Jellies and jams/ Gelatin

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
Lay Vegan
Senior Member
Posts: 355
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:05 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: Jellies and jams/ Gelatin

Post by Lay Vegan »

carnap wrote: Sun Feb 11, 2018 5:05 pm Lastly if this was really idea here, shouldn't vegans also boycott organic agriculture which makes heavy use of animal byproducts as fertilizers (bone meal, blood meal, fish emulsion, etc)? And shouldn't there be a general effort to buy agricultural products that don't utilize animal byproducts?
Side note, it's probably a combination of veganic farming practices (which exclude animal byproducts in fertilizer) and GM technology (to eliminate the need for harmful pesticides) would help solve this issue.

This is why anti-science vegans are so aggravating. In an attempt to make vegansim the "natural" diet, they often promote farming practices that are anti-vegan and demonize the science of biotechnology, which is actually our biggest ally.
carnap
Anti-Vegan Troll
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:54 pm

Re: Jellies and jams/ Gelatin

Post by carnap »

Canastenard wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2018 4:10 am The idea behind veganism is not to completely avoid any interaction with anything remotely related to industries that use animals because that's frankly impossible, but to reduce it enough to not be a major contributor to it.
Byproducts are not a "major contributor" so if that was the idea behind veganism....why is vegan practice not consistent with it? And why are there cases where two products contribute in similar ways yet one is vegan and the other isn't.
Canastenard wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2018 4:10 am Avoid these and you've done most of what a vegan does and removed a major part of your contribution to animal farming. Honestly I wouldn't look down someone who's otherwise vegan but doesn't pay too much attention to gelatin in products.
In terms of the amount of animals killed, if you simply avoid poultry you've done most of what a vegan does. The difference between a proper vegan and a macro-vegan (no meat, dairy and eggs....but eats byproducts) is negligible. Would you look down on a lacto-vegetarian? What is important about the vegan standard?
Canastenard wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2018 4:10 am I also don't agree with saying that gelatin and vegan products from a non-vegan company are equivalent. Slaughterhouses have animal carcass byproducts whenever they want it or not, and selling it as gelatin for example allows them to make money on something that's otherwise just a burden on them, whereas food companies have to specifically do investments to sell vegan products.
The point wasn't that they are equivalent but that both contribute financially to non-vegan industries and it was the financial contribution that was being used as an argument against them.

Canastenard wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2018 4:10 am When you buy a product on a supermarket or elsewhere there's no way to know how the product was grown, like with which fertilizers it was grown, how much tillage is done, which pesticides are used, etc.
Sure but that is why I brought up organic, organic items are typically clearly labeled so one can easily avoid them. Buying organic makes the same sort of financial contribution to animal agriculture as buying byproducts directly so why is one acceptable and not the other?
Canastenard wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2018 4:10 am Veganism is a way to help society transit to a new economy with much less harm to animals, and is better understood (and more effective) as an heuristic than a level of purity to attain.
But is it a good way? What reason is there to believe its a good heuristic and a heuristic to what exactly? "Less harm to animals"? But what exactly does that mean? Crudely you can look at the number of animals killed but that doesn't tell you about degrees of suffering.
I'm here to exploit you schmucks into demonstrating the blatant anti-intellectualism in the vegan community and the reality of veganism. But I can do that with any user name.
carnap
Anti-Vegan Troll
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:54 pm

Re: Jellies and jams/ Gelatin

Post by carnap »

Lay Vegan wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2018 4:37 pm As you mentioned, organic farmers do tend to use fertilizers that contain bone and blood meal. This definitely profits the animal agriculture industry, makes meat cheaper, and saves factory farms money in waste disposal. However, this is very similar to the gelatin argument. Animals are not slaughtered for their bones and blood. They're slaughtered for their meat. I agree with Canastenard, I wouldn't stress too much about organic foods or gelatin products, because they do not directly increase demand in animal slaughter.
It is very similar which is why I mentioned it....but its precisely because the similarity one needs to explain why one is "not vegan" while the other is okay. Without such an explanation why should anybody accept veganism as anything other than an arbitrary standard of the vegan society?
I'm here to exploit you schmucks into demonstrating the blatant anti-intellectualism in the vegan community and the reality of veganism. But I can do that with any user name.
User avatar
Lay Vegan
Senior Member
Posts: 355
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:05 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: Jellies and jams/ Gelatin

