Original definition of vegan was better

The comparison of the US constitution and the early days of veganism is an interesting one.

We should remember that Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Tom Paine and John Adams were amongst the intellectual giants of their day. They studied various methods of government as seen around the world and did their best to select the good bits and reject the bad ones. They didn’t get everything exactly spot on.

Donald Watson was far from being part of any intellectual elite. He was a “techie” secondary school teacher. But he was a man who was willing to struggle for what he thought was right. For example he was a conscientious objector in WW 2.

He and his wife and a few friends got together to do their best to promote veganism. I very much doubt that their minds were all that concentrated on definitions. Their aim was to do their utmost for the animals. They, also, didn’t get everything exactly spot on.

My own thought is that every little bit each of us does is a help and should be encouraged. But perhaps all of us can always do a little bit more.

Roger.
 
I agree with the original poster. As I’ve posted many times here, turning veganism into an exclusive club ultimately hurts animals. Many people who are initially intrigued by veganism are turned off by the confusing and arbitrary requirements. We are dealing with humans here. It’s unrealistic to expect that people will go to the effort of eating a totally plant-based diet in a meat-eating world if they can’t even call themselves vegan but instead have to explain that they “follow a purely plant-based diet” (because “plant-based”, these days, is understood to include small amounts of meat) or that they are a “strict vegetarian” (which is a term no one understands, so that they will have to suffer the indignity of having to explain, to people they don’t even know very well, exactly how they are not “vegan”). If we as vegans really cared about animals, we wouldn’t be so concerned with whether others who call themselves vegan are as strict as we are. Instead of endless discussions on vegan forums about who gets to call themselves vegan, we would be seeing endless discussions about how to spread the word more effectively.

The requirements are arbitrary. Dog food and cat food are a huge source of revenue for the factory farm industry; how can someone who buys meat every week criticize someone for buying a jar of honey once a year? Why is silk bad but plastic good? Why is wool bad but excessive use of heating and air conditioning fine? Why is air travel not included in the definition? Why are SUVs allowed? Why is there no requirement about composting or planting native plants? After all, it’s a lot easier to plant milkweed than it is to avoid buying a used car with leather seats. The former does a lot of good for pollinators, whereas the latter probably accomplishes nothing.

Moreover, if being a dietary vegan is not enough to be called vegan, then it follows that being vegan doesn’t require being a dietary vegan. If it’s OK for a vegan to use drugs that were tested on animals, then surely it’s also OK for a vegan to occasionally eat meat! Some people, after all, are convinced they have to eat meat for their health. And doctors sometimes prescribe medication that is not strictly necessary.

It is much simpler to define a vegan as someone who avoids eating any animal food product. That will ensure that veganism spreads much more quickly. People who are currently eating mostly vegan will have an extra incentive to go all the way. Once a majority of people stop eating animal products, non-edible animal products will become increasingly expensive. We won’t have to a lot of trouble spreading the word about the cruelty of leather when a pair of leather shoes costs $10,000.
 
In the case of veganism, the original version was more inclusive. I'd like to show you something. Here is a thread I started about boycotting movies and TV that use real animals, where I revealed I had watched the period piece Turn: Washington's Spies, which uses a lot of real animals.

Is boycotting movies and TV necessary to maintain your vegan status? If so, that's a really exclusive club and there is no reason for it to exist, other than to make members feel special. That is why Cross veganism is also called ego veganism: "plant based people use that entrance over there, you are not vegan".

Also, most people probably see boycotting movies and TV shows that use real animals as part of the rules of an animal cult. And the suffering endured by animals in movies and TV is infinitesimal compared to that of animals exploited for food, so to require that for membership is a completely ineffective strategy for helping animals.

As I mentioned previously, I have heard (I believe from you but I may be wrong) that people are more likely to exclude other forms of exploitation after adopting the diet. The diet is always first and is the most important thing.

Also, in Watson veganism, there is still the sense that it is vegan to boycott animal movies in that you are encouraged to exclude other animal use, so doing that is vegan. You are not losing anything, but you do gain members, like all the plant based people for starters.

P.s. on second thought, I believe animals used in movies is outside of the scope of Watson veganism due to the use of the word commodities. It doesn't sound like entertainment was meant to be included. But vegan shoes are vegan because they are encouraged, under Watson veganism.

