I like the vegan creedo of "nothing with eyes" or something like that I heard before.

The straight up definition of veganism is quite clear, what is subject to interpretation is "all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal kingdom, and includes a reverence for life." If that means to you that to consider yourself truly vegan you don't ride in cars and buses that have tires made of animal parts THAT right there is subjective.

If one applies the definition that "veganism excludes all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal kingdom, and includes a reverence for life" then clearly using tires that are made of animal products is not being vegan. It is not a matter of subjective interpretation, rather, it is a matter of clarity and precision.


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

I did a little digging and found that one source (wikipedia) which I've copy and pasted below....

Veganism

Origin of the term November 1, 1944, with the foundation of the British Vegan Society
Early proponents Donald Watson (1910–2005)
H. Jay Dinshah (1933–2000)
Description Elimination of the use of animal products
Subject Diet, health, ethics, animal rights, animal welfare, vegetarianism, environmentalism

Veganism is the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products. Ethical vegans reject the commodity status of animals and the use of animal products for any purpose, while dietary vegans or strict vegetarians eliminate them from their diet only.[1] Another form, environmental veganism, rejects the use of animal products on the premise that the industrial practice is environmentally damaging and unsustainable.[2]

The term "vegan" was coined in England in 1944 by Donald Watson, co-founder of the British Vegan Society, to mean "non-dairy vegetarian"; the society also opposed the use of eggs as food.[3] In 1951, the society clarified the definition of "veganism" to mean "the doctrine that man should live without exploiting animals," and in 1960 H. Jay Dinshah started the American Vegan Society, linking veganism to the Jain concept of ahimsa, the avoidance of violence against living things.[4]

"Veganism is the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products."

Good precise start. Almost. What is an animal product? A product containing some animal parts? A product that contributed to the exploitation of animals in some way?

Now, consider the ethical vegan. Is the ethical vegan a person that rejects the use of animal products themselves? Is the ethical vegan a person that does not contribute to the use of animal products in any form?

Do we link the concept of veganism only to the things that we see, or do we link it to everything, whether we are aware of it or not?


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

This conversation is awesome .

Well, it definately doesn't mean the use of a product that contributed to the exploitation of animals in some way. Think about it...

rawgosia Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I like precision. People say I can't when they
> mean they are not willing. If you want to be a
> true vegan then you would have to cease to support
> the existence of the society. Stop buying products
> the profits of which go to the pockets of meat
> eaters, for example.

Nonsense. Watson put in a practical clause [see my original post on this thread "as far as is possible and practical " ] that showed up in the British Vegan Society with regard to animal products however no such exception exists for the dietary part of the vegan definition.

So, at least as originally conceived, the definition of vegan held the dietary part to a higher standard than the non-dietary part. But revisionism is inherent in human affairs and one can define away a meaningful term into nothingness. And that is what we are witnessing and the purpose of my post.

To give true meaning to a term, it doesn't mean the term can't change in letter as long as it stay true to spirit of the original term. Language of course doesn't work that way. More's the pity. And as a society for other words, I would submit we are poorer for it. Thomas Huxley's "agnosticism" has come to mean somebody who doesn't know whether or not God exists rather than the original meaning which pertained whether the nature of God was in fact knowable. I won't belabor the point. Just an appeal not to let past sloppiness dictate future mistakes. Vegan as a dietary matter means to animal products at all and for other animal products, as far as possible and practical. At least that is what was originally intended.

I know this is a minority view. That said, I think the dialogue is helpful and where we can agree to disagree, we will move on.

Paul

I don't know, Paul: I had no idea there were animal ingredients in my car's tires, and I found this very disturbing--why?! Why must animal ingredients be put into every goshdarned thing? Cars and their tires are ubiquitous here in Car City. I had to have anesthesia for a recent colonoscopy, anesthesia which was no doubt based on animal testing of some sort. The galangal root I bought at the Thai grocery last weekend may have been grown on a plantation that displaced native monkey habitat, for all I know(the grocer didn't).

I don't see a way around most things like this, though I'd like to find one, and it's really getting to me . . .

Yeah, thx Paul for clarifying that. I had the same notion, that the term was primarily related to diet and I'm going to try my best to keep it that way.

God, my dear old departed mum tried to have my late fathers name deleted from the war memorial list of war veterans, cause he didn't actually get to go OS to fight in the war. He was called back to the farm at the last minute after his father had passed away, and the war office wanted to keep the farmers producing food for the country and the armed forces as primary.

I mean, there were heaps of soldiers that didn't go OS, like most of the officers haha. Anyway, why do we have to split hairs???

Tamara,

I think Watson and the British Vegan Society recognized the ubiquity of animal products in non-dietary goods 65 years ago. Why else would they include as fas as possible and practical clause for non-dietary consumption and a strict line for dietary consumption?

Paul

Sometimes I wonder whether people invent definitions to makes themselves feel better. The reality is harsh.