Post by Lay Vegan »

carnap wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2018 8:00 pm It is very similar which is why I mentioned it....but its precisely because the similarity one needs to explain why one is "not vegan" while the other is okay. Without such an explanation why should anybody accept veganism as anything other than an arbitrary standard of the vegan society?
Whether or not any particular organic product can be considered vegan depends on the farming methods used to produce it. This isn't always clear-cut. Organic farmers tend to use more animal-based derivatives in organic fertilizers, which profits the animal ag industry and keeps meat cheap, so vegans should definitely avoid organic foods as reasonably as possible.

To answer your question, there are 2 possible reasons;


1. Misunderstandings about organic farming. When most people think "organic," blood and bone meal from factory farmed animal carcasses is probably not the first thing that comes to mind. The vegans who promote and and purchase ALL organic foods are either delusional or misinformed.

2. It is difficult judging which organic products contain animal derivatives. Some organic farmers (veganic farmers) do not use animal-based fertilizers for their crops. Practices widely differ from farm to farm, so in order to avoid grasping at straws to uphold an ideologically pure idea of veganism, the advise of most rational vegans is to avoid them when possible.

Gelatin is not considered vegan because it is clear where it comes from (animal bones and hides) and it is certain that purchasing products than contain gelatin profits the industry. But the same cannot be said for organic foods on the whole.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Jellies and jams/ Gelatin

Post by brimstoneSalad »

I agree that gelatin and animal products in farming BOTH in theory increase production of animal products by reducing the price slightly with the corresponding higher demand at that price, or the higher marketing budget that comes with better profit margins (which will drive more demand at any price).

The main difference is that one is listed on the ingredients label and has substantially similar competition from non-gelatin options, while the other is not.

I also agree on organic farming: that usually is (proudly) listed, and I avoid organic products where there are other affordable options.

I don't think organic is SO bad as to negate the benefit of healthy vegan convenience foods and proteins, though.

Buying organic tempeh (to give a thread relevant example) does harm from the organic practices, but it does good by promoting the production, stocking, and effectively advertisement of a vegan product that will reach slightly adventurous mainstream consumers too and potentially displace some amount of meat.
carnap wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2018 7:51 pm Byproducts are not a "major contributor" so if that was the idea behind veganism....why is vegan practice not consistent with it? And why are there cases where two products contribute in similar ways yet one is vegan and the other isn't.
Because, as a heuristic -- like pretty much all heuristics -- "vegan" is imperfect. It trades a measure of precision for ease of use.

But as stated above, there's also a serious information difference at play.
If only we could have clear harm numbers printed on everything we could all make much better choices, but I'm afraid at least for now we have to work with what we have which is a crude albeit generally useful heuristic.
carnap wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2018 7:51 pm In terms of the amount of animals killed, if you simply avoid poultry you've done most of what a vegan does. The difference between a proper vegan and a macro-vegan (no meat, dairy and eggs....but eats byproducts) is negligible. Would you look down on a lacto-vegetarian? What is important about the vegan standard?
I love this question, and it's a very important one.

I judge people based on progress, not any arbitrary standard.

Somebody who grew up in Texas eating heavy amounts of meat at every meal who made changes and went vegetarian is probably better (all other things being equal) than somebody born to vegan parents in California who just complacently stayed the course and never gave any thought to doing better.

When we actually judge character (and we should be VERY wary of doing so based on such simple metrics), you have to account entirely for somebody's situation and everything they do in life... which is practically impossible in most cases.

There's nothing magical about the vegan standard in itself that should make it the ultimate stopping point.
And it's entirely possible that some form of more relaxed veganism would be better based on it inspiring more people to do the same.

It may be that when we reach things like gelatin or traces of dairy that it's better to direct our efforts elsewhere, like reducing power consumption and focusing on some form of waste reduction. The returns diminish pretty quickly.