Watson went on and on about how he didn't feel comfortable with the animals he saw on the farm serving a "use" so even if it's not explicitly in the concise original definition, I feel that you guys are arguing a totally moot point, anyhow. Watson also didn't feel comfortable with things like leather and wool, this isn't something some extremists randomly made later, it was his own view and in fact is a completely rational view if you also simply break it down without consulting Watson's definition - if you don't eat animals why would you wear them? Those two things are pretty hard to argue about, even if you debate about pets and zoos and television.

Also, Watson isn't a god of some kind. This isn't the Holy Bible we're talking about. If anything, philosophers like Peter Singer are more qualified to define veganism these days than the simplicity of Donald Watson doing little more than coining a term to describe his and his wife's personal ethics.

PETA even concedes that diet is the biggest first step for many, because it reduces harm on a daily basis and is the most fundamental thing for people to change. It's also totally rational to argue that we shouldn't exclude environmental vegans or all people who are plant-based for health.

BUT many (many) people who are ONLY "vegan" for health and therefore through diet eventually go off of their "diet." Veganism isn't a diet. I don't know why this is a difficult concept for some people to grasp. Though the dietary aspect is very important, and people have different motives, this garbage in journalism or YouTube like "I Was Vegan For a Week" or "I Tried Vegan for 30 Days" or "My Vegan Diet Nearly Killed Me" is UTTERLY TOXIC AND IT IS NOT VEGANISM IT IS PLANT-BASED DIETING.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vegan Dogs
Bouncing off of what @Sax said in terms of people needing medications so that they can function or survive that were at one time tested on animals, or about people in native tribes not being required to have plant-based diets, I think this is absolutely rational as well.

Lakota Sioux Indians hated how the White Man "enslaved" animals. They called it "enslaving animals" and "animal rights" decades before Donald Watson created the term vegan. Though they did eat and wear animals, they never caged or bred them, they respected different species' as having a wisdom and rights of their own, and they had a strong philosophical belief to only take what they genuinely needed. I'm not saying we should follow their lead - we aren't Lakota Sioux and this isn't the 19th century - BUT...they have a point. It's largely a product of Western European Capitalism that concepts like zoos, factory farms, animal testing, and mass extinction have occurred.

Veganism is largely a response to White Global Capitalism, not just some notion that we regard animals more than we once did. Certain cultures of people who did occasionally eat animals respected and regarded animals more highly than some people on plant-based diets who aren't really "vegan" in any ethical, lasting sense.

Of course there were spiritual groups (in fact in the history of most major world religions) that promoted a kind of vegetarianism that was very close to veganism for all intents and purposes (mostly in the Far East or North Africa) as well. Yet a link we see between what I consider "Real Vegans" and the Lakota Sioux and these Eastern Religions is that they are all deeply held and felt personal or group philosophies, not just diets people are on temporarily.
 
Watson went on and on about how he didn't feel comfortable with the animals he saw on the farm serving a "use" so even if it's not explicitly in the concise original definition, I feel that you guys are arguing a totally moot point, anyhow. Watson also didn't feel comfortable with things like leather and wool, this isn't something some extremists randomly made later, it was his own view and in fact is a completely rational view if you also simply break it down without consulting Watson's definition - if you don't eat animals why would you wear them? Those two things are pretty hard to argue about, even if you debate about pets and zoos and television.

Also, Watson isn't a god of some kind. This isn't the Holy Bible we're talking about. If anything, philosophers like Peter Singer are more qualified to define veganism these days than the simplicity of Donald Watson doing little more than coining a term to describe his and his wife's personal ethics.

He believed in animal rights but did not put that into the definition of vegan oher than in the parts about encouraging the development and use of alternatives to animal products/commodities, eg. leather and wool. Animal rights was in the the DNA of veganism from the beginning in the form of that encouragement, but it was wisely not a requirement to be called a vegan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nekodaiden
He believed in animal rights but did not put that into the definition of vegan oher than in the parts about encouraging the development and use of alternatives to animal products/commodities, eg. leather and wool. Animal rights was in the the DNA of veganism from the beginning in the form of that encouragement, but it was wisely not a requirement to be called a vegan.

How is it "wise"?
 
Ok then I have a question. In your opinion (or whoever wants to answer this), is it alright for a dietary vegan who does not believe in animal rights to simply be called a "vegan", without the "dietary" qualifier in front of it?

Not really, because caring about animal rights or not harming animals isn't "ego" it's a fundamental reason why people make a sincere effort to STAY vegan for their entire lives, versus someone who rationalizes eating eggs or fish once a week or once a month, ostensibly for their health.

