Comments on the vegan definition

[vegan81vzla]

There is something inherently wrong I believe with the way the vegan community expresses itself about veganism. It is said however that the vegan definition is perfect, something that I agree with. The movement however seems to forget it a lot or modify it as they please to fit their convenience. So lets go back to basic.

"The word veganism denotes a philosophy and a 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." Donald Watson, founder of the vegan movement

So, very simple, right? In a few words Mr. Watson defined the new term they were coining. I believe they thought it was their legacy to humanity, so they worded it as perfect as they saw fit. Let us give it a closer look.

First of all, it defines what it is. A philosophy and a way of living. Nothing more, nothing less. It is something that people seeks knowledge about, and reflect it upon ourselves actively. It has nothing to do with believes, thoughts, right or wrong. It is about knowing the truth about it.

Then it defines its purpose and goals. To exclude as far as is possible and practical, all forms of exploitation of and cruelty to animals. And here I would like to express my first comment on the definition. Because it is something that was left implicit, and it is not clear. Exploitation by whom? Cruelty from whom? Ah but of course, from humans people would say. But it just doesn't cut it for me. And that might be one of the reasons the movement skewes so much from the definition. Do we seek to banish cruelty from this world? Well that is a rather pompous and presumptuous goal. Nature is cruel. Can animals be cruel between themselves? I would dare to say yes. Can they exploit themselves? There are parasitic or symbiotic relationships between species that could be viewed as a form of exploitation, but we do not want that to end, that is part of nature. So where it reads "all forms of" it should have said "two human activities" something that we humans tend to do towards animals for food, clothing or any other purpose. And with those last words there they left room for expansion. Nowadays, thanks mainly from the documentary Earthlings, we include companionship, food, clothing, entertainment and experimentation. Traction is usually forgotten and it should also be included. However myth and rituals are usually excluded and I believe rightfully.

Then it goes as to explain the how. Are we vegans to become animal liberationists? Not exactly. We are going to promote the development and use of animal-free alternatives. Very simple, right? And notice that it does not say cruelty-free or even meat-free, terms usually used by the vegan community. It clearly says animal-free. Products and practices free from human animal use and abuse. An whom are those products for? Ah, for humans, you would say, of course! Well, apparently, not so obvious, as the vegan movement tend to think that it is ok for them to make animals vegan. At the end, the definition expands itself on the topic of how, by re-stating that in dietary terms, a vegan in practice, would dispense of products derived wholly or partly from animals. And here is why I believe that terms like "plant-based diet" are nonsencical. If in practice your diet is as animal-free as it can be, hey, welcome to the wagon, you're a vegan, no matter what.

And finally it expresses the why. What is the reason for all this. Because we vegans grant that by ending those two human activities, the exploitation of and cruelty towards animals, would be beneficial to humans, animals, and the environment. And here I would like to express my second comment regarding the definition. We have to highlight here that Mr. Watson stated that first and foremost the beneficiaries of a human society free from animal use and abuse, would be humans. And that is something very important that the vegan movement tends to overlook. It is not about focusing on animals, or that animals matter more than humans. It is not even about us equating ourselves to animals, as all around the definition humans and animals are separated. But instead of saying humans in an individual manner, it should have read humanity instead. Not only individually but collectively. There are implications of animal exploitation that creates problems for our society too. And this could also be applied to the second beneficiary of veganism. It is not animals, as individuals, but the whole animal kingdom as a collective. It is not for the vegan movement to focus on the few species exploited and subjects of cruelty from humans. It is that by exploiting some, we disregard the whole. And of course, at the end, last but never least, the environment.

So my commented vegan definition would read as follows
"The word veganism denotes a philosophy and a way of living
which seeks to exclude - as far as is possible and practical -
TWO HUMAN ACTIVITIES: the exploitation of, and cruelty to,
animals for, companionship, food, clothing, entertainment, traction, experimentation or any other purpose,
for the benefit of HUMANITY, the ANIMAL KINGDOM and the environment;
and by extension, it promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives FOR HUMANS.

In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals." Commented

As you can see, the comments are not greatly apart from the core original purpose of the vegan definition, but rather to add some value to it.

[vegan81vzla]

Having some conversations here with some "vegans" there is something that needs to be further explained also about the definition, that most vegans seem not to grasp. Where it reads "which seeks to exclude - as far as is possible and practical - all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals" they have taken it to mean that we seek to "reduce the suffering of animals". Anything further than the truth. The definition must be read as EXCLUDING the activities that are possible and practical to be excluded from our lives, not to "reduce" its practices as to reduce the suffering animals so that they can have more "meaningful" lives and we can eat them later or their by-products on the meantime (soooo wrong). So the goal is clear, to exclude the activities and not its degree, hence the difference between the reducitarians, which are just freegans, veggans, ovo or ovo-lacto vegetarians because all they would care about is to care for their animals all their lives. That is the reason the definition later lists such possible activities as food, clothing and later expanded to companionship, entertainment experimentation and traction which is often omitted or forgotten. In any case, it is also relevant to analyze, which activities will be excluded first? The ones that would benefit more humans, the animals and the environment of course, given, food first (hence the push for a vegan diet) and then vegans could be free to pick from the rest, clothing being perhaps the second most relevant one. But it is obvious that diet is the most important. I just felt this was something really important to clarify.

[brimstoneSalad]

vegan81vzla, nobody here takes you seriously, and you clearly don't understand English well enough to be commenting on the meaning of the definition of "vegan" with any authority.

You keep using the word, but it doesn't mean what you think it means. It doesn't support your dogmatic view.

As I clearly explained elsewhere, "exclude to X degree" is functionally identical to "reduce to X degree". Exclude is only absolute when it is unqualified.

It is entirely possible and practicable for most people to reduce their contributions to animal cruelty from meat and most other dietary animal products to zero by not purchasing them at all.
However, the extent to which something is practicable will vary from person to person, and situation to situation. It is not clearly defined in the definition of vegan, and it is left up to personal interpretation, which means only that we should do as much as we feel we can, when we can.

[Jaywalker]

vegan81vzla, I think you're a troll. You call yourself a christian and a vegan while being neither, and make some of the most nonsensical arguments I've seen.

If you're not a troll, I'd suggest you start over, ditch that "postulate" and try to form a rational argument, or at least acknowledge the problems of your current position and try to work around them. As it is, responding to you doesn't seem productive.