I might scoff at somebody doing it with bad excuses, but if somebody has really assessed the effort required to avoid traces of animal products and is focusing on other forms of self improvement that yield better returns than eliminating the 1% left of animal products then that's nothing to look down on.
carnap wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2018 7:51 pm Buying organic makes the same sort of financial contribution to animal agriculture as buying byproducts directly so why is one acceptable and not the other?
It shouldn't be. But organic also should not exist at all. It's a product of consumer ignorance and marketing, and unfortunately a lot of vegans buy into it.

What we have to ask is whether it's worth the effort to launch a campaign against organic when it's going to be taking on a real pseudoscience titan with limited returns, or better to focus on something else.
carnap wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2018 7:51 pmBut is it a good way? What reason is there to believe its a good heuristic and a heuristic to what exactly? "Less harm to animals"? But what exactly does that mean? Crudely you can look at the number of animals killed but that doesn't tell you about degrees of suffering.
The Vegan heuristic has the advantage of being simple, and already having a lot of cultural capital.

If we could go back in time and make some tweaks that would be great, but this snowball is already rolling. Like I mentioned above with organic; sometimes we just have to go with things for the time being because it's not worth fighting them.

I look forward to the day that "vegan" is no longer useful and the approaches have diversified because people are more aware of the problems with animal agriculture. Then we can deal more precisely on a cultural level with the harms involved and address them with knowledge and resources that will be available at that time when enough people care to invest in them.

Maybe you can start a thread on the vegan heuristic, and the pros and cons with other competing options?
carnap
Anti-Vegan Troll
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:54 pm

Re: Jellies and jams/ Gelatin

Post by carnap »

Lay Vegan wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2018 9:07 pm Whether or not any particular organic product can be considered vegan depends on the farming methods used to produce it. This isn't always clear-cut. Organic farmers tend to use more animal-based derivatives in organic fertilizers, which profits the animal ag industry and keeps meat cheap, so vegans should definitely avoid organic foods as reasonably as possible.
Its pretty clear-cut in the sense that the fertilizers they are using contain animal byproduct and there is no alternative for them. And fertilize use is pretty similar from farmer to farmer (they are just based on formulas), the exception would be small local farms using alternative techniques.
Lay Vegan wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2018 9:07 pm Gelatin is not considered vegan because it is clear where it comes from (animal bones and hides) and it is certain that purchasing products than contain gelatin profits the industry. But the same cannot be said for organic foods on the whole.
So the argument here seems to be that because there is a tiny chance that some particular organic product wasn't grown with the animal derived fertilizers that its then okay to consider the products "vegan".

So let's say there was some product called heef that had a 98% chance of containing beef and 2% of soy and it was random and you couldn't know before hand. So do you think vegans would accept heef as vegan?

But also, there is a bit of a category mistake here. Its not about individual products but instead that organic farming makes systematic use of animal derived fertilizers and the only serious alternatives are non-organic.
I'm here to exploit you schmucks into demonstrating the blatant anti-intellectualism in the vegan community and the reality of veganism. But I can do that with any user name.
carnap
Anti-Vegan Troll
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:54 pm

Re: Jellies and jams/ Gelatin

Post by carnap »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Tue Feb 13, 2018 2:27 am Because, as a heuristic -- like pretty much all heuristics -- "vegan" is imperfect. It trades a measure of precision for ease of use.
The comment I was replying to was implying the "idea behind veganism" is such and such.....that to me implies veganism is something more than a mere heuristic.

brimstoneSalad wrote: Tue Feb 13, 2018 2:27 am I judge people based on progress, not any arbitrary standard.
But progress towards what? Veganism? If so...then veganism isn't a heuristic but instead a goal. If not veganism....then what? What goal is progress being measured against?
brimstoneSalad wrote: Tue Feb 13, 2018 2:27 am The Vegan heuristic has the advantage of being simple, and already having a lot of cultural capital.
Simple in what sense? Simple to understand? Perhaps...I''m not sure. But its not simple to execute in a society that makes systematic use of animals for food, clothing, research, etc. I'm not sure what cultural capital you have in mind because the "vegan" label is viewed negatively by mainstream culture and even vegan food businesses tend to avoid the term.

