Definition of vegan vs. follower of veganism

Vegan message board for support on vegan related issues and questions.
Topics include philosophy, activism, effective altruism, plant-based nutrition, and diet advice/discussion whether high carb, low carb (eco atkins/vegan keto) or anything in between.
Meat eater vs. Vegan debate welcome, but please keep it within debate topics.
User avatar
Jebus
Master of the Forum
Posts: 2379
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 2:08 pm
Diet: Vegan

Definition of vegan vs. follower of veganism

Post by Jebus »

Many vegans love accusing others who label themselves as vegan as not being vegan whenever:

They eat eggs from well treated backyard hens.
Eat non sentient animals like oysters.
Take vaccines that are not vegan.
Making use of roadkill.
etc. etc.

The definition of vegan is "a person who does not eat or use animal products".

Although this definition is simple and straight to the point it would in fact exclude those who do any of the above from being a vegan. In fact, it would exclude anyone who uses a car or walks on a road made with tallow, which is pretty much all of us.

I much prefer the original definition of veganism: "Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose".

Note how a "follower of veganism" could be different from a "vegan."A follower of veganism" could perform any of the above examples although he would not be a "vegan".

Although I don't eat or wear any animal products I prefer not to identify myself as a vegan. Not only because of the negative connotation associated with the word, but because I don't want to be part of the team that has a "vegan police force" that exclude others from its team because of insignificant actions, like eating clams.

I am thinking about coining a new term that I can use but it needs to be shorter than "a follower of veganism" or "a consequentialist devoted to the reduction of all suffering."

Any ideas?
How to become vegan in 4.5 hours:
1.Watch Forks over Knives (Health)
2.Watch Cowspiracy (Environment)
3. Watch Earthlings (Ethics)
Congratulations, unless you are a complete idiot you are now a vegan.
User avatar
Sapphire Lightning
Junior Member
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri May 13, 2016 10:06 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Definition of vegan vs. follower of veganism

Post by Sapphire Lightning »

Personally I like how Wikipedia puts it, "... and an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals". That plus the "possible and practicable" in the definition proper seems like the whole encompassing idea of what the word "vegan" means.
So for instance, eating roadkill would probably be vegan, but eggs from a well treated backyard hen would not be (Where are the roosters? Also, chickens eat their own eggs to regain nutrients, also it could be argued that they own the eggs as they made them)
Some things are outside of our control, such as the use of animal products in vaccines (for now), so the possible and practicable concept takes that in to account. We just need to push more for the use of non-animal products for these sorts of things.
Carnist: Kills animals and then takes from their bodies
Vegetarian: Takes from animals' bodies, and then kills them when they are no longer profitable
Vegan: Avoids unnecessary harm to animals as much as is possible and practicable
Jamie in Chile
Senior Member
Posts: 399
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2017 7:40 pm
Diet: Vegetarian

Re: Definition of vegan vs. follower of veganism

Post by Jamie in Chile »

I suggest "mostly vegan" or "vegan, but not a strict vegan".

I think terms like flexitarian, reducetarian, and pescatarian have proliferated and too many terms can be unhelpful and confusing. A lot of people don't really understand them. So please don't make it a new one!

I don't eat backyard hens' eggs , oysters or roadkill. but I accept that there is little or no moral wrong in them.

I had some discussions with people on other forums when I started my new lifestyle, and followed and read other discussions and articles, and it seemed to me that the definition of vegan is quite strict.

For example, it seems that I am not a vegan even though I have reduced my impact on animal cruelty by 99%.

