Many vegans are out of touch from reality

[Roy R]

Not sure when the terms ova-vegetarians and lacto-vegetarians got coined. But I would not call that bastardization, more like being specific.

Lacto, ovo - how about meato-vegetarian lol.

What I've read before was back in the 17 hundreds it was about abstaining from animal products because of the cruelty involved not because of health reasons and thus the term was coined in England by the intellectuals of the day. I haven't read much about the days of Aristotle or that era but what understood was that was when the term vegetarian was used.

Strict vegetarian is an interesting term in itself. Going back to @silva 's point - Soon it will be strict vegan as I'm sure I've heard the term veggan being bandied about for vegans who eat eggs.

 

[Lou]

Lacto, ovo - how about meato-vegetarian lol.

We do have pollo-vegetarains.
Well, at least they are sort of trying.

What I've read before was back in the 17 hundreds it was about abstaining from animal products because of the cruelty involved not because of health reasons and thus the term was coined in England by the intellectuals of the day.

Yes, that is how I understand it too. I would have to look it up but I think they still had included milk and eggs in their diets. You could even say that would have been consistent cause back then milk and eggs production weren't as cruel as they are today.

I haven't read much about the days of Aristotle or that era but what understood was that was when the term vegetarian was used.

I'm not sure they had the term. but they had the concept. Some of their motivation was more based on their belief in reincarnation. That cow over there might by the reincarnation of your uncle Ted. so be nice to ol' uncle Ted and don't kill and eat him. after all that might be you someday.

Strict vegetarian is an interesting term in itself. Going back to @silva 's point - Soon it will be strict vegan as I'm sure I've heard the term veggan being bandied about for vegans who eat eggs.

We did have that article about the different kinds of vegans. But it was more about motivations than personal purity.

 

[Graeme M]

That's possible. But the goal shouldn't be to spread veganism so people's perception of vegans is tangential IMO.

The goal should be to end the systematic exploitation of and violence against animals. You don't get systemic change through individual conversion - at least I can't think of an example of that.

Agitating for systemic change doesn't of itself require veganism and that work can be pursued by activists. However, veganism is a label we've given to the idea that we can regard other animals as having a particular set of rights that we should respect in our personal choices. It is a personal aspirational ethic and hence a separate program, yet I think critical in terms of creating the fertile ground on which genuine rights (or at least, ending exploitation) can take root. Neither rights nor veganism are well-regarded more generally and progress has been slow and ultimately less than effective overall (at best, all that's been achieved is some welfare reform - exploitation is even more entrenched in our societies than ever). I think Lauren is wrong here - we really need veganism to look far more encouraging and inclusive and desirable, even if that doesn't mean 100% success right away. Rights activists on the other hand may wish to pursue a more confrontational style, though I have my doubts about the efficacy of that strategy.

 

[Lou]

Neither rights nor veganism are well-regarded more generally and progress has been slow and ultimately less than effective overall (at best, all that's been achieved is some welfare reform - exploitation is even more entrenched in our societies than ever).

I think "some welfare reform" is too pessimistic a perspective.
I could spend some time looking up all the things that are different in 2023, but let me just remind you of some of the bigger accomplishments. The reduction or even ending of animal testing here in the US and Europe comes to mind. The reduction of the use of fur and leather. The reduction of animals used for entertainment, etc.

Take a look at this timeline, in the 80s there was maybe just one accomplishment each year. In the 2020s we can see that more than 10 a year are reported. Sure some of these by themselves are small and incremental but taken as whole - much progress is being made.

PETA's Milestones | Victories | About PETA | PETA.org

 

[Roy R]

We do have pollo-vegetarains.
Well, at least they are sort of trying.

The thing is Lou is it's now the 21st century and there are a whole load of replacements out there that even taste better than the conventional products.

Yes, that is how I understand it too. I would have to look it up but I think they still had included milk and eggs in their diets. You could even say that would have been consistent cause back then milk and eggs production weren't as cruel as they are today.

