Veg*n Definitions

[Dandelion]

I know we've discussed what veganism means to us in several different threads before but i decided to make an official all encompassing thread about veg*nism ("veg*nism" here meaning the range of words starting with "veg"). The defining of these terms is not meant to classify, discourage or demean anybody but to clear up confusion (or add to it ;)). This list below is how i see things and not a Declaration of Veg*nism Almighty. I could be totally living in my own lil reality so feel free to discuss, agree or disagree. That's what this site is all about :)

vegetarian: a plant based diet (cheese aint a vegetable)
strict vegetarian: no really, a PLANT based DIET
vegan: a lifestyle based on peace, compassion and responsibility which happens to include eating a strict vegetarian diet. Avoids all animal products.

append the following prefixes as necessary
lacto-vegetarian (sometimes called "cheesitarian" **): a plant based diet with dairy
ovo-vegetarian: a plant based diet with eggs
pesco-vegetarian: a plant based diet with fish
chicko-vegetarian*: a plant based diet with chicken
porko-vegetarian*: a plant based diet with pig
beefo-vegetarian*: a plant based diet with cow
lacto-ovo-pisco-chicko-pork-beefo-vegetarian*(also called "flexitarian"): a plant based diet with dairy, eggs, fish, chicken, pig, cow


*ok so i made these up ;) and yes i did a little ribbing
**credit vegit-8 with that one

[penfold]

i'm a todo-skepto vegetarian* myself


*i only eat sacred cows :silly:

[theDuckThatWasnt]

I think I've heard of "vegetarians" who eat only beef being referred to as bovo-vegetarians. :rolleyes: I might have made that up though. Either way, I find all these little addendums pretty dumb. :)

What about cannibalistic vegetarians? Would they be anthro-vegetarians?

[herbi]

I could be totally living in my own lil reality...

Could be??? ;)

I don't go in for all this "(whatever)-vegetarian" mumbo-jumbo. I didn't go around calling myself a "lacto-ovo-vegetarian" for 9 years, and I don't think it was because I was imprecise or wrong, I think it's because I was using words as they are commonly used by the vast majority of English-speaking humans. "Vegetarian" means you don't eat meat and meat by-products-- nothing you had to kill the animal to get. "Vegan" means you don't eat ANYTHING that came from an animal even if the animal is alive & well afterwards.

[mountainvegan]

I think the common usage is like herbi says - vegetarian = l/o vegetarian. However, given the root word, it probably evolved into its usage, and originally meant vegetarian = no animal products in diet (no l/o).

[heathergalaxy]

i also believe veganism is a lifestyle while a strict vegetarian diet is what we vegans eat... in many countries vegetarian does mean vegan (of course in others it includes fish)...

it's taken a long time for my coworkers to realize that i'm vegan NOT for health reason but for ethical... i was also a veggie for ethical reasons... although my ethical reasons for becoming vegan were a bit more expansive than for vegetarian (as in the no-meat kind)... before it was just AR, now it also includes environmental reasons as well (as all these things are important to me, and i have no ONE cause that i push more than any, mostly because i think all our society's problems, including AR, are interlinked)...

for me, instead of saying "avoids all animal products", i say "tries their best to avoid all animal-derived products and anything that involves animal suffering", mostly because i'm a stickler for the fact that it's impossible to be 100% vegan and i'm all about curtailing mass-production, manufacturing, and all those things that contribute to the destruction of animals and their/our habitat. i think many people, me too at one point, freak out that it's impossible, so i hate saying "all" but "do your best"...

i TOTALLY agree w/ herbi on her definitions of vegan and vegetarian... i'm sick of all the "whatever-vegetarian"s... not that they make it hard for me, everyone knows that i'm vegan and what they have to do to accommodate me... maybe if i was vegetarian it'd be different... i just find them annoying since eating vegetables as part of your diet is not something that is/should be weird!

Dandy- have people actually gotten you leather stuff and such?!? i don't think i know anyone so unthinking (however most people do forget that i don't drink and suggest to go out for drinks, but that's a whole other thing)!

btw, i know that vegetarian times is made by meat eaters and everything, but like does EVERY ISSUE have to be about dieting!?!?

[theDuckThatWasnt]

Vegetarian Times is made by meat-eaters??!

[JasonSt]

I know I've posted this quote once or twice before, but it is relevant here. It was uttered to me by my omni friend named Malcolm.

"There are no vegetarians; only weak-willed vegans."

[Dandelion]

oh!
i was joking about that but i guess that's the correct terminology then.
my bad :p
some actual research might have been nice when i made this thread but a quick google search found this. (http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewarticle.asp?AuthorID=2093&id=2839) :

Ovo-Lacto Vegetarian: No meat or fish, some dairy and eggs {this is the most common type of vegetarian}.
Lacto Vegetarian: No meat or fish, some dairy, no eggs.
Vegan: No meat or fish, no dairy, no eggs
Crusto-vegetarian: Eats shrimp, crab or other crustaceans.
Mollo-vegetarian: Eats clams, scallops, oysters or other mollusks.
Porco-vegetarian: Eats pig.
Repto-vegetarian: Eats snakes and other reptiles.
Ento-vegetarian: Eats insects.

I think I've heard of "vegetarians" who eat only beef being referred to as bovo-vegetarians.

yes i have gotten leather on occasion even though they DO know i'm vegan. Also people act shocked when i do something like drink a POP or something. (not that you'll find me doing THAT much anymore) Many still think i'm on a diet.
Dandy- have people actually gotten you leather stuff and such?!?

My point is i think the word vegetarian has been abused and lost it's meaning. The word itself suggests a diet of vegetables. All the silly prefixed vegetarian words make a point of distinguishing those who decide to eat dairy etc. For the most part people understand vegetarianism to be veggies, milk, eggs (and sometimes fish and sometimes chicken) by default. I never prefixed when i was vegetarian either. The majority uses a word one way and it's lost it's intended meaning and now there is NO consensus what it means anymore. I wanna reclaim "vegetarian" but not at the cost of excluding others. It just seems like it would make a whole buncha lives easier if we had words that mean stuff :)

[dviolet]

everyone knows that i'm vegan and what they have to do to accommodate me... maybe if i was vegetarian it'd be different... i just find them annoying since eating vegetables as part of your diet is not something that is/should be weird!

Maybe I'm the only one, but I CONSTANTLY get people asking me if I eat seafood when I say I'm vegan! Uh, duh! A fish is not a plant. GRRR. :mad:

[bumblebee]

Calling someone a vegan because they eat as a vegan would be like calling me a Christian because I celebrate Christmas. Yet, I am an atheist. :)

One could eat as a vegan, for health, yet kick their dog every chance they get. One could eat as a vegan, yet fund vivisection. Are these people vegans? Nope. Is anyone who simply eats as a vegan? Nope.

