of caution and leave them alone,
For the most part, maybe.
But
Service dogs are generally specialised breeds. Labs, Golden Retrievers are great guide dogs for example. Belgian Malinoix are incredibly intelligent and "easy" to train etc etc.
You cannot simply take shelter dogs and transfer to service.
And again, I am not against "pets". And a family with a young child should not be taking in an abused dog.
I'd be happy to see unhealthy breeds disappear, but there are many breeds that it would be criminal to lose them...IMO
Who decides?
Well, let's face it, we are miles ahead of ourselves here. None of this will happen within our lifetimes, but of course laws protecting against undue stress and suffering should be implemented.
A mussel doesn't have any brain other than some ganglia. They are not conscious. They have only rudimentary reflex ability, much like a venus fly-trap.
Lobsters are indeed sentient. A law was passed in the UK to ban boiling. But again, a lobster has (as you say) a fairly complicated decentralised brain, along with eyes, antennae for "smelling," and hair-like sensors that detect microscopic vibrations. They must navigate 3D environments, recognize individual lobsters, and remember locations.
I agree almost 100%.
But I do think we need to breed some animals. I don't want society to be rid of domestic animals. And I think it's important for us to maintain the connection between human and non-human animals.
I am convinced that that connection is how we got to veganism in the first place.
Maybe in 500 years we'll reconsider, but at this moment, most people turn vegan because they watch a documentary, or see a horrific event either in life, or through media and put 2 and 2 together...
That second one is quite important.
I assume you know of Ed Winters? (Earthing Ed). Sometimes known as Vegan Jesus.
His story...
1. The Lorry Crash
In May 2014, Ed was a regular meat-eater whose favorite food was KFC. He came across a BBC News article about a truck carrying thousands of chickens that had crashed on the M62 motorway near Manchester. Many of the birds died in the accident, and the tone of the article—and his own reaction—was one of horror and pity for the suffering animals.While feeling upset about the crash, he realized he had leftover KFC in his fridge. He struck upon a massive logical inconsistency: he was mourning the deaths of chickens on a motorway while simultaneously paying for the deaths of chickens to be put in his fridge. He went vegetarian that day.
2.
Shortly after becoming vegetarian, Ed began thinking more deeply about his relationship with his pet hamster, Rupert. He noticed that Rupert had a distinct personality—he had specific likes (broccoli) and dislikes (kale).Ed realized that Rupert was an individual with the capacity to experience life, and he questioned why he afforded Rupert love and protection while being okay with the slaughter of other animals who were just as sentient and individualistic.
3. The Documentary
To bridge the gap between being vegetarian and vegan, Ed watched the 2005 documentary Earthlings. The film’s graphic exploration of how humans use animals for food, fashion, and entertainment was the final straw. He realized that the dairy and egg industries involved the same level of suffering and death as the meat industry.He officially became vegan in March 2015 and started his activism journey shortly after, using his background in film production to create the YouTube content he is famous for today.
So, basically, Ed Winters might never have gone vegan, but for the fact that we already eat chickens, and that he had a pet hamster.
Now imagine a world, with no domestic animals.
No homes with dogs, rabbits, hamsters etc.
I don't know about anyone else, but for me that's a nightmare scenario.
Just to add to this. Near us is a park, that has a small collection of animals. It isn't a petting zoo, more of an education thing I guess.Now imagine a world, with no domestic animals.
No homes with dogs, rabbits, hamsters etc.
I don't know about anyone else, but for me that's a nightmare scenario.
Cows, sheep, goats, pigs, hens, ducks, ponys, rabbits etc.
It's not for profit (no entrance fee) and I believe the people who work there are all volunteers.
We go quite often, and usually I manage to get to pet the sheep or goats. Very occasionally a cow might grace the fence with her presence, for a scratch on the head.
100% veganism a la PETA does not want this place to exist. I disagree...vehemently.
I think it's a wonderful place for people, especially children, to visit and feel closer to nature. And hopefully, maybe some of them will also put 2 and 2 together and realise that much of what they eat is these animals...
Now, you rid society of these animals, pets, service dogs etc etc and humans end up not interacting with non-human animals at all...I wonder how much empathy we'd have with them..out of site, out of mind. The only animals most would see would be birds, insects, spiders and rodents from time to time. Maybe deer or whatever native species exist for those in the countryside.
I dunno.