Based on what I've read about Percy Byshee Shelley - I don't think he for one included milk and eggs in his diet and I would guess neither would have people with a similar mindset of his time. Have a read of this article. It's an incredible read if you can find the time.

http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-c/shelley01.htm

He mainly talks about the vegetable diet and abstaining from alcohol, he also is saying that we are naturally frugivores and should be drinking pure water.

"The pleasures of taste to be derived from a dinner of potatoes, beans, peas, turnips, lettice, with a dessert of apples, gooseberries, strawberries, currants, raspberries, and in winter, oranges, apples and pears, is far greater than is supposed."
There is no mention of dairy or eggs in the above quote or anywhere that I can see in that one particular article of his.

The article ends with the following :-

NEVER TAKE ANY SUBSTANCE INTO THE STOMACH THAT ONCE HAD LIFE.

DRINK NO LIQUID BUT WATER RESTORED TO ITS ORIGINAL PURITY BY DISTILLATION.

It doesn't get much cleared than that - and I understand that these are the writings of one man but I would say that his contemporaries discussed these issues at great length and understood fully the plight of animals 2 to 300 years ago as well as the health benefits of abstaining from animal products.

I will have to try and find it but I have read an article about the practices of dairy farming from this era also and it was not in a positive light.

Please do read the article though - it's long but fascinating - they knew about all of the issues we talk about now way back then, and these guys weren't even physicians or even have the internet lol.

 

[Graeme M]

I could spend some time looking up all the things that are different in 2023, but let me just remind you of some of the bigger accomplishments. The reduction or even ending of animal testing here in the US and Europe comes to mind. The reduction of the use of fur and leather. The reduction of animals used for entertainment, etc.

You could be right, there has certainly been progress in animal welfare and justice on a few fronts. Plus things like the UK recognising sentience in certain species etc. I guess I am being a bit too pessimistic. That said, are these successes due to "veganism/vegans", or more to animal justice/rights activists and advocates? And is there a difference?

 

[Lou]

You could be right,

Yea!

there has certainly been progress in animal welfare and justice on a few fronts. Plus things like the UK recognising sentience in certain species etc. I guess I am being a bit too pessimistic.

I think so. but then again I have been described as too optimistic.

That said, are these successes due to "veganism/vegans", or more to animal justice/rights activists and advocates? And is there a difference?

I think there is a difference. but I think the line is a bit fuzzy. Maybe even semantics and logic.

I remember one guy I read said something along that you can't be a vegan but be an animal rights activists. another guy said animal rights activists Have to be vegan or be hypocritical. But I imagine the Venn diagram of vegan /activists to be two intersecting circles.

 

[Sax]

I think Lauren is wrong here - we really need veganism to look far more encouraging and inclusive and desirable, even if that doesn't mean 100% success right away. Rights activists on the other hand may wish to pursue a more confrontational style, though I have my doubts about the efficacy of that strategy.

Nothing Lauren said was about making veganism less encouraging or inclusive. Perhaps less desirable if what you desire is to conform to social norms. But show me a rights/liberation movement anywhere in history that didn't require violating the existing social norms.

There's no way around it. Social norms can't guide activism when those norms are what need to change.

How does one confront systemic injustice in a non-confrontational style? How does one instigate a societal debate without making some waves? It's a contradiction.

 

[beancounter]

You're correct about the attitude of some vegans. But here we try to avoid vegan vs. vegetarian fights.

 

[g0rph]

Reality is that only 0.5% of americans are vegans. Number is extremely low.

I cut meat from my diet for health reason (selfish yes) but I still have done it. I consume less than 70% of meat and cut red meat completely. I also have lactose intolerance so basically I don't effect cow farms.

Unfortunatelly this is not enough for vegans. They say I'm still part of problem. Okay maybe I am but then what?
People think that by shaming and showing your elitism to people then all of suddenly everyone turns 100% into vegan. Wrong. What happens is that people feel guilt and think they are not good enough and abandon whole vegan ideology after tryed it couple weeks.