brimstoneSalad wrote: Tue Feb 13, 2018 2:27 am If we could go back in time and make some tweaks that would be great, but this snowball is already rolling.
It is....but that doesn't mean its going to achieve anything. But also why should anybody except people to accept the vegan standard if one cannot make sense out of it?
I'm here to exploit you schmucks into demonstrating the blatant anti-intellectualism in the vegan community and the reality of veganism. But I can do that with any user name.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Jellies and jams/ Gelatin

Post by brimstoneSalad »

carnap wrote: Tue Feb 13, 2018 10:55 pm
Lay Vegan wrote: Mon Feb 12, 2018 9:07 pm Gelatin is not considered vegan because it is clear where it comes from (animal bones and hides) and it is certain that purchasing products than contain gelatin profits the industry. But the same cannot be said for organic foods on the whole.
So the argument here seems to be that because there is a tiny chance that some particular organic product wasn't grown with the animal derived fertilizers that its then okay to consider the products "vegan".
I agree that organic is going to be animal-based.
If it's actually veganic it will say veganic (some products do, and I'll make an effort to buy those).

Heef would not be vegan.
Although Zeef might be if it had a 2% chance of containing beef, if its overall influence on the market were to reduce animal product usage and vegans buying it supported its presence in an important way.

There's some threshold at which the economics pan out and it's more beneficial than not, although we don't really know what that threshold is.
The bigger issue is the cost/benefit analysis.

Tempeh that happens to be organic is probably overall good despite the harm from organic because it supports a healthy and protein rich meat replacement.
carnap wrote: Tue Feb 13, 2018 11:20 pm
brimstoneSalad wrote: Tue Feb 13, 2018 2:27 am Because, as a heuristic -- like pretty much all heuristics -- "vegan" is imperfect. It trades a measure of precision for ease of use.
The comment I was replying to was implying the "idea behind veganism" is such and such.....that to me implies veganism is something more than a mere heuristic.
Ah, OK.

Veganism is both. In the crude sense it's a simple heuristic. If you look at the spirit behind the law you'll come down to a principle of harm reduction: and there things that are crudely vegan (non-animal) may not be vegan and things that are crudely non-vegan may be vegan.

Palm oil and Oysters are common counter-examples.
carnap wrote: Tue Feb 13, 2018 11:20 pm
brimstoneSalad wrote: Tue Feb 13, 2018 2:27 am I judge people based on progress, not any arbitrary standard.
But progress towards what? Veganism? If so...then veganism isn't a heuristic but instead a goal. If not veganism....then what? What goal is progress being measured against?
Progress towards being a better person. Veganism isn't an end goal, particularly the crude heuristic. The general spirit behind the law may be, but it de-emphasizes doing good (it's only focused on personal harm reduction). Harm reduction from our behaviors is an important part of being a good person, but there's no reason we should be complacent in stopping there and not doing any better.
carnap wrote: Tue Feb 13, 2018 11:20 pmBut its not simple to execute in a society that makes systematic use of animals for food, clothing, research, etc.
It does say practicable and possible.
carnap wrote: Tue Feb 13, 2018 11:20 pmI'm not sure what cultural capital you have in mind because the "vegan" label is viewed negatively by mainstream culture and even vegan food businesses tend to avoid the term.
Vegan certification is on the rise; it's showing up on more and more products, and vastly more specialty products are available now for vegans.

Some of those food businesses (like beyond meat) are trying to penetrate another market, but you still see far more products with vegan clearly and in fairly large print on the front and at the end or start of the ingredients list.

The perception of vegan seems to be improving with the prevalence of more "normal" vegans in the mainstream, from actors to athletes.
carnap wrote: Tue Feb 13, 2018 11:20 pmBut also why should anybody except people to accept the vegan standard if one cannot make sense out of it?
That's what I'd fix. Doesn't seem to have been a problem for religion, though, given how much inconsistent nonsense there is in basic doctrine. People don't seem to have that much trouble with things they can't understand.