Vegan is about more than what one eats. Just as Christianity is about more than Christmas.

Also, I really don't understand the problem some have with "labels". When I go to see a "doctor" I don't want that "doctor" to be a "lab technician". Labels can be used to diminish someone, but usually they are just helpful information. :)

[theDuckThatWasnt]

Calling someone a vegan because they eat as a vegan would be like calling me a Christian because I celebrate Christmas. Yet, I am an atheist. :)



Very, very interesting point!

[heathergalaxy]

Maybe I'm the only one, but I CONSTANTLY get people asking me if I eat seafood when I say I'm vegan! Uh, duh! A fish is not a plant. GRRR. :mad:


see, i only get the stupid questions like "so wait. you can't eat chocolate right? or cakes and cookies? or sushi? wow, you can never go to any restuarant! you can't eat pasta! or guacamole! what do you eat?"

and then i tell them i eat all the above and more and it's awesome...

and if it's at work, they'll soon be all like "wow! your food smells soooo good!"

aside: definitions are important for communication. i think we as vegans need a united front as to what vegan is to non-vegans, even if we might squabble internally (and most usually internally on an individual level) about what it means to be vegan...

[misanthropy]

I hate all the "pseudo" vegetarian names... please... they're soooooooo not vegetarian if they eat all that other stuff!

Anyhoo, for me, I identify with the vegan definition that was put forth by Donald Watson and the vegan society because, you know, he created the word!

Q: What is a vegan?

A: A vegan is someone seeking a lifestyle free from animal products for the benefit of people, animals and the environment.

A vegan therefore eats a plant-based diet free from all animal products, including milk, eggs and honey. Most vegans do not wear leather, wool or silk.

I'm also with Dandelion on the whole no health vegans thing.

[thecatspajamas]

One could eat as a vegan, for health, yet kick their dog every chance they get. One could eat as a vegan, yet fund vivisection. Are these people vegans? Nope. Is anyone who simply eats as a vegan? Nope.



Well, by this rationale, we need to have the same distinctions for different varieties of vegan as well. Are just a dietary vegan? Or are you a dietary and a moral vegan? If you're a dietary vegan but use non-edible non-vegan products are you still a vegan?

This just muddies the water quite a bit. I think witholding the "vegan" label from anyone except those who fit one narrow set of standards for a wide ranging series of issues is exclusionary and unnecessary. I consider myself vegan, but have some viewpoints on some issues and make some choices that may not be "vegan" by somebody else's standards. This gets into the "veganer than thou" arguments that I sometimes found myself in while in college. People would hold their noses in the air and say things like "You do know that your white sugar might be processed with bone char, don't you?". Of course I knew this was a possibility, but we all can't be uber-vigilant all the time when it comes to being vegan. We simply do the best we can and learn from our mistakes.

If somebody says they're vegan or vegetarian, that is enough for me. That pretty much always means that these people have some idea of where their food comes from and the problems that are associated with producing that food. Some gesture, regardless of how small is a step in the right direction. Vegetarians that eat chicken and fish have realized the risks associated with red meat, and perhaps taking the next step and becoming complete vegetarians. From there, realizing that the cruelty doesn't start at the killing floor may drive more people to become vegan. I'll take a veg*n any way I can get one, even if it is only in name alone. For the most part, people are trying to make a difference in their world and using the diet as as tool for that.

Somebody should set up a poll because I'm too tired to find out if people on this site became vegan by stages or in one fell swoop.

[shedonteatmeat]

It takes all of my self control not to scream when I hear "flexitarian". I literally heard a girl quote cosmopolitan magazine: "Out: Strict Vegetarians, In: Flexitarians"


Aaaaaagghhhhh! So yeah, if cosmo says eat the pretty little animals, then by god, eat the animals! :rolleyes: :bomb:

[theDuckThatWasnt]

It takes all of my self control not to scream when I hear "flexitarian". I literally heard a girl quote cosmopolitan magazine: "Out: Strict Vegetarians, In: Flexitarians"


Aaaaaagghhhhh! So yeah, if cosmo says eat the pretty little animals, then by god, eat the animals! :rolleyes: :bomb:

Holy crap. I think my jaw dropped when I read that. I didn't realize "flexitarian" was an actual term. I suppose it's good, overall, that people are attempting to eat less meat. But c'mon.

[bumblebee]

Vegetarians that eat chicken and fish have realized the risks associated with red meat, and perhaps taking the next step and becoming complete vegetarians. From there, realizing that the cruelty doesn't start at the killing floor may drive more people to become vegan. I'll take a veg*n any way I can get one, even if it is only in name alone. For the most part, people are trying to make a difference in their world and using the diet as as tool for that.

(End quote)

Vegetarians don't eat chicken or fish. And people who abstain from particular meats for health are not trying to make a difference in their world. They are trying to live healthier and longer themselves. It would be like someone not owning slaves because they are afraid of slaves, not because they care about slaves.

As soon as there is a magic pill to end the risks associated with eating meat and dairy, dietary vegetarians will be back eating meat like there is no tomorrow.

On the other hand, some dietary vegetarians will evolve into ethical vegetarians and a very few will even become vegans. (Veganism always has an ethical basis.) I concede that these few will indeed be trying to make a difference in the world.
__________________
I love tacos!

[thecatspajamas]

Vegetarians don't eat chicken or fish. And people who abstain from particular meats for health are not trying to make a difference in their world. They are trying to live healthier and longer themselves. It would be like someone not owning slaves because they are afraid of slaves, not because they care about slaves.

As soon as there is a magic pill to end the risks associated with eating meat and dairy, dietary vegetarians will be back eating meat like there is no tomorrow.

On the other hand, some dietary vegetarians will evolve into ethical vegetarians and a very few will even become vegans. (Veganism always has an ethical basis.) I concede that these few will indeed be trying to make a difference in the world.



While I agree with your definition that vegetarians don't eat any meat, there are a large number of people in the world who only eat seafood yet consider themselves vegetarians in addition to the people who rarely if ever buy or cook their own meat but will eat it from time to time in restaurants. Many of these people call themselves vegetarians even though it may be grating to a more serious vegetarian's ears. I don't think it's productive to chastise these people for being unworthy of the vegetarian label. Instead, it's far better to just accept their definitions and move on. If you're looking to advocate veg*nism you can always try to provoke more thought on the issue. "If beef isn't good for you, how can factory farmed salmon be any better?" I guess what I'm trying to say is that people who label themselves as veg*n have the right idea, but may need some guidance on the application. They're not to be looked down on or criticized and personally, I would just leave them be. If anything, they may benefit from some more information on the topic, if you're so inclined.