Who moron suggest to go 100% into vegan anyhow? You should start progressing slow. Even if you cut half that's 100% less creatures killed.

It's like fat shaming. People think people get better but instead their self-esteem gets lower. That sure teached them..

Cutting down is great. It's good for the planet and good for your health.
But veganism is not about the planet or health. It's about not contributing to unnecessary animal abuse.

So, great, you are cutting down. But that's nothing at all to do with veganism.

And I agree, shaming people is not okay. So far you've made positive steps forward.
I personally went cold turkey, 10 months ago. And haven't eaten any animal produce (knowingly) since, or bought any animal produce (leather etc).
I have given away most of my wool and leather items and will only buy plant based or synthetic now.
I have started to buy shampoo etc from Body Shop instead of the supermarket.

I am, to all intents and purposes, vegan. But we have a family dog, that eats regular kibble... So to many, I am not vegan.

Try and take that last step. You'll feel better physically and emotionally.

 

[Lou]

I agree with most of your statements. but there are a few things that I have some small problems with.
Keep in mind that these are just my opinions but I think they are worth your consideration,

So, great, you are cutting down. But that's nothing at all to do with veganism.

I think it does. The way I see it is that Veganism is not a goal. It's a strategy or maybe even just a tactic. Or if you don't mind getting all Zen about it - it's a journey. So as soon as you have put your feet on the path you are becoming vegan.

You seem to already know that being vegan does not have to be about being perfect, your kibble comments support this. So if 70% percent isn't' good enough to be called a vegan what percent is? ninety three? Ninety seven? And how do you even measure that?

So may I suggest you take a more process oriented approach and not so much a results oriented approach. It's easier for everyone. So as long as someone is trying to cut down on meat because of the animals then he is vegan,

 

[g0rph]

So as long as someone is trying to cut down on meat because of the animals then he is vegan,

Sorry, whilst I love it if people "cut down", anyone who knowingly eats meat outside of necessity is not in any way shape or form "vegan".
I am not one to criticize them...as said, reduction is a good thing, but once the truth "clicks" then it's either abstain or not. And whilst I have issues with many "vegans" who go too far in the gatekeeping dept, the least we can do is not eat animals or their secretions.
The OP is cutting down, great, he is a flexitarian perhaps, but vegan... nope.

As for my dog. My family is not vegan. That includes the dog. There is no readily available plant-based alternative where I live and he is a fussy xxxx!

An adopted animal has no choice, they should be fed what they need. I however, have a choice and choose not to eat meat, milk, eggs etc.

 

[Lou]

Sorry, whilst I love it if people "cut down", anyone who knowingly eats meat outside of necessity is not in any way shape or form "vegan".

Granted. But are transitioning vegans not vegan? how about almost vegans or nearly vegans.
I don't think it's about being 100 % vegan. In fact there is a strong argument that based on results none of us are actually 100% vegan - it might be impossible.
and then there is the timing. How long do you have to be vegan to be vegan? A day? a week? a year?
I like my idea better. If you are want to be a vegan, and you are trying - you are vegan.

 

[g0rph]

Granted. But are transitioning vegans not vegan? how about almost vegans or nearly vegans.
I don't think it's about being 100 % vegan. In fact there is a strong argument that based on results none of us are actually 100% vegan - it might be impossible.
and then there is the timing. How long do you have to be vegan to be vegan? A day? a week? a year?
I like my idea better. If you are want to be a vegan, and you are trying - you are vegan.

Whilst I detest gate-keepers arguing philosophical edge-cases or mistakes, I totally disagree with this.
It's like an alcoholic saying "I am sober" whilst still getting drunk on Fridays.
Or a catholic priest who is celibate...except at weekends.


It totally demeans any real meaning in the word.