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

rawgosia Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sometimes I wonder whether people invent
> definitions to makes themselves feel better. The
> reality is harsh.

If I'm reading you correctly, there is no such thing as a true vegan because we are all part of a system that exploits animals. At least that's what I'm getting out of your last few posts. Do you really believe that? there is no moral difference to you between person A who eats and wears no animal products but rides a bus with a leather seat and person B who eats veal and hunts with his buddies on the weekend? I know it's argumentum in absurdum [en.wikipedia.org]. My point is that the original proposition is more of the same.

Watson's definition and the BVS definition serves as a starting point. I think the idea that noone is vegan doesn't pass the straight face test.

"If I'm reading you correctly, there is no such thing as a true vegan because we are all part of a system that exploits animals. At least that's what I'm getting out of your last few posts. Do you really believe that?"

Correct.

"Is there is no moral difference to you between person A who eats and wears no animal products but rides a bus with a leather seat and person B who eats veal and hunts with his buddies on the weekend?"

Incorrect.


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

What exactly is your point then Rawgosia? The definition seems very clear to me, that where there is an alternative a vegan chooses that. Where there is no alternative, the choice is irrelevant.
I could choose to let my child potentially die from staph infection or I can administer antibiotics that kill off unfriendly pathogens and were possibly tested on animals and/or other humans. Somehow that seems outside of the boundaries of the definition to me. Choosing cotton over silk? That's so doable. Even if some bugs were accidentally crushed during the manufacture of cotton clothing.

"The definition seems very clear to me"

Which definition?

1. A vegan is a person who does not eat animal products.
- Many people fall under this definition.

2. A vegan is a person who does not use any products that support the abuse of animals in any form.
- No one is vegan.

Some other definition? Please specify.


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

rawgosia Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "The definition seems very clear to me"
>
> Which definition?
>
> 1. A vegan is a person who does not eat animal
> products.
> - Many people fall under this definition.
>
> 2. A vegan is a person who does not use any
> products that support the abuse of animals in any
> form.
> - No one is vegan.
>
> Some other definition? Please specify.

Already did, please re-read the original post, Watson's and the British Vegan Society. Did you not read the "possible and practical" part? The only I know who accept the definition you wrote is you.

"The word "veganism" denotes a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude — as far as is possible and practical — all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."

<<as far as is possible and practical>>
This clause is open to such a wide range of interpretations that it practically annuls the definition. Possible and practical can easily be a matter of a personal opinion, awareness and willingness. For example, people can easily claim that they need houses to live and factories to support their lives before removing whole animal habitats in order to create them. What is the level of our awareness about our impact? Is being an unaware vegan, really vegan?


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

I'm a vegan in the dietry format.

In a way i agree no one is likely a pure vegan. Veganism to me is about adopting a lifestyle which reduces the harm to animals, this for me is done by adopting a plant based diet void of animal food. Other aspects of my life will include using hair products etc that aren't animal tested and so on and so on.

But some can get whacky about the whole thing, i mean in a way pretty much 90% of us vegans support the animal industry in some form anyway such as shopping for your food/produce at supermarkets, which obviously sell animal foods.

Now the reason i mention that is someone before said you can't be vegan because you buy a vegan supplement from a manufacturer which also supplies non vegan products. In a way they are correct i guess but then the above is also true, buy purchasing fruit and vegetables at tesco you are also supporting a company that thrives on the commerce of animal foods. That is just one example of course. Many of the fruit and vegetable companies/farmers that we rely on for 90% of our food also raise animals for the production of food. If you are lucky enough to live somewhere or purchase all of your foods from a farmer direct then you are lucky. The majority of us though rely on supermarkets and other businesses, my local health store for example is where i purchase alot of my plant foods such as tofu, lentil pates etc but they also sell some animal foods such as cheese so does that make me not vegan because i am supporting their business.

If so that brings me to the fact that i can pretty much not shop anywhere because no business for food around here is 100% vegan friendly, i then starve to death or end up eating the animal foods i am avoiding. This is purist vegan thinking, it just isnt possible like i say for the majorityto live 100% bang on vegan without in some way supporting some business, i wouldn't even like to think what ties many eletrical companies have too etc.

In one way or another we are all supporting companies that are probably not vegan friendly. This dogma shouldn't stop you from adhereing to a plant based diet because like i say it saves 100s of animals a year.

There really is no getting away from it in the end, the best we can do is reduce our load with the above.

[www.vegankingdom.co.uk]



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 02/15/2012 12:33PM by powerlifer.

I understand your point but strongly disagree. I think Watson and BVS understood exactly your point when they wrote the definition. Without it as you say noone could be vegan. But point is the definition, the original one contains it. What you see as the exception that swallows the general rule, I see as providing vegans the flexibility they need to confront day to day exceptions where there is no animal product free alternative. Ever try to find a pair of vegan boxing gloves??? Mine are leather not by choice but by necessity.