I'm honestly feeling some hostility here that I ironically perceive as being MUCH more egotistical than insisting that veganism remain philosophical rather than merely dietary. It's a world view, a lifestyle, a way of being, and saying it's anything less cheapens it to being like Atkins or Paleo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sax
Not really, because caring about animal rights or not harming animals isn't "ego" it's a fundamental reason why people make a sincere effort to STAY vegan for their entire lives, versus someone who rationalizes eating eggs or fish once a week or once a month, ostensibly for their health.

I'm honestly feeling some hostility here that I ironically perceive as being MUCH more egotistical than insisting that veganism remain philosophical rather than merely dietary. It's a world view, a lifestyle, a way of being, and saying it's anything less cheapens it to being like Atkins or Paleo.

The main reason Watson veganism is wiser is that it is inclusive. If you believe in animal rights, and I do, it can still be the reason you stay vegan your whole life, but what do you get out of excluding people from the word vegan - some non-cheap quality to the word in exchange for followers of the diet?
 
Growing the number of people who only eat vegan food is good for animals. But growing the number of people who take a firm, clear stance on the fundamental immorality of animal exploitation isn't just better for animals, it is the ONLY way that our abuse of them will ever end.

I want to grow our numbers by changing minds, not eating habits.

Carnism isn't a diet. It's an ideology that justifies and propagates immense cruelty.

Veganism isn't a diet. Pretending it is, pretending it's acceptable to support animal cruelty as long as it isn't for food, gives the carnist ideology a foothold within our movement.

Big ******* NOPE to that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Forest Nymph
The main reason Watson veganism is wiser is that it is inclusive. If you believe in animal rights, and I do, it can still be the reason you stay vegan your whole life, but what do you get out of excluding people from the word vegan - some non-cheap quality to the word in exchange for followers of the diet?

Are you even serious? I'm starting to wonder about your intentions because in my "career" thread I stated my intention to go to graduate school to develop a local community or state agency based project to advocate plant-based diets for environmental reasons, since my undergrad is environmental science. The hard evidence and studies exist, but the hurdle is a matter of social science, in communicating or teaching that effectively to the public.

AND IN THAT THREAD you, sir, went on and on about how I shouldn't use the word "vegan" to promote plant-based diets for environmental reasons, and when I agreed with you that, no, I will actually be using the term "plant-based" since it's for the environment and also because that term is more palatable to meat eaters in a professional context...you had some sort of fit, about I shouldn't do that, and I should just do it for animal rights, and I explained to you that I intend for my project to be 100% plant based and so therefore it should be effective as a method of ending hypocrisy in the environmentalist community without compromising my own values...because I AGREE that the more people who are plant-based, the more this benefits the animals.

You appear to have done some sort of 360 in this thread, or you think you're playing some kind of "devil's advocate" now arguing both sides - and frankly, that's stupid as ****. I cannot begin to understand why you'd torment me over my plant-based project, and now start a thread where you brow-beat people for defining the word vegan accurately as a philosophy that seeks to avoid harming animals.

Make up your mind, because honestly you're not making any sense. Either you think it's okay for people to be "environmental vegans" or you don't even think the word plant based should be used for anything other than animal rights.

Besides, at the end of the day, environmentalism is more philosophical than going on a diet, my point still stands, people who are vegan for the animals or plant-based for the environment are much more likely to stay committed than someone who is just trying it for their health.

No, I don't want to call people "vegans" if they aren't. I'm not even going to use the word vegan in my grad school project unless a cite a study which already is using the term, just for clarity's sake.
 
Growing the number of people who only eat vegan food is good for animals. But growing the number of people who take a firm, clear stance on the fundamental immorality of animal exploitation isn't just better for animals, it is the ONLY way that our abuse of them will ever end.

I want to grow our numbers by changing minds, not eating habits.

Carnism isn't a diet. It's an ideology that justifies and propagates immense cruelty.

Veganism isn't a diet. Pretending it is, pretending it's acceptable to support animal cruelty as long as it isn't for food, gives the carnist ideology a foothold within our movement.

Big ******* NOPE to that.

Yeah I was outside of a class today confronted with some classmates who were complaining and finding it "so annoying" that one person's roommate is vegan and won't share pans that cook animals, and I said "well, I don't share pans either" and the person just looks at me incredulously, because in a carnists mind, if veganism is just a diet, you're being mean to them by not sharing pans because you eat different food. As long as carnists believe that it's strictly about eating food then they will see vegans as "mean" or "crazy" and excuse themselves as being the victim of a dietary extremist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vegan Dogs
Growing the number of people who only eat vegan food is good for animals. But growing the number of people who take a firm, clear stance on the fundamental immorality of animal exploitation isn't just better for animals, it is the ONLY way that our abuse of them will ever end.