--Very occassionally I have eaten something with cheese in when it was going to be thrown out anyway.
--I occassionally nibble on sweets which I suspect are made with gelatin.
--I rarely check if my bread is vegan.
--I have occassionally eaten birthday cake at a birthday party.
--When I read ingredients on foods I only don't buy them if there is an obvious non-vegan ingredient in the first 5 or 10 items. If I see something incomprehensible like deoxyfusic acid or hydrioslithin I don't bother to check what that is. I sometimes stop reading the ingredients after the first 5 or 10 since by that stage you know at least any animal product is a tiny fraction of the food.
--I sometimes use another person's non vegan toothpaste if my runs out, I would use the shampoo in a hotel without checking if it was vegan.
--I bought some shoes a few weeks ago with a small amount of leather because it was the best I could find after 2 hours searching through about 5 or 6 shops. I was getting tired and the shops were closing.
--I bought a leather belt some months back or last year because to be honest it just never occurred to me to check what it was made out of and then later I figured it wasn't worth the hassle to take it back.

At the end of the day, it is a trade off I make between ethics and convenience. Getting to 100% vegan is twice as hard as getting to 99% vegan.

So, I am not a vegan (apparently). It would be nice if the definition was expanded a bit to include people like me.

However, from what I read and discussed with others I think most vegans would accept that a person is still vegan even if they bought a car or a computer, used a non-vegan medicine, and perhaps ate something with honey in it by accident. I think very few would say that person is not a vegan.

And then in between it becomes a grey area.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Definition of vegan vs. follower of veganism

Post by brimstoneSalad »

Sentientist may work, but I agree that the terminology is a pretty big problem. We need more diverse classifications to help people avoid the "Either vegan or give up" mentality that often occurs. People find one contradiction or unnecessary exclusion according to some vegans, and they conclude that veganism is unsound and so nothing in it is worth considering. There need to be more ideological save points.

I think the same problem is inherent in theism, where people will go from dogmatic moral absolutist to complete moral relativist without understanding that there are moral objectivist/universalist positions they totally passed over in the false dichotomies they got into their heads.

If we do not make those intermediate alternatives better known (or wrest the definition of vegan itself from the fundamentalists) people are going to continue dropping off into nonsense like paleo as soon as they wonder why they can't eat backyard chicken eggs or freegan meat.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Definition of vegan vs. follower of veganism

Post by brimstoneSalad »

Sapphire Lightning wrote: Tue Nov 07, 2017 4:19 pm Where are the roosters? Also, chickens eat their own eggs to regain nutrients, also it could be argued that they own the eggs as they made them
I think people usually mean adopted/rescue chickens. Eggs can be sexed early on to abort roosters, though (maybe some day soon will be to end the slaughter of all of those male chicks).

The bigger more unavoidable issue in most chickens is that they've been bred to be egg laying "machines" and it causes them serious problems since they're still sentient beings. It's wrong to breed them in the same way it's wrong to breed dogs with genetic health problems for our ends (smashed faces, etc.).

I'm not sure that eating eggs is good for chickens. And if you don't take the eggs they may brood which can be bad for them. But if you take them it may upset them and they may lay more frequently? There's no winning because of the problems that were bred into them.

I don't buy into the meaningfulness of ownership in and of itself; the issue at hand should be harm.
User avatar
Jebus
Master of the Forum
Posts: 2379
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 2:08 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: Definition of vegan vs. follower of veganism

Post by Jebus »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Tue Nov 07, 2017 5:29 pmif you don't take the eggs they may brood which can be bad for them. But if you take them it may upset them and they may lay more frequently? There's no winning because of the problems that were bred into them.
So you think these problems are specific to "egg laying machines." Would it be different taking an egg from a happy hen?

Here are a couple of comments from another discussion. Perhaps someone can clarify if the following is true for well treated hens:

"The hen only starts to get broody when it has accumulated enough eggs, if you disrupt the chicken in the laying process she never gets broody keeping her from finishing her breeding cycle".

"Even if the eggs are not fertalized. Imagine if you could that a woman preps her uterus, by menstruation, to become pregnant, now what will happen if a person could steal her egg before it was released into her reproductive system, signaling the end of her ovulation cycle. Imagine if because that woman could not finish her cycle her body starts prepping again, now imagine the process being repeated for a year, and you realise that you keep a hens nest empty and her body is trying to function the way that nature intended, and that you cannot reason with a beings biology and therefore not interfere with their reproductive cycles"
How to become vegan in 4.5 hours:
1.Watch Forks over Knives (Health)
2.Watch Cowspiracy (Environment)
3. Watch Earthlings (Ethics)
Congratulations, unless you are a complete idiot you are now a vegan.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Definition of vegan vs. follower of veganism

Post by brimstoneSalad »

Jebus wrote: Tue Nov 07, 2017 10:48 pm So you think these problems are specific to "egg laying machines." Would it be different taking an egg from a happy hen?
I imagine that Red Junglefowl have fairly good health by comparison, they only lay a few eggs a year.