I'm not holding my breath for a magic pill anytime soon, so I also think we should embrace health related veg*ns for the same reasons listed above. Just because somebody may not agree with my moral viewpoints doesn't make them any less worthy of the veg*n label.

[penfold]

:thumbsup: catPJs!!

well said :)

[Dave Noisy]

hmm..someone who buys leather is not a vegan..that's pretty straight-forward. They are a vegetarian. Vegetarianism relates to diet, not their whole lifestyle.

A vegetarian will buy and wear leather. A vegan should not.

I will be very upset if the day comes where i need to describe myself as a 'strict vegan', since so many other 'vegans' eat dairy products, fishes, and wear leather.

[Dandelion]

i hope it never comes to that!

I will be very upset if the day comes where i need to describe myself as a 'strict vegan', since so many other 'vegans' eat dairy products, fishes, and wear leather.

[bumblebee]

"I don't think it's productive to chastise these people for being unworthy of the vegetarian label. Instead, it's far better to just accept their definitions and move on."

I don't chastise them, nor do I accept their definition...
IRL I do leave them be. Here, I am just expressing my thoughts. :)

"I will be very upset if the day comes where i need to describe myself as a 'strict vegan', since so many other 'vegans' eat dairy products, fishes, and wear leather."

Indeed!

[heathergalaxy]

i personally think if someone gives into temptation in meat or dairy, if they are vegetarian or vegan, just like once a year or something and recognizes that it's not a veg*n thing to do, then in my eyes they are vegetarian/vegan, just with a weaker will (and obviously some desire that i don't have) than me...

however if someone is doing it often, several times a year, then i'm like "uhhhh", and maybe will begrudge them if they feel really really bad about it and aren't trying to suggest to others that it's something other veg*ns do...

i don't see how one can do that or think that's a tempting thing in the first place, but a lot of people who go into animal rights still LOVE eating meat, and it might take them a bit of time till they are as repulsed by it like us, even if intellectually they know it's a bad thing (we unfortuneately as people don't always go w/ our intellect)...

HOWEVER, if someone calls themself a veg*n and LEADS OTHER PEOPLE TO BELIEVE that veg*nism is sort of a flexible thing, then that's when i get pissed, because that's when it actually affects what other people think the defintion of veg*n is... these people are like "yeah i'm a vegetarian that eats meat" giving a guilt-free okay to eat meat sort of signal, and that's really what i find wrong...

i won't fault people when they occassionally fail morally, but when they don't even feel bad what so ever and try to use the veg*n name, then i take the gloves off.

[Dandelion]

People can call themselves whatever they want for all i care as long as they don't dilute the meaning of the words.

[Dandelion]

my new thing:
i have a (strict) vegetarian diet, but a vegan lifestyle
:uhoh:

[Emiloid]

Could you explain it, Dandy? I'd like to hear more. :)

[Chijou_no_seiza]

Could you explain it, Dandy? I'd like to hear more. :)

Ditto :)

[Dandelion]

:) well it's an attempt to clarify definitions...
i.e. people often say 'strict vegetarian' in lieu of vegan
and vegetarian, even though the name hints at vegetables the original definition included eggs and dairy i guess.

The original definition of 'vegetarian' was "with or without eggs or dairy products" and that definition is still used by the Vegetarian Society today.

i still think vegetarian should only include plants though. to try to reclaim the term and also drive home the ethical point of veganism i made up this sound bite seed that gets people inquiring further. veganism being much more than a diet which is what most people assume/focus on.

yeah?
:crazy:

[Chijou_no_seiza]

:) well it's an attempt to clarify definitions...
i.e. people often say 'strict vegetarian' in lieu of vegan
and vegetarian, even though the name hints at vegetables the original definition included eggs and dairy i guess.



i still think vegetarian show only include plants though. to try to reclaim the term and also drive home the ethical point of veganism i made up this sound bite seed that gets people inquiring further. veganism being much more than a diet which is what most people assume/focus on.

yeah?
:crazy:

More!

Hey that was a little helpful but I would more, like what exactly in the lifestyle makes veganism different than a strict vegetarian (Not squishing bugs, buying vegan bath products, etc?). Could a vegan liftestyle use animal products if it overall has a more positive effect on the promotion of a compassionate lifestyle? (Ex. Herbi once said at a get together she eats bread even if it might be very slightly unvegan, because it presents a more positive image, making the results of her actions being more productive than being completely pure?).

I am seriously interested and I really want to understand your definitions better :)

[nauthiz]

My understanding is that the term vegan was originally coined in order to make a distinction between people who avoid all animal products for ethical reasons and people who go beyond vegetarianism for other reasons (strict vegetarians). In that sense, to say that veganism doesn't have to be about treating other creatures with respect is to deny the very foundation of the movement.

I do see a distinction between idealist vegans who strive to avoid all animal products and pragmatic vegans who may consume some small amount (or use a product like sugar that was created using animal products) if they feel it isn't directly contributing to the harming of animals or if they feel that doing so under certain circumstances will do more good than harm. On the other hand, I see a little of that in all vegans. I know very few who would grab the last donut from the office kitchen instead of allowing it to be tossed without feeling at least a tiny little pang, and I know none who avoid using tires, all of which are produced using casein.

However, regardless of where a person falls on this scale, there's one value that unites them all, which is the dream of a world in which no living thing is harmed or exploited. The rest is just implementation details. Furthermore, so long as a person holds this value dear, I'm willing to allow someone to do a lot of things that are, on the surface, not even remotely vegan without saying that person is not. The extreme example would be undercover activists who will eat meat if it becomes necessary to do so in order to avoid blowing their cover. The idea squicks me out to no end and I could never do it myself, but I can at least kind of understand why they do it and I don't have the authority to say that they are wrong to do so - possibly eating that one piece of a cow might save thousands more from a life of torture.

But if a person can eat the flesh of dead people and still be vegan, than is there really some set of rules you can use to strictly define the idea of "eating vegan?" I would say not really - you can come up with a description of how vegans will live their lives under the vast majority of circumstances, but I believe there are some situations, however rare, where a vegan could conclude that their veganism actually dictates that they do consume animal products.

So if you cannot define veganism using a list of things that vegans do and do not consume and use, then conversely you cannot declare a person to be vegan simply because they do or do not use and consume certain products.