I give people enough credit that possible and practical means possible and practical and not anything else. If you can point out a compassionate alternative to a friend, then your point is mute. You cannot wear a mink coat under possible and practical when a non-animal alternative is available. In short, it's not the open ended clause you portray it to be. Agree to disagree.

Paul


rawgosia Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "The word "veganism" denotes a philosophy and way
> of living which seeks to exclude — as far as is
> possible and practical — all forms of
> exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food,
> clothing or any other purpose; and by extension,
> promotes the development and use of animal-free
> alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals
> and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes
> the practice of dispensing with all products
> derived wholly or partly from animals."
>
> <>
> This clause is open to such a wide range of
> interpretations that it practically annuls the
> definition. Possible and practical can easily be a
> matter of a personal opinion, awareness and
> willingness. For example, people can easily claim
> that they need houses to live and factories to
> support their lives before removing whole animal
> habitats in order to create them. What is the
> level of our awareness about our impact? Is being
> an unaware vegan, really vegan?

Well said Paul. The standard is meant to be exacting but not impossible.
In many things, my family and I choose the vegan alternative. I'd hazard to say we choose it in most things, even those not commonly obvious (craft supplies like glue, etc). But tires I have no say over. We are living rurally and thus far I've managed to avoid having to own a car of our own but we do ride in them often. What the tires are made of doesn't occupy a prominent position in my mind, there's nothing I can do about needing to get groceries to keep US alive.
Any argument can be taken to an absurd extreme. This one has reminded me a bit of the stance that babies aren't vegan because they drink breastmilk. Ye know?

"Veganism to me is about adopting a lifestyle which reduces the harm to animals."

powerlifer, this definition makes sense, and this is what is actually occurring. People who call themselves vegan are people who try to reduce their impact indeed. They do not minimize it or diminish, and the reduction they achieve is a whole spectrum. We all contribute to the suffering of animals in some form.


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

Actually coco, I believe that breast milk sets a precedent for future veganism. Human milk is alkaline, and most vegan food is also alkaline accept for grain foods etc. Whereas all animal products (accept for cow milk) is acidic. Need I say more?

Cow milk is very acidifying to the body, you can add it to that list too .
I believe the (twisted logic of that) argument was that breastmilk is technically an animal product so those who consume it fall outside the range of what is defined as "vegan". The whole thing was ridiculous to my mind but there were some people strenuously arguing that side of it. None of them were nursing mamas though, go figure, lol.

Well, I'm going from memory, but I'll have to go check it out. Would it have something to do with it being milk from another animal species coco? And yes, I agree that the argument that bubs aren't vegan cause of breast milk is a waste of time

the dietary description of dairy is pretty well precluded from the BVS definition. And having heard Daniel Goldblum's "rationalizations, where would we be without them' and the Big Chill (1983), I'd have to leave it at that. Dairy is part of factory farming, part of hormone loading, antibiotic loading. that ain't vegan.


course, gosia says none of us are so I guess, I'm not vegan either.

That's tounge in cheek and baby with the bathwater. Of course we are. And we wouldn't want to be anywhere else than where we are..



Paul



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/17/2012 09:30PM by pborst.

It's a harsh reality indeed that the survival of our society depends on the exploitation of animals. Perhaps there is a convenience factor too. For example, do we really need to wear shoes? Some people are willing or able of going further than others in their pursuit of vegan idealism. There is always a lot more than one can do, and so what does determine where we stop? For example, once we realize that tires contain animal products, do we do anything to change the tire production process? I guess what any individual does varies according to their choice. It's rather painful to be aware of the reality. Felling good about ourselves is what helps us through a day.


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

I find it next to impossible to feel bad about things I can't control. If I need to buy tires I'll investigate to see if there's a company that makes vegan tires and let suppliers know there is a market for them. Until then, it's off my radar.
We do need shoes but can opt for those made of natural fibers whenever possible, not have excessive pairs for fashion, and take care of those we've got. Same with everything else. Minimize needs, make conscious choices, shop second hand, strive for improvement. Part of that striving for improvement is not beating myself up for this that are out of my hands. I don't aim for perfection, that's not realistic. I do what I can do and don't make excuses for myself and I acknowledge and accept what I can't change or choices that have an impact on other beings. That's the best I can expect of myself or anyone else.

I beleive that it's a different species milk in humans that causes the acidic reaction (I did ask you coco ). As I've found charts that say one thing or even the opposite. Human milk is definately alkaline and all yoghurts are acid forming.

Regarding the 'vegan' term, I beleive that there needs to be an add on that denotes a person who is a vegan in the dietry sense, but also in the humanitarian sense. It could be 'humanitarian vegan' or something. However, while I'm a vegan in the dietry sense, pretty soon I'm going to be dropping all acid forming foods from my diet. Now that includes grains, such as the rice I eat occasionally and certain nuts/seeds I guess (oh no...not my beloved cashews).