This is why some people argue for keeping the heuristic approach, animal products no & non-animal products yes, despite problems with some plant products and the harmlessness of some rare animal products.
carnap
Anti-Vegan Troll
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:54 pm

Re: Jellies and jams/ Gelatin

Post by carnap »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Wed Feb 14, 2018 2:44 pm I agree that organic is going to be animal-based.
Then you'd need to explain the contradictory guidelines where by-products are "non-vegan" but organic produce is vegan.

brimstoneSalad wrote: Tue Feb 13, 2018 2:27 am Veganism is both. In the crude sense it's a simple heuristic. If you look at the spirit behind the law you'll come down to a principle of harm reduction: and there things that are crudely vegan (non-animal) may not be vegan and things that are crudely non-vegan may be vegan.
How can it be both? That seems to be conceptually incoherent as a heuristic is by definition a process.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Tue Feb 13, 2018 2:27 am Progress towards being a better person. Veganism isn't an end goal, particularly the crude heuristic. The general spirit behind the law may be, but it de-emphasizes doing good (it's only focused on personal harm reduction). Harm reduction from our behaviors is an important part of being a good person, but there's no reason we should be complacent in stopping there and not doing any better.
So then what does it mean to be a better person? To "reduce harm"? By how much exactly and how would you measure it?

Claiming that veganism is a heuristic opens many questions, heuristics can be evaluated. So if someone is going to uphold veganism as anything other than an arbitrary standard they will have to demonstrate that it is, as a heuristic, valuable and effective compared to others. And this would require that one be very clear about the goal trying to be achieved.

brimstoneSalad wrote: Tue Feb 13, 2018 2:27 am It does say practicable and possible.
Yes, the official vegan society definition does but that is a post-hoc definition that doesn't seem to be actually used. After all, what is and isn't "practicable and possible" is contextual yet veganism in practice is rigid. Even that vegan society's "vegan certified" program is based on a very rigid understanding of what is and isn't vegan.

brimstoneSalad wrote: Tue Feb 13, 2018 2:27 am Some of those food businesses (like beyond meat) are trying to penetrate another market, but you still see far more products with vegan clearly and in fairly large print on the front and at the end or start of the ingredients list.
The perception of vegan seems to be improving with the prevalence of more "normal" vegans in the mainstream, from actors to athletes.
Personally I rarely see products boldly claim to be "vegan", instead its listed on the back or in small type on the front as to not call attention to it.

And what evidence is there that the perception of vegans is improving? Actors, athletes, etc often ditch the lifestyle and end up criticizing it. There is very little research on the perception of vegans so any claim either way would be mere conjecture, but what little research that does exist shows vegans are poorly regarded (I think I linked to the study earlier?).

brimstoneSalad wrote: Tue Feb 13, 2018 2:27 am That's what I'd fix. Doesn't seem to have been a problem for religion, though, given how much inconsistent nonsense there is in basic doctrine. People don't seem to have that much trouble with things they can't understand.
Sure, people can believe ideologies that aren't consistent but they won't be doing it rationally but religions also fit a niche in human psychology. They provide meaning, etc and veganism would have to be expanded to something akin to Jainism if it was going to be propagated like a religion.
I'm here to exploit you schmucks into demonstrating the blatant anti-intellectualism in the vegan community and the reality of veganism. But I can do that with any user name.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Jellies and jams/ Gelatin

Post by brimstoneSalad »

carnap wrote: Fri Feb 16, 2018 1:08 pm Then you'd need to explain the contradictory guidelines where by-products are "non-vegan" but organic produce is vegan.
I already explained it, I said people aren't that smart about pseudoscience and organic is hard to fight (may not be worth the effort).

I didn't say I liked it or agreed with it. I have no burden to defend that contradiction, if that's what you mean by "explain". It's just not a priority.

I would defend it in respect to products like tempeh, and I did. I would rather it not be organic, but the harm from it being organic is less than the good it does.
carnap wrote: Fri Feb 16, 2018 1:08 pmHow can it be both? That seems to be conceptually incoherent as a heuristic is by definition a process.
Because it has multiple definitions/a spectrum of definition.

Even the vegan society outlines two: the philosophy, and vegan in dietary terms.
carnap wrote: Fri Feb 16, 2018 1:08 pmSo then what does it mean to be a better person? To "reduce harm"? By how much exactly and how would you measure it?
"How much exactly?"

How much heavier exactly does somebody have to be to be a heavier person?

Being a better person can be achieved by any measure of improvement.
Somebody could get away with a slug's pace of improvement and technically be on that trajectory.

One person improving faster than another may indicate the person being a better person more motivated to do good or reduce harm, or it may be a product of circumstance.

