Geo yes, I meant dairy from the cow is acidifying in the body, not human milk consumed by humans.

In the case of a dietary vegan saying that one follows a vegan diet is accurate. Calling oneself a vegan is not, the term does have a specific meaning which encompasses more than just diet. I am not a vegan. Very close but I don't think that's enough for the title.

Ok and thx coco. Well, I guess that I had the wrong idea from the start, and in that case I am not a vegan...My God, I wonder if anyone is then???

I believe that there's been just too much confusion around what really is a vegan. Hell, if there's animal products in a car's tyres, then what else do they use animal products for??? Btw, what part of the animal do they use for the tyres???

If we go live on an island somewhere (in the tropics for me), then maybe we can be vegan. But for the rest of us, it's mostly impossible. Show me a true vegan and I'll show you a true holy man.

For the girls...as far as animal testing for cosmetics is concerned, 'Nutri-metics' do not....

See Geo, Gosia is correct in that no one is technically completely vegan, we all step on bugs, use products that in one way or another contribute to their suffering or death. The official definition does contain that qualifying clause however
"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."

The key words there being "as far as is possible and practical". If there isn't an alternative to tires containing animal products, or if there is no other medicine to save a sick child but one that was tested on or made with animals, or if you're starving and there's nothing to eat but another creature...

I think what "vegan" means in it's truest sense has gotten confused because people do use that term to denote someone who eats a vegan diet but that's as far as they go. It's admirable in and of itself, it's just not the whole picture. That's ok though, we're all working towards healthier choices all the time, if from the point of discovering animal suffering associated with tires, makeup, medicine, etc, we seek a better alternative that right there embodies the spirit of the original definition. That's my opinion anyhow.


There are many brands of makeup at the health food store or online that weren't directly tested on animals. Almost all the raw ingredients were at some point though and every company uses that research when creating formulas. You can't get away from it completely no matter how hard you try. Ever vigilant...

Right, I think it's a lifestyle most readily denoted by the eschewing of animal foods--what a species eats being one of its most basic definers--with lesser but still consicous attention payed to secondary and tertiery forms of consumption, as with the buying of plant based clothes or bedding.

Everyone knows what a vegetarian is because the definition is static: vegetarians don't eat animals. But veganism is in the eye of the beholder; I have known vegetarians that ate no eggs nor dairy nor honey, but because they still possessed leather products or silk, did not consider themselves vegan, and avowed vegans didn't either.

Writing this, I am remembering how distasteful I find factionalism to be.[sigh]

It only really matters though if being able to claim the label is what's most important. The label itself has no value to me aside from defining behaviour and choices, calling myself something specific has never appealed to me. The choices I make are based on my inner voice, not external factors.

geo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ....... Show me a true vegan and I'll show you a true holy man.

Show me a true Vegan, and I'll show you true Paranoia. A true Holy Man doesn't have time for such nonsense......WY

The label vegan is often used as means to separate people, or classify others as less than, or as a tool of self-righteousness. This is where I think veganism loses its philosophical credibility. I think that trying to reduce one's footprint whilst admitting being a part of the animal-exploiting mechanism, is a more honest approach. Let's do what we are capable off in order to reduce our impact, but let's also be humble and honest, and aware of our role in all this.


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

Well, that's a very good definition Coco, and on contemplating what you've said, I totally agree. I'm not going to throw around the term so loosely anymore where it applies to me or anyone. Even though I may use some animal products, I believe that abstaining from eating animal products is a huge plus where the environment and animal exploitation is concerned.

I don't like labels either, and as WY has pointed out, it seems that I've wrongly made another term. Oh, well, I'm learning at least.

I think I will buy Tamara & Coco's def which tracks pretty nicely with the BVS def and works well, for me anyway.

Tamukha Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Right, I think it's a lifestyle most readily
> denoted by the eschewing of animal foods--what a
> species eats being one of its most basic
> definers--with lesser but still consicous
> attention payed to secondary and tertiery forms of
> consumption, as with the buying of plant based
> clothes or bedding.
>
> Everyone knows what a vegetarian is because the
> definition is static: vegetarians don't eat
> animals. But veganism is in the eye of the
> beholder; I have known vegetarians that ate no
> eggs nor dairy nor honey, but because they still
> possessed leather products or silk, did not
> consider themselves vegan, and avowed vegans
> didn't either.
>
> Writing this, I am remembering how distasteful I
> find factionalism to be.