Which is why I don't like terms like "health vegan" and "environmental vegan." The concept of a health vegan in particular seems to directly contradict part of an essay in the first issue of Vegan News, (http://www.ukveggie.com/vegan_news/) which I think of as Watson's "Vegan Manifesto."
We are not by any means ignorant of orthodox dietetic theories, and in exercising our moral conviction we find we must refute some of these theories. We do so without fear because we feel that a moral philosophy combined with a dash of common sense is a more rational guide than theories hatched in vivisection laboratories.

This isn't to say that I don't like any health arguments or environmental arguments. I've seen both lead people toward a vegan state of mind, and I believe that both health and environmental concerns are matters of great import and should have a central role in vegan thought. Environmentalism in particular, strikes me as a natural and obvious thing to draw from veganism - I want to avoid harming free animals as well as enslaved ones.

[MercurialMary]

But if a person can eat the flesh of dead people and still be vegan, than is there really some set of rules you can use to strictly define the idea of "eating vegan?"

Can't resist... Must make pun...

Was the dead person a vegan, hence "eating vegan"?

[Dandelion]

More!

Hey that was a little helpful but I would more, like what exactly in the lifestyle makes veganism different than a strict vegetarian (Not squishing bugs, buying vegan bath products, etc?). Could a vegan liftestyle use animal products if it overall has a more positive effect on the promotion of a compassionate lifestyle? (Ex. Herbi once said at a get together she eats bread even if it might be very slightly unvegan, because it presents a more positive image, making the results of her actions being more productive than being completely pure?).

I am seriously interested and I really want to understand your definitions better :)
strict vegetarian being the diet part. the other part the advocacy of animal rights through boycott and protest. we also gotta get more people vegan by making it mainstream and not extreme. so if there's a situation of a trace ingredient here or there yes i would think not making a big deal of it is better for the cause although some would argue this schizophrenic attitude panders to the audience who may pick that up and write us off as hypocrites. i think it jolts them into reexamining veganism while bringing it within their grasp. this was discussed ad nauseum in the bkveggie thread.

[veganshawn]

strict vegetarian being the diet part. the other part the advocacy of animal rights through boycott and protest. we also gotta get more people vegan by making it mainstream and not extreme. so if there's a situation of a trace ingredient here or there yes i would think not making a big deal of it is better for the cause although some would argue this schizophrenic attitude panders to the audience who may pick that up and write us off as hypocrites. i think it jolts them into reexamining veganism while bringing it within their grasp. this was discussed ad nauseum in the bkveggie thread.


I hate the idea of veganism becoming mainstream, I just want it to be viewed as a normal choice for living a humane live not some new cool trend to hop onto and throw aside when some new diet craze comes along. When anything becomes mainstream it becomes co-opted and diluted or worse yet toned down to the point where excuse the term it has no claws. I want veganism to be seen as a threat to normalcy, to the idea that animals are nothing more then food machines, testing machines or clothing machines put on earth for us to use and abuse.
This watered down veganism is already happening with some so called vegan groups trying to include non vegan ingredients to convert the masses, when they (trace ingredients) should be viewed as a stepping stone not the stopping point. And with Peta using non-vegetarians like Pamela Anderson ( I have read more then once that she eats fish, if I am wrong sorry but I have yet to see proof that she isn’t lying) to promote animal rights causes it makes us as a group look bad and I take offense to that.
I look at other stuff I hold dear to me like skateboarding and punk rock and I see how much mainstream interference has screwed them both up, sure there is still amazing punk and skateboarding but also there is garbage like Good Charlotte and Andy Macdonald, both the band and the skater are jokes to what their respected professions.
It as of right now is impossible to be 100% vegan, and I am sure we all have stuff in our lives that isn’t vegan but there is no need to backslide to allow stuff that we feel is wrong and easy to avoid just because some person views it as being too tough and wants the rules bent for them.

[nauthiz]

I hate the idea of veganism becoming mainstream, I just want it to be viewed as a normal choice for living a humane live not some new cool trend to hop onto and throw aside when some new diet craze comes along. When anything becomes mainstream it becomes co-opted and diluted or worse yet toned down to the point where excuse the term it has no claws. I want veganism to be seen as a threat to normalcy, to the idea that animals are nothing more then food machines, testing machines or clothing machines put on earth for us to use and abuse.

This brings up a dilemma that nags me often.

I fear that veganism is really dooming itself if it remains a threat to normalcy, because if mainstream culture continues to view it as 'anti' they will naturally co-opt it as a way of declawing it. I think that this is exactly what happened to movements like punk and hippyism. It now seems like it is rapidly happening to environmentalism, too - the corporate machine grabbed it and twisted it to their profit-driven ends so that now the idea of wantonly consuming more resources being green doesn't seem oxymoronical to people. I'm still haunted by seeing a large booth for a bottled water company at an environmental conference in DC last year.

But the other option, to cease to be threatening, leads to dilution and may even be synonymous with it. This is of course already happening with vegetarianism being watered down by fish-eating vegetarians and flexitarians. I'm also haunted by Simple Shoes getting away with marketing shoes that are partially made of wool as vegan, and deflecting criticism by dismissing avoiding wool is something that only "hardcore" vegans do.

The best answer I have is to cease to treat the movement as a counterculture. The focus needs to go deeper. I can't say I've ever been too central to punk, but my feeling is that the root of its dissolution is that it allowed the focus to shift from a value to an aesthetic - as soon as punk became largely about a certain kind of music and a certain way of dressing, it became easy for people to wear certain clothes and listen to music with certain chord and rhythm patterns and say it's punk. After all, the whole point of fashion is for people to adopt it in an effort to be "cool."

But of course diet is the most salient thing that separates us from the rest of society, and the thing that people encounter most often. So I'm not sure how we can get the focus off of diet and onto exploitation. Maybe it's not possible. I don't think it would have been possible for punk to drop its cultural baggage and remain punk; possibly veganism's in no better a situation.

[Chijou_no_seiza]

This brings up a dilemma that nags me often.

I fear that veganism is really dooming itself if it remains a threat to normalcy, because if mainstream culture continues to view it as 'anti' they will naturally co-opt it as a way of declawing it. I think that this is exactly what happened to movements like punk and hippyism.

While I see your perspective, I don't think the main goal of veganisim going "mainstream" would make it similiar to punk or hippy movements. If the general public were to adopt a set of vegan principles, then it would be incorporated into our moral structure. For example slavery was once the norm and now it is not. Even though we (personally) do not encounter slavery today, people have strong feeling towards it, because as childen in school we were taught why it is wrong and what our freedom means to us today.