It's easier to measure consequence of action than to figure out all of that and the details of circumstance.

carnap wrote: Fri Feb 16, 2018 1:08 pmClaiming that veganism is a heuristic opens many questions, heuristics can be evaluated. So if someone is going to uphold veganism as anything other than an arbitrary standard they will have to demonstrate that it is, as a heuristic, valuable and effective compared to others. And this would require that one be very clear about the goal trying to be achieved.
Yes, which is why I suggested starting a thread on the topic.

Is veganism the best heuristic? I don't know.

Reducetarianism, ostroveganism, freeganism, vegetarianism, flexitarianism, pescetarianism, one step, etc.

There are many competing heuristics that inform consumer and dietary behavior. On an individual level, more restriction of bad products/greater harm reduction is better as long as the person has the will power to sustain it, but on a societal level to affect maximal change that's not so clear.
Starting with heuristics that recommend less change may be more broadly accepted and as such do more faster, and even lead to better overall outcomes (and even people adopting more strict heuristics sooner).

carnap wrote: Fri Feb 16, 2018 1:08 pmYes, the official vegan society definition does but that is a post-hoc definition that doesn't seem to be actually used.
It's used among vegans quite a bit.
carnap wrote: Fri Feb 16, 2018 1:08 pmAfter all, what is and isn't "practicable and possible" is contextual yet veganism in practice is rigid. Even that vegan society's "vegan certified" program is based on a very rigid understanding of what is and isn't vegan.
Because you can't certify something vegan or not by any other standard; each person can't see something different on packaging to know if it's vegan for him or her based on the individual's unique circumstances at the time.

Certification is based strictly on dietary terms as outlined in the latter part of the definition.
But that doesn't mean somebody isn't vegan if he or she consumes something that isn't strictly vegan in those terms.

It's like Jewish and Kosher. People can still be Jewish if they eat something non-kosher, and in fact anything is "kosher" (in terms of permitted by the law) if it's necessary to save a life (like somebody is starving). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pikuach_nefesh

Is Kosher meaningless because it has exceptions? Or do the "kosher" labels on food mean it has no exceptions for life and death scenarios and you're not Jewish anymore if you consume something non-kosher to save your life or save a child from drowning on the Sabbath or any other violation of the otherwise rigid Torah?
carnap wrote: Fri Feb 16, 2018 1:08 pmPersonally I rarely see products boldly claim to be "vegan", instead its listed on the back or in small type on the front as to not call attention to it.
Seems to be clearly visible to me, and you are seeing it. They're not trying to hide it.
Obviously it's going to be small so as not to take up a bunch of space, just like kosher is on products with the exception of "kosher salt" which is what the salt is called.
carnap wrote: Fri Feb 16, 2018 1:08 pmAnd what evidence is there that the perception of vegans is improving? Actors, athletes, etc often ditch the lifestyle and end up criticizing it.
Can you show me what you mean? Are they trashing vegans, or just saying it didn't work for them personally and that it's great if other people can do it?

Overwhelmingly, ex-vegans, except the vocal minority who built their reputation on it, are not venomous to vegans or veganism, and many failed vegans and vegetarians are willing and interested in trying again, which is what surveys report.
carnap wrote: Fri Feb 16, 2018 1:08 pmwhat little research that does exist shows vegans are poorly regarded (I think I linked to the study earlier?).
I haven't seen that in any studies I've read (and I think I've read them all). Can you quote what you are interpreting as that?

People experiencing peer pressure and pressure from family doesn't mean vegans are poorly regarded, it means eating is very social and people want their friends and families to eat poorly with them.
Similar pressure exists for obese people from their obese friends and family (in particular) when they try to lose weight, it would be comical to interpret that as meaning a healthy BMI is poorly regarded.
carnap wrote: Fri Feb 16, 2018 1:08 pmSure, people can believe ideologies that aren't consistent but they won't be doing it rationally but religions also fit a niche in human psychology. They provide meaning, etc and veganism would have to be expanded to something akin to Jainism if it was going to be propagated like a religion.
Not really, secular value systems have a niche in absence of religious ones; they don't need to pick up all of the supernatural trapping to fit the bill of providing meaning and purpose.
Post Reply