Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.


Expand Messages
  • tofuschmofu
    Welcome to the group! I ve taken your poll now and I ve got a quibble with some terminology you use in it. You refer to dietary vegan and lifestyle vegan
    Message 1 of 42 , Mar 3, 2009
      Welcome to the group! I've taken your poll now and I've got a quibble
      with some terminology you use in it. You refer to "dietary vegan" and
      "lifestyle vegan" in the poll and I find that quite irritating!

      There is NO SUCH THING as a "dietary vegan"!! Vegan by definition means
      eliminating all animal products from your life and is not and NEVER has
      been only about not eating animals.

      People that remove all animal products from their diet, without also
      removing animal products from the rest of their life are called total
      (or strict) vegetarians.

      Please understand that by using the term vegan incorrrectly you dilute
      what it means to be vegan. On this side of the pond we now have idiots
      claiming to be 'vegan plus'. That invented terminology means you can
      still wear murdered animal skins and hair any time you want, plus at
      night you can devour all the dead animal flesh you like. But during
      daylight hours you don't eat dead animal flesh, but it's still okay to
      consume stocks made from their murdered bodies and fry foods with their
      rendered fats!

      Does that help you to understand why I'm annoyed with the terminology you

      --- In veganview@yahoogroups.com, "veg_deb" <veg_deb@...> wrote:
      > Hi all,
      > I am a vegan, and a third year degree student of Diet & Health at Bath
      > Spa University. I have chosen to study dietary practices for my
      > dissertation, particularly considering the reasons for these choices,
      > perceptions of different diets, and the possibility that our chosen
      > diets may have secondary effects in other areas of our lives. Having
      > practiced a number of diets, I have experienced first-hand differences
      > in the way people have treated me depending on the type of diet I am
      > consuming, yet the academic literature on this topic remains sparse.
      > I would be extremely grateful for your help-if you could spare a few
      > minutes to fill in my questionnaire it would be greatly appreciated.
      > There are only 26 questions, so it won't take long. Your help would be
      > invaluable, and in return I'll post my findings up on this forum
      > following the completion of my work.
      > Please copy and paste the following link into your browser to take
      > part in my survey:
      > http://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/?p=WEB228TRAVNTYD
      > Thank you for your time.
    • roy
      ... Please look at my previous post. Do you follow all those requirements for food production that makes you vegan? Like I said before regarding the other
      Message 42 of 42 , Mar 12, 2009
        > Look... Simply put, the problem isn't in the definition of vegan or vegetarian, the problem is in you.

        Please look at my previous post. Do you follow all those requirements for food production that makes you vegan? Like I said before regarding the other user, I don't know anything about you but I'm willing to guess that you can't meet those requirements. Therefore you aren't vegan... That's the whole point I am getting at. I think it's really convenient that you could allow the exploitation of some animals and not of others into your definition of being vegan. And those just so happen to coincide with how far you are willing to be vegan. Don't you see I am not trying to play with words or change any defintions? I am applying the very definition that was given to me on veganism by you, and applying it to you, and it actually doesn't fit. That has been my argument all along, yet no one in this thread has acknowledged the fact that to eat food is to use or kill animals. That's the plain fact. There are exceptions of course, but most people don't subsist off those exceptions. And look, I'm not trying to be like "ha! guess what, you're not a vegan!", what I am trying to do is to show that while you're all so quick to say "well actually you're not vegan", you're breaking your own rules.

        > You WANT to be vegetarian/vegan, but know you aren't, so you are desperately trying to find loopholes to allow yourself to claim a label that you in point of fact KNOW doesn't apply.

        I could say the same thing for you. Again, unless you grow all your veggies yourself with the care of not killing any animals, in which case I'm dead wrong and I'll apologize for my ignorance. But do you really? You're claiming I'm trying to find a loophole. The very definition of veganism you gave me has a loophole. And assuming that you DON'T grow all your veggies like all the other vegans I've met and known, then you're basically doing the same thing. You're saying that well, I need to eat vegetables so I'll allow the deaths and use of insects to slide. And what I am saying is that is a double standard.

        > Look, we'll all do what we can with advice or moral support to help you be an honest vegan or vegetarian since we ALL know that's really your ultimate goal! Is it easy? NOT A CHANCE!!!

        It's not that it's hard, it's that it's downright near impossible on a practical level. I'll be glad to say that there is such a thing as veganism but unfortunately to truely fit that definition you'd have to be a Jain or someone similiar that makes it their life's duty not to harm other forms. Can you live off nuts and berries that you find from plants without harming any animals? Yea, probably, but I don't think it's possible in a functional modern society.

        I'm tired arguing about this, but only because we keep going in circles. If someone in this thread can acknowledge what I said in my previous post then I will gladly continue trying to have a logical argument. Otherwise it's going to be the same old "you're not vegan" "actually you're not vegan either" back and forth which is tiring.

        We disagree about this, which is fine, but I think it's on such a fundamental level that I don't think I can continue being a member here. In my opinion it's such a colossal oversight that you can neglect to see your own faults while quickly proclaiming those of others.

        >Below you say you think vegans look down on non-vegans like vegetarians and omnivores. In my experience that's just NOT true.

        I wasn't going to bring this up because I didn't want to start a fuss but now I feel like I have to. So posting a story about how people are getting an awful reaction to eating fish all over the country and then saying "not to be mean but I hope every fish eater gets this" is not looking down on them? Or posting a link about overblown overindulgent foods with a winky face and relating them to fat people, inviting users to basically make fun of the people that eat this and/or overweight people. You claim that you don't look down on others but it just seems to me that you have the same capacity as every other vocal veg/vegetarian group that does nothing but wish ill on other people with different views than you. Volition leads to action and if you think the action of hurting other animals is wrong, then perhaps you should realize that you are doing the same thing with your will.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.