So while I do not understand the punk culture as well as I do veganisim, I do think it's necessary to show that veganism is just one more set of moral guidelines to abide by, like slavery, if of course it was taught why so that we never forget, making the message still meaningful.

[nauthiz]

While I see your perspective, I don't think the main goal of veganisim going "mainstream" would make it similiar to punk or hippy movements.

Clarification: To me one of the big failings of the punk or hippy movements was that they tried so hard to stay out of the mainstream. Trying hard to stand apart from society is what would make us similar to those movements - if we keep our distance, then the bits that mainstream society absorbs will be only the most visible bits, rather than the core values of the movement.

[Astrocat]

There's a lot of good discussion goin' on here.
I'm going away on a flying thing tomorrow afternoon so don;t have much time right now, so I only skim-read the topic.
So, if my points have already been covered then please don;t mind it.

What about cannibalistic vegetarians? Would they be anthro-vegetarians?

The correct, official terminology is 'homo-vegetarian'

"There are no vegetarians; only weak-willed vegans."

Not really.
Lots of vegetarians don;t give a toss about ethics and compassion for animals, and are only vegetarian for health reasons, or because they were never taught to view cadavers as a type of food substance.

... as it has said in my VegansRock signature for a while,
A person who is not cannibalistic, is not necessarily humanitarian...
Just as a person who eats no animal products, is not necessarily vegan.

Are just a dietary vegan? Or are you a dietary and a moral vegan? If you're a dietary vegan but use non-edible non-vegan products are you still a vegan?

The correct terminology is 'strict-vegetarian'.

I think that if someone says that they're non-cannibalistic and only eats dead human babies a couple of times a year it's cool, I mean, you know, it would be harsh to chastise them by saying they were a cannibal. Even though they obviously are. Right ?

If you're looking to advocate veg*nism you can always try to provoke more thought on the issue. "If beef isn't good for you, how can factory farmed salmon be any better?"

Fish don't get BSE.
Many people only avoid eating dead cows because they don;t want to get BSE.

So I wonder who here would really be ok with it, if they saw the "vegetarians who eat meat" with some gore in a bun hanging out of their mouth, and some sliced up bits of raw dead fish on a plate, tucking in..... I wonder who would really be like "oh, there's that vegetarian person being vegetarian and doing what vegetarians do, they really have the right idea"

People can call themselves whatever they want for all i care as long as they don't dilute the meaning of the words.

Isn't that paradoxical though, since people claiming to be something they're not generally (from what i gather) leads to understanding of what they are claiming to be becoming obfuscated, uncertain and compromised ?

Why do these people claim to be something they clearly aren;t, anyway ?
Are their limbs going to explode and their guts fly out of their nose, or some other extensively painful and unpleasant ordeal, if they say "I eat mainly vegetarian food, but eat flesh from time to time" instead of "I'm vegetarian" (yeah right)

[VeganCowboy]

I agree with the person who commented that labels are not only 'okay', but important. I've met people before who stress that they are, for example, lacto-vegetarians! And most of the others, as well.

I disagree with the person who said, "Veganism always has an ethical basis." I think this is true, and it is a widely held definition. But I know health-vegans who call themselves vegans but have no ethical leanings. They simply mean it dietarily.

As for Donald Watson and the Vegan Society's definition, that is a pretty old definition, really.

Like most words, the definition of "vegan" has changed over the years.

In it's case expanding to be more inclusive and exacting of the original idea and concept to a broader ethical meaning.

And it has not stopped, imo, but continues to be enhanced, if you will.

And every word has different definitions, denotations, and connotations, and then they are used in context.

I suggest that the definition given by this thread's originator is close, but lacking:

vegan: a lifestyle based on peace, compassion and responsibility which happens to include eating a strict vegetarian diet. Avoids all animal products.

There is probably good reasoning in differentiating between "vegan diet" and "vegan lifestyle", although the more accepted definition of vegan goes with the lifestyle definition. And then there is "vegan philosophy", as well. Which is all-encompassing. (?)

If you check out these links, you see what we're dealing with here in an attempt to define the word, or figure out the best definition:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=vegan&x=0&y=0
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=vegan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegan

The wikipedia entry is descriptive of this discussion. (note, however, that you can only trust wikipedia so far, since there are those who tend to control it and make it say what they want it to say, the way they want it said, so caveat emptor)

People have probably figured out that there is a wide range of types of vegans and vegetarians posting here.

At best, what can be done, is for each person to pick the word they want to use for themselves, and then qualify it as necessary when asked.

And continue on with the discussions over time and watch what happens.

As for "veganism" (or vegetarianism) becoming "mainstream" (or being co-opted by others for reasons of good or 'evil'), all of that is inevitable. It has already begun, and will continue to be done. Whether anyone likes it, or not. That is the way things work.

It will also become "less extreme" as time goes by, as well. However, I don't think that lessens what it is.

Just like the "Anti-Veal Movement" and the "Anti-Fur Movement", just to name two: These movements have become increasingly mainstream over the years. However, they have not lessened in their meanings or definitions or intent. They have gone from being Animal Rights issues to Animal Defense to Animal Protection to becoming Animal Welfarist issues. Because the public has become more educated and informed and aware, and their levels of caring and compassion and empathy and non-violence have increased. And that is progress. (that I always wondered if I would see in my lifetime)

And it will happen to the Marine Mammal Movement, and Anti-Circus and Anti-Zoo Movements, and all of the others, including, I suppose, one day, the Anti-Vivisection Movement, although I think that one is well into the future. (and probably not in my lifetime, or yours)

[veganshawn]

VeganCowboy you make a great point about the Anti Fur movement, IMO the main reason why fur made such a comeback is because the anti fur movement became mainstream and weak, when before people wouldn't think twice about throwing red ink, ketchup etc... on an a.s.s.hole wearing fur, now people are like "I don't want to offend anyone I just like want them to stop wearing fur like" and to me that sucks, offending people should be the last of anyone concerns, because some people will only change when forced to.
And veganism is always been and always will be ethical and IMO it is wrong to think otherwise, because there is no health benefit to not wearing animals, the only thing that motivates us to not wear animals is ethical. It is sad that the term vegan has been co opted to only mean diet related when that is only small part of why any of us are vegan. I am at the point where I just want to punch people who claim to be "health food vegans" (not that I would it just gets frustrating when people try and weaken something that I feel strongly about).
Where do we draw the line? I just hope that in 5 years there will still be vegan who are doing it for the animals and not because it is a new cool hip mainstream diet fad, and that is the direction it seems to be taking.
And as far as the definition of veganism being old, well sometimes when a definition works stick with it, now more then ever it is important to stay the course of why the founders did what they did to help animals.