I want to grow our numbers by changing minds, not eating habits.

Carnism isn't a diet. It's an ideology that justifies and propagates immense cruelty.

Veganism isn't a diet. Pretending it is, pretending it's acceptable to support animal cruelty as long as it isn't for food, gives the carnist ideology a foothold within our movement.

Big ******* NOPE to that.


I don’t know about you, but when I was a practicing omni I didn’t go out of my way to participate in cruelty to animals, that is – outside of by proxy through eating them which I believed I needed at the time. I didn’t consider myself to have an “ideology” that justifies cruelty - I was simply oblivious to it. Had someone brought it up, like showed me in graphical form I can honestly say I wouldn’t have liked it, thought it was right or I might have come up with something along the lines of “maybe it could be done better” - but since at the time I believed it was necessary, I would have left it at that. I don’t consider this an “ideology” - I consider it ignorance and fear of change and the unknown.

I’m going to venture that many if not most people do not hold this ideology that you speak of. They believe humans need to consume animals and their by products, particularly in the area of diet. Fur, silk, leather etc are usually not classed as “needs” but animal foods in the diet are. Most of us, especially in the west – are hammered with this idea from the time we first start eating solid food – so at home, then at school, in movies and entertainment and of course in advertising.

Did you, as a former omni, ever think you held an ideology of supporting animal cruelty? Or were you just oblivious to it like most? Was your introduction to Veganism this extended form that branched out and thought about all kinds of moral and philosophical ideas behind the treatment of animals – or was it introduced to you as a way of eating that you could thrive on while doing better for the animals and environment?


Is it not true that you probably didn’t even have the beliefs you have now UNTIL you adopted the diet? So, if you have been bettered by it, then why would you make it so hard for a new person to even step in the door – like they have to have all your beliefs and thoughts from the word “go”?


Watson Veganism is a diet of exclusion, that in addition to also encourages, not demands, positive things. Make those encouragements part of the definition keeps people from trying it and identifying with it. It also causes divisions among Vegans, as you’ve probably noticed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: poivron
Are you even serious? I'm starting to wonder about your intentions because in my "career" thread I stated my intention to go to graduate school to develop a local community or state agency based project to advocate plant-based diets for environmental reasons, since my undergrad is environmental science. The hard evidence and studies exist, but the hurdle is a matter of social science, in communicating or teaching that effectively to the public.

AND IN THAT THREAD you, sir, went on and on about how I shouldn't use the word "vegan" to promote plant-based diets for environmental reasons, and when I agreed with you that, no, I will actually be using the term "plant-based" since it's for the environment and also because that term is more palatable to meat eaters in a professional context...you had some sort of fit, about I shouldn't do that, and I should just do it for animal rights, and I explained to you that I intend for my project to be 100% plant based and so therefore it should be effective as a method of ending hypocrisy in the environmentalist community without compromising my own values...because I AGREE that the more people who are plant-based, the more this benefits the animals.

You appear to have done some sort of 360 in this thread, or you think you're playing some kind of "devil's advocate" now arguing both sides - and frankly, that's stupid as ****. I cannot begin to understand why you'd torment me over my plant-based project, and now start a thread where you brow-beat people for defining the word vegan accurately as a philosophy that seeks to avoid harming animals.

Make up your mind, because honestly you're not making any sense. Either you think it's okay for people to be "environmental vegans" or you don't even think the word plant based should be used for anything other than animal rights.

Besides, at the end of the day, environmentalism is more philosophical than going on a diet, my point still stands, people who are vegan for the animals or plant-based for the environment are much more likely to stay committed than someone who is just trying it for their health.

No, I don't want to call people "vegans" if they aren't. I'm not even going to use the word vegan in my grad school project unless a cite a study which already is using the term, just for clarity's sake.

I had two points in that thread. First I will state what my two points were and then I will explain why I no longer agree with point #1. In that thread, at first I was making point number 1 and then later I thought of and started making point number 2.

Point #1.

Adopting a 100% plant based diet, that is a totally vegan diet, for environmental or health reasons, doesn't make any sense. You can have some milk in your tea once per month at your grandmother's and it will have no discernable effect on your health or the environment. Therefore, it makes no sense to tell people to go vegan, that is 100% plant based, for environmental reasons, as you are proposing. At most, one would only have to go very nearly vegan to get the desired effects.