 

[silva]

Granted. But are transitioning vegans not vegan? how about almost vegans or nearly vegans.
I don't think it's about being 100 % vegan. In fact there is a strong argument that based on results none of us are actually 100% vegan - it might be impossible.
and then there is the timing. How long do you have to be vegan to be vegan? A day? a week? a year?
I like my idea better. If you are want to be a vegan, and you are trying - you are vegan.

What are words for?
No, I don't see why someone transitioning would, or should, identify as vegan if they're still buying and consuming animal products. To be honest, if they're using up what they already had I would just like they keep it to themselves while calling themselves vegan
If saying 'vegan' doesn't imply an ethical stance against animal exploitation, as well as avoiding using them.
I give pretty wide leeway when it comes to individual circumstance. Those who are low income, rely on food assistance, etc, are reasons that can sometimes impair ones ability to keep aligned with ones ethics. For example, I am against unethical manufacturing, but I do have cheap clothes!
Again though, I do feel it's more about how one defines vegan. I'm beyond hearing people defend the use of animal products as ok. With our culture as it is, it's hard to avoid most things, but that doesn't change how they're produced , and therefore not vegan. Own up to it!

Why do people insist on calling themselves vegan when they know they're still going to use animal products? Why the shame in saying "trying", or simply say vegetarian? Is there some kind of stigma around vegetarian?

 

[Brian W]

The official VS definition that everybody is so fond of quoting says "seeks to exclude" not "excludes," so it is a process not an absolute.

 

[silva]

The official VS definition that everybody is so fond of quoting says "seeks to exclude" not "excludes," so it is a process not an absolute.

Sure. Seeks to exclude--reading labels, researching charities, choosing common medications, learning new habits. It doesn't mean when you feel like it, or try to say it's okay to eat things if they're labelled 'humane'.
We can all agree that thinking 100% is unattainable, and personal purity is not going to help animals. We are all animals, we all eventually become food, and there is more than enough human suffering to acknowledge
There is no 'best' for all, but only based on individual circumstances

 

[KLS52]

I'm kind of surprised we're even having this discussion... and the OP is nowhere in sight. I'm surprised at how many people think it's ok to knowingly/willingly eat meat and go around telling people they are vegan when they're not even vegetarian.

It's not a question of being judgmental or unaccepting. It's awesome that people want to reduce their consumption of animals and animal products. It's very easy to say "I'm not vegan...yet...but I'm getting there". I don't know how anyone can justify someone going out with family and friends, stating that they are vegan and then sit down and eat a burger or steak.

 

[Sax]

When I started transitioning I didn't intend to go fully vegan. I was thinking I'd probably eat turkey at Thanksgiving, ham at Christmas etc. I saw the truth of vegan ethics but I didn't want to be "extreme" about it.

I told as much to a vegan I knew. If she'd given approval of that I might not have ever become vegan, likely backsliding into regular animal product consumption. Instead she challenged me to justify that, and I had no answer. That was the final push that made me decide to be truly vegan.

Her not being accepting helped me. She would have been doing me a disservice and enabled me to pass up an important turning point in my life by accepting my compromise instead of challenging me to live up to my ethics.

Bite Size Vegan has a good video on this:

 

[Brian W]

When I started transitioning I didn't intend to go fully vegan. I was thinking I'd probably eat turkey at Thanksgiving, ham at Christmas etc. I saw the truth of vegan ethics but I didn't want to be "extreme" about it.

I told as much to a vegan I knew. If she'd given approval of that I might not have ever become vegan, likely backsliding into regular animal product consumption. Instead she challenged me to justify that, and I had no answer. That was the final push that made me decide to be truly vegan.

Her not being accepting helped me. She would have been doing me a disservice and enabled me to pass up an important turning point in my life by accepting my compromise instead of challenging me to live up to my ethics.

Bite Size Vegan has a good video on this:

There is much danger in a "one size fits all" approach to human psychology!!!