Is there a case for a different, more flexible attitude to products that are not completely vegan?
From the "HRC report: 70% of vegans stop being vegan." thread:
If so, is "veganishm" a good name for this philosophy? Or, is the better approach to "reform" veganism?
Personally, I take the stand that there is a healthy difference between theory and practice. The requirements for what defines a vegan product are fairly clearly defined. On the other hand, the requirement for what defines a vegan person are much less clear. A vegan person may for various reasons not use exclusively vegan products 100.000% of the time.
From the "HRC report: 70% of vegans stop being vegan." thread:
Many activists feel that vegan orthorexia and dogmatism have negatively impacted the struggle for animal rights/welfare. In fact, the mainstream AR/AW movement has increasingly used "veg" or vegetarian in place of vegan due to this perception. And it's not just mainstream AR/AW groups that are unhappy with the vegan community -- even the ALF has published critiques of vegan dogmatism.
I'm certainly not trying to suggest that vegans, as a group, don't care about animal rights/welfare issues but rather than veganism as an ideology can distract from them. I think veganism can be a distraction because its an extreme position and isn't rooted in any particular legal, ethical, etc theory that can be used to motivate animal rights/welfare issues.....yet it tends to get most of the attention.
If so, is "veganishm" a good name for this philosophy? Or, is the better approach to "reform" veganism?
Personally, I take the stand that there is a healthy difference between theory and practice. The requirements for what defines a vegan product are fairly clearly defined. On the other hand, the requirement for what defines a vegan person are much less clear. A vegan person may for various reasons not use exclusively vegan products 100.000% of the time.