[nauthiz]

Call me unbending, but I have a hard time with the idea that a person who wears bits of dead animal can be vegan. And I have yet to meet a "health vegan" who doesn't wear bits of dead animal. That's just as silly of an idea as a vegetarian who eats fish. To me, it comes down to one simple fact: bits of corpses, of things that were once live and breathing before someone killed them, are animal products. So we've gotta keep them excluded from the ideology.

Health is a great way to lead people in the direction of veganism, but you've got to make the mental shift of doing this for others as well as yourself to get much beyond food. And even if you're only paying attention to the cosmetic features of it, veganism is far, far more than just a diet. How does health argue that you shouldn't wear wool, except of course if you're allergic to it? If anything it's an argument against; the chemicals used to produce all the alternative fibers I know of are downright frightening.

One's health is a Good Thing and taking care of it is admirable. Doing it to the extent that you avoid eating animal products is even more so. But in terms of its ability to give someone a strong, valid reason to avoid all animal products, I'd say even "because I want people to think I'm cool" is a better fit for the role.

[nauthiz]

Also, re: wikipedia, dictionary.com, etc. I'd rather that we get to define ourselves. I'm not nearly as interested in Wikipedia's discussion of what vegan means as I am in a discussion on a vegan forum like this about what it means. Wikipedia has a policy of expressing all (non-silly) views equally regardless of correctness or validity. For a dictionary I'd be willing to lay down money that the definition was written by a non-vegan who didn't take much time to learn about the movement because they had to hurry up and finish the VE's.

[Chijou_no_seiza]

And veganism is always been and always will be ethical and IMO it is wrong to think otherwise, because there is no health benefit to not wearing animals, the only thing that motivates us to not wear animals is ethical.
I could see why someone would not wear fur due to environmental reasons (not just ethical).

I think every point about veganism could also be boiled down to a combination of only environmental and health reasons. Therefore I do not agree that someone who avoids all animal products would not be considered vegan unless their interest was to promoting compassion.

For example veganisim has more minimal energy usages when farming foods therefore a vegan diet will always be better for the environment. They would avoid bonechar sugar, because cattle were raised and that has a negative impact on the environment. Avoiding honey for health reasons (I read is was carcinogenic somewhere)... and they could avoid leather due to the chemicals used during the process.

These are all good reasons to not support these industries and could all be logically thought out. So I really don't see how anyone could just exclude them (as well as the religious vegans I've previously mentioned), just because their motives are different, but their lifetyle choices are the same.

I bring this point up because even though my initial and main reason of being vegan is due to ethics, the environmental reasons have increased in overall significance to my vegan-morals. So I am certain I would be vegan because of environmental ethics even if I did not even consider the compassion aspect.

Well that's my thoughts at least

[VeganCowboy]

veganshawn quote: "IMO the main reason why fur made such a comeback is because the anti fur movement became mainstream and weak"

I disagree with this characterization of the anti-fur movement.

What sources can you site for "fur making a comeback"? (other than the ups and downs every industry experiences)

The anti-fur movement has slowed down some, but I think continues to make progress. Slowly but surely now. And it has partly 'slowed down' because it achieved many, if not most, of its original goals. It would be nice if Animal Welfarists were more activist, but even that has changed quite a bit over the years.

I think the non-use and non-acceptance of fur by a MUCH larger group of people overall was the direct result of the anti-fur movement. The movement "won" in many ways, and will continue to do so in the future, until fur is used by such a small percentage of people that it is almost non-existent. And this is especially so in the U.S. and Great Britain, and needs more work in other areas for the world.

[herbi]

I personally would love it if veganism became mainstream. Imagine if all those mindless trend-followers were following a trend that told them to stop eating animal products! The demand for meat, dairy, and eggs would plummet. The animals would definitely benefit, no matter how thoughtless the motivation of the masses. Right now, 3 meals of meat & cheese seem to be what's mainstream, and I'll take an improvement on that any day.

I'm uncomfortable comparing veganism to a sport or a style of music or sense of aesthetics; it makes it seem shallow. When punk became more popular, there was definitely an increase in people wanting to "seem punk" who may not actually be "punk" as defined by values of independence, DIY, etc, and there may have been an increase in crappy punk music, but there was already plenty of crappy music all along. And the disappointment in there being a lot of posers strikes me more as an ego trip of "wah, now I'm not the Different One anymore, how will everyone recognize how Cool I am?" than anything else. (btw, not accusing VeganShawn personally of saying "wah, etc", just discussing how the whole concept in general strikes me when I think about it. :)) After all, the fact that someone else is a lame pseudopunk takes nothing away from my own inherent punkrockness. And the fact that someone else is a lame pseudovegan takes nothing away from my own veganness, but if it means they'll order a hummus wrap instead of a sausage & cheese egg McMuffin, then let them think whatever they want to think. To be truly punkrock, at least in my own mind, is to honestly not give a flying s*** how other people define themselves (including as fake punk), as long as you're being true to how you want to define YOURself.

I agree that it would (will...) be irritating if (when...) people start watering down the definition of the word "vegan" to include leather & shrimp scampi or whatever, but I still say that if that means that 10 million people who would've ordinarily ordered meat decide to order pasta primavera instead because that's what's trendy, then FABULOUS. That doesn't mean *I* have to wear leather or eat shrimp, just because that's what some random schmoe believes. And we can get around to tightening things back up after we get them that far. I guess I just believe that things are far more likely to improve incrementally (which involves those of us who have already taken the full leap putting up with some ridiculous BS) than all in one fell swoop from destructive wasteful exploitative society to magically enlightened compassionate vegan society.

[veganshawn]

I think every point about veganism could also be boiled down to a combination of only environmental and health reasons. Therefore I do not agree that someone who avoids all animal products would not be considered vegan unless their interest was to promoting compassion.

For example veganisim has more minimal energy usages when farming foods therefore a vegan diet will always be better for the environment. They would avoid bonechar sugar, because cattle were raised and that has a negative impact on the environment. Avoiding honey for health reasons (I read is was carcinogenic somewhere)... and they could avoid leather due to the chemicals used during the process.

These are all good reasons to not support these industries and could all be logically thought out. So I really don't see how anyone could just exclude them (as well as the religious vegans I've previously mentioned), just because their motives are different, but their lifetyle choices are the same.