It is fine to talk about how veganism benefits the planet. But just don't say that the environment (or health) is why people should switch to veganism, that is, a diet devoid of all animal products, because it doesn't make sense and only invites alternative solutions to going vegan, such as only going very nearly vegan and still consuming negligible amounts of animal products, or getting all your meat from hunting and fishing so as not to contribute to factory farm pollution.

Point #2.

Since you believe in animal rights, don't say people should switch their diet because of the environment. To do that is to betray and contradict animal rights, just like it would be a contradiction of human rights to say in 1942 that the genocide should stop because of all the fossil fuels being used to transport Jews to the concentration camps. There are infinite ways to talk about how veganism benefits the planet without saying "and the environment is the reason why you should switch your diet".

-----
After my last contribution to that thread, but before I started this thread, maybe a day or so before I started this thread, I saw that VegSource video I linked to in the OP and also read the Vegan Society Today website. Now that I have been influenced by these sources, I "get" environmental and health veganism.

What I was saying in your thread about environmental and health veganism is also true of ethical veganism, but I didn't realize that back then. You do not have to eat a 100% vegan diet in order to have the same effect helping animals, if the only animal products you consume are those that would otherwise go to waste. So it really doesn't matter that health or environmental vegans do not logically have to go all the way with a vegan diet to have the exact same effect, because the same is true of ethical vegans.

Learning about Watson veganism has helped me appreciate why someone would follow a totally vegan diet, for the sake of health or the environment, rather than just a mostly vegan diet. I am interested in what makes people go the extra mile to cut out all animal products, even the monthly milk in their tea at a relative's house. I believe the reason is that being vegan is important to them, and that is why they cut out all dietary use - so they can say they are totally vegan rather than just mostly and that is also why I do not make any exceptions in diet. So knowing that, I now respect and understand the veganism of environmental, health and other dietary vegans, whereas when I was contributing to your thread I did not understand it, and I thought it was nonsensical.

But I still agree with point #2. There is a difference between acknowledging the veganism of environmental and health vegans and telling environment and health conscious people they should go vegan because of health or the environment. The latter is selling out the animal rights movement and the former is just including them in veganism, since they are vegans under the original definition. Again, you can talk to people about the positive effects veganism has on health and the environment without explicitly saying these are reasons people should make the change, since there is a social injustice occurring.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Forest Nymph
I had two points in that thread. First I will state what my two points were and then I will explain why I no longer agree with point #1. In that thread, at first I was making point number 1 and then later I thought of and started making point number 2.

Point #1.

Adopting a 100% plant based diet, that is a totally vegan diet, for environmental or health reasons, doesn't make any sense. You can have some milk in your tea once per month at your grandmother's and it will have no discernable effect on your health or the environment. Therefore, it makes no sense to tell people to go vegan, that is 100% plant based, for environmental reasons, as you are proposing. At most, one would only have to go very nearly vegan to get the desired effects.

It is fine to talk about how veganism benefits the planet. But just don't say that the environment (or health) is why people should switch to veganism, that is, a diet devoid of all animal products, because it doesn't make sense and only invites alternative solutions to going vegan, such as only going very nearly vegan and still consuming negligible amounts of animal products, or getting all your meat from hunting and fishing so as not to contribute to factory farm pollution.

Point #2.

Since you believe in animal rights, don't say people should switch their diet because of the environment. To do that is to betray and contradict animal rights, just like it would be a contradiction of human rights to say in 1942 that the genocide should stop because of all the fossil fuels being used to transport Jews to the concentration camps. There are infinite ways to talk about how veganism benefits the planet without saying "and the environment is the reason why you should switch your diet".

-----
After my last contribution to that thread, but before I started this thread, maybe a day or so before I started this thread, I saw that VegSource video I linked to in the OP and also read the Vegan Society Today website. Now that I have been influenced by these sources, I "get" environmental and health veganism.

What I was saying in your thread about environmental and health veganism is also true of ethical veganism, but I didn't realize that back then. You do not have to eat a 100% vegan diet in order to have the same effect helping animals, if the only animal products you consume are those that would otherwise go to waste. So it really doesn't matter that health or environmental vegans do not logically have to go all the way with a vegan diet to have the exact same effect, because the same is true of ethical vegans.