If you could do it in a way that didn't upset the hen, very likely. You could even arrange a trap door in the bottom of the nest and replace all but one egg (always leaving a female, selected without hatching by modern methods) with fakes to maintain the egg laying population.
Jebus wrote: Tue Nov 07, 2017 10:48 pm "The hen only starts to get broody when it has accumulated enough eggs, if you disrupt the chicken in the laying process she never gets broody keeping her from finishing her breeding cycle".
Perhaps... that may be one of the methods used to make them lay more (beyond genetics). There are a few things egg farmers do to mess with hens to get them to lay more. I think there is monkeying around with lighting too.

You could apply the strategies in reverse to get them to lay less, maybe even adding fake eggs to to nest, making really short day night cycles for a while, then an artificial hatching event?
I don't know.

One of the most serious problems for health is the volume of egg production (as in cows, the volume of milk production).
Plantbasedlife
Newbie
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2017 10:26 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: Definition of vegan vs. follower of veganism

Post by Plantbasedlife »

I prefer to stick with 'plant based'. This title seems to evoke less scrutiny.
My situation is unique, I am a passionate vegan (as in I don't purchase or consume any animal products) however, I have had horses all my life and even a competitive background. I sit in a leather saddle (it's 12 yrs old-long before I converted & my next one will be synthetic). I understand the conflict here & my conscience wrestles with it as well. Animals for human entertainment is not something I suppport as in circuses, carnivals, zoos (I don't mean game farms or sanctuaries) racetracks (even thoroughbred/standardbred) but I've raised my horses & the ones I have currently are treated like family members. The saddle horses have a much happier existence than that of a racehorse. That said, there's always exceptions to the rule.
Some people are not fit to own animals just as there are people that have no business having kids either. There isn't much one can do about it. Owning a horse, though I prefer to say 'I care for horses' instead of 'owning', is a huge commitment, time & financial. Sadly people discover this the hard way & that's why rescues are full of abused & neglected horses & ponies.
I will continue being a plant based equestrian, what good would it solve by giving them up? Despite the fact that show jumping has been my passion for decades, it does pose an issue for me now.
Thoughts?
Jamie in Chile
Senior Member
Posts: 399
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2017 7:40 pm
Diet: Vegetarian

Re: Definition of vegan vs. follower of veganism

Post by Jamie in Chile »

The ethics of your equestrianism situation would make for an interesting debate if you really want when I have more time (not today) bu the key point is that factory farms for food are what's really bad.

Plant based is good idea for people who are mostly vegan but not strictly vegan, or people who are strictly vegan but want to come across as a little less in your face.

It's also good in the sense that it's fairly obvious what it means unlike reducetarian or flexitarian which, to many people, would not be obvious.
User avatar
Jebus
Master of the Forum
Posts: 2379
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 2:08 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: Definition of vegan vs. follower of veganism

Post by Jebus »

Plantbasedlife wrote: Thu Nov 09, 2017 12:13 amI will continue being a plant based equestrian, what good would it solve by giving them up? Despite the fact that show jumping has been my passion for decades, it does pose an issue for me now.
Thoughts?
It's great that you care for and take well care of horses but I don't see the point of sitting on them (apart from your enjoyment). Don't you think the horse would be happier running around (or walking if lack of space is an issue) without having to carry around all that extra weight.
How to become vegan in 4.5 hours:
1.Watch Forks over Knives (Health)
2.Watch Cowspiracy (Environment)
3. Watch Earthlings (Ethics)
Congratulations, unless you are a complete idiot you are now a vegan.
Post Reply