I bring this point up because even though my initial and main reason of being vegan is due to ethics, the environmental reasons have increased in overall significance to my vegan-morals. So I am certain I would be vegan because of environmental ethics even if I did not even consider the compassion aspect.

Well that's my thoughts at least

The people you describe are few and far between, veganism is about animal rights, sure some people will eat a vegan diet for their movements but they are not vegans, real vegans avoid animal products, animal skins and furs, medicines (as much as they can) and other products tested on animals, they are also opposed to using animals for human entertainment like Circus or Sea world type of places.
I support anyone who chooses to lessen the suffering of mother earth, but the basis of being vegan goes beyond their little movements. They may follow a strict vegetarian diet and see the link between the environment and say leather production or wool but do they support “environmentally friendly”leather or wool? Because real vegans feel that any use of animal skins is wrong.
As far as religion vegans, never meet one nor have I heard of one, Buddhists will eat vegan, but some don't same with 7th day Adventist, whom admit health is their only motivation for eating strict vegetarian.
I don't understand why it is so hard for people accept that in order to be part of a movement they should follow the ground rules set forth, it is not like they are horrible and demeaning. People now a days want to bend ever little movement there way so they can jump on the bandwagon and not have to commit to a real lifetime which in the long run waters down movements and make them mean next to nothing.

[VeganCowboy]

I think you're mis-informed.

Check out http://www.furisdead.com/stateof.asp and other information. You can't just take one group's or site's word for it. (especially PETA) You need to look at all of it and get a general idea of what is going on for a more reality-based scenario.

The anti-fur movement is still going strong. It might not seem so if you ("you") aren't involved with it, as much, or at all. I've experienced that myself from time to time.

But I think that we are ahead now of where we were any number of years ago. And continue to move forward.

I also think your statement about "I would say at one point %25 of vegans in the US and UK where vegan because of punk and hardcore." is HIGHLY fallacious and not able to be substantiated in any way, shape, or form. I would be very surprised if you were able to do so.

[Dandelion]

one point %25 of vegans in the US and UK where vegan because of punk and hardcore."
1.25% sounds about right to me. ;)
But now they're driving hummers while eating a big mac and yelling "BUY SELL" on their mobile.

[veganshawn]

1.25% sounds about right to me. ;)
But now they're driving hummers while eating a big mac and yelling "BUY SELL" on their mobile.

No those where called hippies.

[nauthiz]

1.25% sounds about right to me. ;)
But now they're driving hummers while eating a big mac and yelling "BUY SELL" on their mobile.

Even as late as my college days, maybe half the vegans I knew discovered it through punk or hardcore. Sadly, every single one I know of has since become ex-vegan. :(

[veganshawn]

I think you're mis-informed.

Check out http://www.furisdead.com/stateof.asp and other information. You can't just take one group's or site's word for it. (especially PETA) You need to look at all of it and get a general idea of what is going on for a more reality-based scenario.

The anti-fur movement is still going strong. It might not seem so if you ("you") aren't involved with it, as much, or at all. I've experienced that myself from time to time.

But I think that we are ahead now of where we were any number of years ago. And continue to move forward.

I also think your statement about "I would say at one point %25 of vegans in the US and UK where vegan because of punk and hardcore." is HIGHLY fallacious and not able to be substantiated in any way, shape, or form. I would be very surprised if you were able to do so.

That info is from Peta's website, I don't trust Peta, but I am glad to see that Fur is back on the decline and I hope this time it stays that way. As far my involement in anything due to the climate of the green scare I respectfully refuse to talk about anything I do now or have done.

[Kat]

The correct, official terminology is 'homo-vegetarian'

Wait - so I'm not a homo-vegetarian after all?

[bluedawg]

As far as Atkins, it was a major event in our culture and had MILLIONS of people eating "Atkins" food EVERY SINGLE DAY for what-- 5, 6 years? The shelves were crammed with "Atkins friendly this" and "Low Carb That", and restaurants altered their menus specifically to cater to this trend. The media hype is dying down now, but there are still tons of products on the shelves of every supermarket, little visual reminders, and I doubt you could find anyone over the age of 15 who hadn't at least heard of it and had a vague idea what it was about. Substitute "vegan" for "Atkins" and HELL YES I want that to happen to veganism!!!!! MASSIVE public exposure to the term "vegan", new vegan products every where you look, vegan menu items in EVERY restaurant, and millions of people eating vegan meals when they never used to. Even if/when it eventually died down, that's a good 5 or 6 years of animal-friendly food that wouldn't've happened otherwise, and there would be a residual effect in the nation's collective consciousness.
plus, veganism is actually healthy as long as you're not screwing it up too badly, so you wouldn't have all of the studies popping up here and there showing that veganism actually is a stupid idea (like we have with atkins). that, coupled with the idea that there is an ethical side to the whole thing, might ensure that it would "take" better than atkins (or whatever trendy diet we might compare it to).

[nauthiz]

OK, I got a problem with resisting veganism going mainstream, and I think I can sum it up in a nutshell: Not wanting veganism to become a major part of mainstream society is the same thing as wanting the vast majority of people to still keep needlessly exploiting and killing animals.

I'm all for entering the mainstream more mindfully to avoid the idea being diluted or co-opted or whatever. I'm not too violently opposed to allowing it to get diluted as it enters the mainstream in the hope that that's just a way to get a foot in the door so it's easier to keep pushing for a more compassionate world -- and that opposition is continuing to wane as I start to recognize the difference between the two is depth-first versus breadth-first and that I really don't know enough to make a firm decision on what is better.

But I'm not going to be afraid of veganism being adopted by more people because I'm worried that that's going to inevitably cause the whole thing to peter out. Gotta keep hope, nothing ventured nothing gained, and all that.

I started off as a wool-wearing "vegan" and remained in that position for two years before I really adopted the whole ideology. On one hand, I wish someone had given me a few pushes because I think with more challenges being leveled at my consumption of products like that I would have cut the crap sooner. On the other hand, though I was naïve about the whole thing for a few years and that probably has a lot to do with the "mainstreaming" of veganism, I probably would have never gone vegan at all without it. (Or at least I wouldn't have done it nearly as soon.)

[grog]

Wait - so I'm not a homo-vegetarian after all?

you'll always be a homo to me :kiss:

[grog]

Most of the Punk discussion has been moved to this thread

Veganism and Punk (http://www.veganrepresent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9268)

[veganshawn]

Most of the Punk discussion has been moved to this thread

Veganism and Punk (http://www.veganrepresent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9268)

Thanks I never meant to take the topic so far off when I mentioned the punk thing.

[grog]

its a good topic, no worries.