Learning about Watson veganism has helped me appreciate why someone would follow a totally vegan diet, for the sake of health or the environment, rather than just a mostly vegan diet. I am interested in what makes people go the extra mile to cut out all animal products, even the monthly milk in their tea at a relative's house. I believe the reason is that being vegan is important to them, and that is why they cut out all dietary use - so they can say they are totally vegan rather than just mostly and that is also why I do not make any exceptions in diet. So knowing that, I now respect and understand the veganism of environmental, health and other dietary vegans, whereas when I was contributing to your thread I did not understand it, and I thought it was nonsensical.

But I still agree with point #2. There is a difference between acknowledging the veganism of environmental and health vegans and telling environment and health conscious people they should go vegan because of health or the environment. The latter is selling out the animal rights movement and the former is just including them in veganism, since they are vegans under the original definition. Again, you can talk to people about the positive effects veganism has on health and the environment without explicitly saying these are reasons people should make the change, since there is a social injustice occurring.

While I appreciate that you have finally given me a respectful and detailed response, and I can agree with some of it, you don't seem to comprehend that some people will NEVER go vegan - or even vegetarian - for animal rights. Therefore, I can base my career around environmental reasons to go plant-based, because this is also something I legitimately believe in it's not like I'm lying or deceiving anyone, in fact climate change is a more expedient reason anyway since if people don't stop their **** now, there won't even be a planet to save animals on, they'll all be dead along with us. I can still care about or promote animal rights in my personal life.

Is there a particular reason you have such a ferocious problem with someone else promoting plant-based diets for the environment, when it will help animals in the long run? Especially since you made it clear in that thread you don't understand the environmental impact?

Make your career about animal rights. Good luck with that. It's not an easy career to get into. Peter Singer has a PhD and you have to have five years of experience (optimally) working in animal rescue to get a job with PETA, even in their graphics or marketing departments. Good luck and godspeed if you actually have the capital, or know an investor, who would support you in starting your own business or organization.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Is there a particular reason you have such a ferocious problem with someone else promoting plant-based diets for the environment, when it will help animals in the long run? Especially since you made it clear in that thread you don't understand the environmental impact?

I said it twice in my response above and many times in the other thread, that you can talk about how veganism benefits the environment without spelling out that this is the reason people should change their diet. I'm just talking about how, not what. I don't have any problem - let alone a ferocious one - with people promoting veganism for the environment. I said in the other thread in my first message that the world needs people to do that. As I said in the other thread, this isn't about adding any animal rights stuff to the message. It's just about not contradicting animal rights while you deliver the environmental message.
 
I said it twice in my response above and many times in the other thread, that you can talk about how veganism benefits the environment without spelling out that this is the reason people should change their diet. I'm just talking about how, not what. I don't have any problem - let alone a ferocious one - with people promoting veganism for the environment. I said in the other thread in my first message that the world needs people to do that. As I said in the other thread, this isn't about adding any animal rights stuff to the message. It's just about not contradicting animal rights while you deliver the environmental message.

You know what, tbh, I don't care what you think. I'm doing more for veganism than you are. and I said that in the other thread, this all appears to me like someone sitting in their armchair doing nothing who wants to criticize those who are taking a stand and actually doing something real. I care about this planet, and I know you don't even understand what is happening. I have reason to believe you have no clue just how bad climate change is, or how severe animal agriculture's impact is on it. It also probably doesn't enter your mind either, that all of those Sierra Club members and Audubon ladies and biology professors love animals too - they love elk, wolves, hawks, and mountain lions. Wildlife are animals too.
 
I agree with veganism as it is defined these days, and I see it really needed, for all issues associated with it, that anything other than this veganism compromises. We can understand that vegan dieters are distinct from this. Real veganism includes choosing for the animals' interests, though there are all the other involved issues that are reasons for veganism that it is better not compromising. Certainly there are steps, I go through steps like other vegans generally. I was vegetarian years ago, and I transitioned to a vegan diet when I understood the real issues to animals. Honey was the last animal product I eliminated. Veganism grows as compassion widens, talking about inclusiveness. And I had further steps, more involved with healthiness. So a vegan diet is a common step. But a vegan dieter who won't change further is not having any care for the animals showing, such would not be vegan. If you want more inclusiveness, widen compassion beyond the speciesism.

And I didn't see conflict with the different wording of the definition at different times. It is like people who say there are contradictions in the Bible when those are only read into it. The conflict that isn't there is read into it. And honey is an animal product, use of animal products which are mentioned still include honey, it isn't left out when animal products are mentioned.
 
Others have replied well to the main points ref the label vegan meaning what the vegan society stipulates rather than just a diet.

The term for someone who follows just the diet personally and uses wears leather shoes etc is "plant based"

So one can call oneself a "plant based" diet eater.

I address just a couple of other issues raised ...

1. Feeding cats vegan is perfectly feasible vegan cat foods exist now since years 20 year old vegan fed cats exist.

Actually to lol the term "vegan cat" is more easily disputable since veganism is a philosophy or way of life that we cannot ascribe to non human animals not having the capacity to communicate with them in their languages.

A "plant based cat" or "veggie cat" or "plant powered cat" are the terms debated in the vegan cat owers world.

2. People who save rescue dogs and cats are 95 percent non vegans. I do not disagree.

What i do say is they are wasting their time in terms of they are not saving lives but killing thousands of lives for every 1 dog or cat if fed non vegan.

They are just speciesist ...like racism....some people prefer pet species just as some people prefer some colours of people to others.

www.vegepets.com btw is the best scientific website for vegan pet foods information.

Lastly but most importantly...

I suscribe to the Gary L Francione Abolitionist Vegan philosophy and principles of veganism..of which there are 6

The first Principle of Veganism is...ANIMALS ARE NOT OURS as PROPERTY therefore we have no moral "right" to use them

That includes "use" as petfood of course...since animals are not ours....we have no right to use them.

A DIET is not a MORAL BASELINE ..is the final point. Call a diet a diet ! call a way of living according to an ethical viewpoint an "ism" as is "veganism"

There are many labels other than VEGAN to use depending on what one believes or practicses

1. Plant based

2. Reducetarian

3. Vegetarian/pescatarian etc depending on which species of animals one is excluding from ethical consideration or abstinence


..

fyi

https://www.abolitionistapproach.co...f-the-abolitionist-approach-to-animal-rights/

Principle One

Abolitionists maintain that all sentient beings, human or nonhuman, have one right—the basic right not to be treated as the property of others.

Summary

Animals are classified as property and are used exclusively as resources for humans. Although we claim to regard animals as having moral value and to not be just things, their status as property means that they have no moral value; they have only economic value. We recognize that treating humans as property is inconsistent with recognizing humans as members of the moral community. We accept as a fundamental moral principle that all humans, irrespective of their particular characteristics, must be accorded the basic moral right not to be property. On this principle rests the universal condemnation of human slavery. The property status of animals means that animals are considered to be things, irrespective of what we say to the contrary. There is no way to distinguish humans from nonhumans that can justify withholding from all sentient nonhumans the same right that we accord to all humans. We need to recognize that all sentient beings are equal for the purpose of not being used exclusively as human resources. The Abolitionist Approach maintains that all animal use—however supposedly “humane”—is morally unjustified.

Principle Two

Abolitionists maintain that our recognition of this one basic right means that we must abolish, and not merely regulate, institutionalized animal exploitation, and that abolitionists should not support welfare reform campaigns or single-issue campaigns.

Summary

Recognizing the right of animals not to be used as property requires that we abolish the institutionalized exploitation of nonhuman animals, and not just regulate it to make it more “humane.” Abolitionists reject animal welfare campaigns. They also reject single-issue campaigns, a particular sort of regulatory campaign that characterizes certain forms of animal exploitation as different from, and worse than, other forms of exploitation and which suggests, by implication, that other forms of exploitation are acceptable. Both welfare campaigns and single-issue campaigns actually promote animal exploitation and result in partnerships between supposed animal advocates and institutionalized exploiters.

Principle Three

Abolitionists maintain that veganism is a moral baseline and that creative, nonviolent vegan education must be the cornerstone of rational animal rights advocacy.

Summary

Abolitionists embrace the idea that there is veganism and there is animal exploitation: there is no third choice. To not be a vegan is to participate directly in animal exploitation. Abolitionists promote veganism as a moral baseline or a moral imperative and as the only rational response to the recognition that animals have moral value. If animals matter morally, then we cannot treat them as commodities and eat, wear, or use them. Just as someone who promoted the abolition of slavery could not own slaves, an abolitionist with respect to animal slavery cannot consume animal products. For an abolitionist, veganism is a fundamental matter of justice. As the Abolitionist Approach is a grassroots movement, advocating veganism as a fundamental principle of justice is not something that requires large, wealthy charities and “leaders.” It is something that we all can do and must do as a grassroots movement. Each of us must be a leader.