[MissLovely]

Thanks I never meant to take the topic so far off when I mentioned the punk thing.

Wow, 4 pages!

[Apple]

I'm dietarily vegan right now. I'm studying apparel design and theatre (I want to be a costume designer), so I kind of have to handle the fabrics that I'm given right now. I hate leather and fur because the idea of wearing a skin next to mine is disgusting to me, but I honestly don't look very much to see what is made of wool and silk. I know I still have some wool sweaters from before my vegan days but I haven't gotten rid of them simply because I don't like wasting things that are still useful...lame excuse, but there it is. I think everything I have that is silky is a synthetic fiber, mostly because I've always been too cheap to buy real silk ever, heh. I guess I should go through and check...my textiles professor just informed our class that they gas or drown the moths in their cocoons and that upset me enough to swear off silk with leather and fur. I know I don't have any leather and I have never been interested in fur at all. I've always thought it looked tacky.

I would have to agree that vegan is defined by the whole animal free lifestyle and not just diet. I'm not going to change the definition just to accomodate myself. I'll give my sweaters away eventually...probably when I pull them out of storage.

[neverfeltbetter]

As far my involement in anything due to the climate of the green scare I respectfully refuse to talk about anything I do now or have done.

neither confirm nor deny, don't ask-don't tell and for christ's sake take the 5th!

[the bean]

wow--i am the mainstream dietary vegan that you're debating, and i didn't realize until reading this thread that i shouldn't be calling myself vegan. :confused: i certainly do not do so in order to dilute the meaning of the word, it's simply reality that vegetarian these days means lacto-ovo. look at any vegetarian cookbook or magazine--they're filled w/cheese!!

i do not mean to offend anyone by referring to myself as vegan, and when i am around "real" vegans, I am sure to refer to myself as a dietary vegan. When i'm w/omni's though, i say i'm vegan b/c otherwise they think lacto-ovo, and i often don't like to explain myself that much. as for attaining full vegan status, i think that dietary veganism is a step in the right direction. by reading food labels constantly, you become less oblivious about not only what you put in your body but about everything that you buy. at the very least, there are 3 fewer people in the world eating meat and animal products now. i know it's not the purest form of the gospel you preach, but it helps (i think!).

also, i will add that the world can be a harsh place when you announce that you are a dietary vegan--omni's think you're stupid or a freak or the worst so far is that i'm an abusive mother for making my 14 month old vegan, lacto-ovo's think you're holier than thou for dropping the one thing that they have held on to, and vegan's say you're not quite up to snuff. so, forgive me for lurking among you, but i've got to have a home some place!

[gladcow]

the bean, you are welcome here. vegans become vegan (or dietary vegetarian) for all kinds of different reasons. we love everybody (who plays nice) :D

welcome!

[VegeTexan]

the bean, let me echo gladcow.
There are levels of veganism. I am not sure what a "real" vegan is.
Our goal is to minimize animal suffering.
Many of us still have a leather belt and maybe shoes that we bought before we went vegan.
Many of us still drive cars (cars have animal products, asphalt that we drive on has animal products)
Some of us aren't too picky about white sugar which is filtered with animal charcoal, some of us are. The ones who are should remember that municipal drinking water is often filtered with animal bone char filters.
It's great that you and your family are on the vegan path.

[Dandelion]

i do not mean to offend anyone by referring to myself as vegan, and when i am around "real" vegans, I am sure to refer to myself as a dietary vegan. When i'm w/omni's though, i say i'm vegan b/c otherwise they think lacto-ovo, and i often don't like to explain myself that much. as for attaining full vegan status, i think that dietary veganism is a step in the right direction. by reading food labels constantly, you become less oblivious about not only what you put in your body but about everything that you buy. at the very least, there are 3 fewer people in the world eating meat and animal products now. i know it's not the purest form of the gospel you preach, but it helps (i think!).

the bean please don't apologize. indeed vegetarian means lacto-ovo by default which is why i'm trying to reclaim the strict sense of the word status. also i love that you use ths word vegan if just to get it out there! while we may debate these definitions here we do so assuming everybody's coming from a vegan path. you're on that path; dietary, "strict-vegetarian" or whatever. this thread in no way is meant to police or shame, you are welcome here and will receive no such negative treatment. you'll find many vegans started the same way but still we won't expect anything of you. just follow your path and keep an open mind. :) I'm not offended. like you said that's 3 less people contributing to suffering! :thumbsup:

[nauthiz]

the bean please don't apologize. indeed vegetarian means lacto-ovo by default which is why i'm trying to reclaim the strict sense of the word status. also i love that you use ths word vegan if just to get it out there! while we may debate these definitions here we do so assuming everybody's coming from a vegan path. you're on that path; dietary, "strict-vegetarian" or whatever. this thread in no way is meant to police or shame, you are welcome here and will receive no such negative treatment.

What Dandy said. I've always thought of this thread as a pedantic tangent, & the particulars of your lifestyle are a trifle compared to how much we all have in common. Besides, I haven't conducted a survey but I'm pretty sure not everyone here is a 24k solid gold Vegan, so you really shouldn't feel like you're imposing at all.

[veganshawn]

The Bean-
You are welcome here, some of us are set in our ways about what being vegan is.

[xXxThexLostxWayxXx]

Maybe I'm the only one, but I CONSTANTLY get people asking me if I eat seafood when I say I'm vegan! Uh, duh! A fish is not a plant. GRRR. :mad:

Oh yes!!! Finally someone brought this up! That is so annoying. A fish or an animal in the sea is still an ANIMAL. How thick can people be? I'm not trying to be rude but dang. VEGAN= avoids ALL animal products.

[Bluejade]

Oh yes!!! Finally someone brought this up! That is so annoying. A fish or an animal in the sea is still an ANIMAL. How thick can people be? I'm not trying to be rude but dang. VEGAN= avoids ALL animal products.

Actually it is quite common in some regions, for restauranteurs to include fish under the vegetarian definition. It doesn't have to do with a person's intelligence, rather their tradition and culture.

I see Veganism, as an aspiration to end all animal cruelty, by lifechoices. That is my intepretation. I include us, humans in that definition.

[Jax]

I know I've posted this quote once or twice before, but it is relevant here. It was uttered to me by my omni friend named Malcolm.

"There are no vegetarians; only weak-willed vegans."
:laugh: I like that. That's how I feel about myself.:confused:

[VegeTexan]

:laugh: I like that. That's how I feel about myself.:confused:

I like that too.
Would make a good nasty bumper sticker.

There are no Vegetarians, Only Weak-Willed Vegans