Principle Four

The Abolitionist Approach links the moral status of nonhumans with sentience alone and not with any other cognitive characteristic; all sentient beings are equal for the purpose of not being used exclusively as a resource.

Summary

Sentience is subjective awareness; there is someone who perceives and experiences the world. A sentient being has interests; that is, preferences, wants, or desires. If a being is sentient, then that is necessary and sufficient for the being to have the right not to be used as a means to human ends. The recognition of this right imposes on humans the moral obligation not to use that being as a resource. It is not necessary for a sentient being to have humanlike cognitive characteristics in order to be accorded the right not to be used as property.

Principle Five

Abolitionists reject all forms of human discrimination, including racism, sexism, heterosexism, ageism, ableism, and classism—just as they reject speciesism.

Summary

The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights rejects speciesism because, like racism, sexism, heterosexism, and other forms of human discrimination, it uses a morally irrelevant criterion (species) to discount and devalue the interests of sentient beings. But any opposition to speciesism makes sense only as part of a general opposition to all forms of discrimination. That is, we cannot oppose speciesism but claim that, as animal advocates, we do not have a position on these other forms of discrimination. We cannot say that we reject species as a morally objectionable criterion to discount or devalue the interests of nonhumans but that we do not have a position on whether race, sex, or sexual orientation/preference are morally objectionable criteria when used to discount or devalue human interests. Our opposition to speciesism requires that we oppose all discrimination.

Principle Six

Abolitionists recognize the principle of nonviolence as a core principle of the animal rights movement.

Summary

The Abolitionist Approach promotes nonviolence because it sees the animal rights movement as an extension of the peace movement to include concerns about nonhuman animals. Moreover, given that most people engage in animal exploitation, there is no principled way to distinguish exploiters for the purpose of justifying violence. Finally, because there is pervasive exploitation, violence cannot be understood as anything but a pathological reaction to what is regarded as normal. The only real option is, on the individual level, to embrace veganism as a moral baseline and, on the social level, to engage in creative, nonviolent vegan education from an abolitionist perspective.

**********

A Note: In order to embrace the abolitionist approach to animal rights, it is not necessary to be spiritual or religious, or to be an atheist. You can be a spiritual or religious person, or you can be an atheist, or anything in between. It does not matter.

What does matter is:

(1) that you have moral concern about animals and that you want to do right by animals. That moral concern/moral impulse can come from any source, spiritual or non-spiritual; and

(2) that you regard as valid the logical arguments that our moral concern should not be limited to some nonhumans but should extend to all sentient beings and that we should abolish, and not regulate, animal exploitation.

Gary L. Francione
Anna Charlton
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Lou
www.vegepets.com btw is the best scientific website for vegan pet foods information.

I am going to study the documents on this website and compare them to this: https://catinfo.org/docs/DrZoran.pdf and get back to you.

In the meantime, I wanted to tell you that Gary L. Francione does not use the word "veganism" synonymously with "the Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights", so why are you doing that - saying for example,
"The first Principle of Veganism is...ANIMALS ARE NOT OURS as PROPERTY therefore we have no moral "right" to use them"?

If you are curious as to how he does use the word vegan, he uses a hybrid Watson/Cross definition. Unlike most of the people who contributed to this thread, he would not tell someone who follows a vegan diet "you're not vegan, you're plant based. You have to believe in animal rights to be a vegan." That is abundantly clear from this 2009 blog post. Here are excerpts that support the above comment (bold and bracketed commentary mine):

https://www.abolitionistapproach.com/some-thoughts-on-the-meaning-of-vegan/

Vegans [not people who follow a vegan diet, but vegans] for health reasons alone often “cheat” just as those who are on any diet for heath reasons often do. Vegans [not people who follow a vegan diet, but vegans] for environmental reasons may not only lapse but may decide that an animal product has fewer adverse environmental consequences than non-animal products.

In sum, people may be vegans [not people may follow a vegan diet, but people may be vegans] for different reasons. In my view, ethical or abolitionist veganism is the only approach that results in consistent behavior. We should, however, be clear that no form of veganism is consistent with eating any animal products. That is, following a “vegan diet” is the minimal meaning of “vegan.” In my [personal] view [which I would not impose on others, hence my use of the word "vegan" in reference to dietary vegans], a “vegan” is someone who does not eat, use, or wear any animal products. But it is also accurate to say that a person who eats no animal products follows a “vegan diet.” The absence of animal products is explicitly being limited to diet. As a said above, I do not regard “flexible” vegans as vegans and, by definition, they do not even follow a vegan diet.