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.
carnap
Anti-Vegan Troll
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:54 pm

Re: Jellies and jams/ Gelatin

Post by carnap »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Fri Feb 16, 2018 4:01 pm 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).
Not sure what you mean by "hard to fight", in most situations its rather easy to avoid organic and it usually costs considerably more.

But part of the issue here is on principle, one needs to explain why the direct consumption of byproducts is off-limits by principle but not organic produce which makes use of similar byproducts.

brimstoneSalad wrote: Fri Feb 16, 2018 4:01 pm Because it has multiple definitions/a spectrum of definition.
Not sure what it means for a term to have "a spectrum of definition". A word can have more than one meaning (e.g., homonyms) but in that case each meaning is a separate notion.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Fri Feb 16, 2018 4:01 pm Even the vegan society outlines two: the philosophy, and vegan in dietary terms.
The Vegan Society doesn't outline a philosophy, it has a relatively vague definition of veganism as a lifestyle:

"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"

And then a clarification of what that means in dietary terms. Historically the "dietary terms" came first, the definition was post-hoc.



brimstoneSalad wrote: Fri Feb 16, 2018 4:01 pm It's used among vegans quite a bit.
Its "used" in the sense that vegans refer to it but that isn't what I had in mind. Instead that the definition doesn't seem to guide vegan beliefs and behavior and its hard to see how it could....its rather vague and what it means "to be vegan" in dietary and lifestyle terms was already settled before the definition was created.

brimstoneSalad wrote: Fri Feb 16, 2018 4:01 pm 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?
I don't know enough about Judaism to know how they feel about the use of non-kosher items. But there is a a major difference here, veganism is by definition a lifestyle and not a specific religious belief or philosophic outlook. And its very common for vegans to critique someone for utilizing a non-vegan good.


brimstoneSalad wrote: Fri Feb 16, 2018 4:01 pm 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.
Its visible in some cases, its totally missing in others. But rarely is it emphasized and that is because its not well regarded by the average consumer.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Fri Feb 16, 2018 4:01 pm 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?
Usually its criticism of the lifestyle, for example, Angelina Jolie had this to say:

"I joke that a big juicy steak is my beauty secret. But seriously,I love red meat. I was a vegan for a long time, and it nearly killed me. I found I was not getting enough nutrition."

brimstoneSalad wrote: Fri Feb 16, 2018 4:01 pm 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.
Based on what? I don't know of any study that has looked at the overall disposition of ex-vegans on vegans or veganism. Anecdotally I hear current and ex-vegans complain about the vegan community all the time. In terms of interest in trying again, the faunalytics study did look at that and around only around 30% were interested in trying again.

brimstoneSalad wrote: Fri Feb 16, 2018 4:01 pm 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?
For example:

http://onestepmatters.com/UofAZMarketingResearch.pdf


brimstoneSalad wrote: Fri Feb 16, 2018 4:01 pm 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.
Secular value systems are typically rooted in some moral or political philosophy and not blatant inconsistencies.
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: Wed Feb 21, 2018 4:01 am Not sure what you mean by "hard to fight", in most situations its rather easy to avoid organic and it usually costs considerably more.
Hard to fight socially. It may not be worth complaining about organic things being non-vegan because it's more likely to confuse people and not worth the extended argument about how organic food is not healthier nor is its production better for the environment.

On an individual level, it's possible to avoid organic most of the time and will likely be cheaper, but there are products made with organic ingredients that don't have non-organic competition, and which are good products that on balance are worth supporting (tempeh was an example).
carnap wrote: Wed Feb 21, 2018 4:01 amBut part of the issue here is on principle, one needs to explain why the direct consumption of byproducts is off-limits by principle but not organic produce which makes use of similar byproducts.
Because the average person can understand the former, but (at least the average "green" consumer) is under the delusion that organic is much healthier and better for the environment.

carnap wrote: Wed Feb 21, 2018 4:01 amNot sure what it means for a term to have "a spectrum of definition". A word can have more than one meaning (e.g., homonyms) but in that case each meaning is a separate notion.
It means that the definitions don't cluster strongly around a couple discrete points, but that people define it differently on nearly an individual level, BUT those definitions aren't spread randomly; they can be plotted on a spectrum within a certain typical range.

Consider "Christianity", which ranges from a more secular deism where Jesus was a teacher and the Bible is metaphor no better or worse than any other scripture (just personal preference) to various forms of Biblical literalism and exclusionary theology. There's a spectrum of acceptable definition from following the teachings of a human teacher on forgiveness and love, to using a man-god as a scapegoat and technical loophole for your sins and without which you won't get into heaven. They don't cluster that strongly at the extremes, and most people fall somewhere in-between accepting some things as literal truth and others as metaphor, and believing in some measure of supernatural vicarious redemption and heaven but not completely.

Most definitions that are tied with identity and moral belief end up like that, because people put their own spins on them, and take them to varying degrees in practice.

carnap wrote: Wed Feb 21, 2018 4:01 am
brimstoneSalad wrote: Fri Feb 16, 2018 4:01 pm Even the vegan society outlines two: the philosophy, and vegan in dietary terms.
The Vegan Society doesn't outline a philosophy, it has a relatively vague definition of veganism as a lifestyle:

"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"

And then a clarification of what that means in dietary terms. Historically the "dietary terms" came first, the definition was post-hoc.
Read the full definition:
"A philosophy and 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; 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."
https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism

Doesn't matter if it's post-hoc.
carnap wrote: Wed Feb 21, 2018 4:01 amIts "used" in the sense that vegans refer to it but that isn't what I had in mind.
Well, then I feel like you're just moving the goalposts here.
carnap wrote: Wed Feb 21, 2018 4:01 amInstead that the definition doesn't seem to guide vegan beliefs and behavior and its hard to see how it could....its rather vague and what it means "to be vegan" in dietary and lifestyle terms was already settled before the definition was created.
Well, to me it clearly can and does. Being an outsider you may not be in the position to really observe that, and I feel like no matter what I say as evidence you're just going to move the goalposts again.

Look into freeganism, ostroveganism, vegans' approach to medicine, and the stance on trace ingredients in practice from one of the largest vegan advocacy organizations in the world: https://www.peta.org/living/food/making-transition-vegetarian/ideas-vegetarian-living/tiny-amount-animal-products-food/

ALL of the largest and growing voices in the vegan movement are gravitating toward effective altruism and pragmatism based on the philosophical definition of veganism which is innately pragmatic. You can ignore that if you want or employ a no true Scotsman fallacy and claim they aren't vegan anymore, but the definition clearly has substantial influence if you look at the actual movers.

Go ahead and shift the goalposts again. :roll:
I hope you'll understand why I likely won't reply further on this issue. Your claims are vague and shifting with each post.

WE use that definition here and it informs our activism, so if you'll accept nothing else then at least accept that.
If you want to call it a homonym, fine. Say we're using a unique and special definition of veganism on the forum if you want, but when we talk about it here that's what we're talking about.
carnap wrote: Wed Feb 21, 2018 4:01 amBut there is a a major difference here, veganism is by definition a lifestyle and not a specific religious belief or philosophic outlook.
Obviously I disagree, but that's not the definition we use on this forum, so let's leave it there OK?
Here we use the philosophical definition first and foremost, and the dietary one only applies to foods when it comes to crude heuristics like certification, not to people.
carnap wrote: Wed Feb 21, 2018 4:01 amAnd its very common for vegans to critique someone for utilizing a non-vegan good.
There are the vegan 'nazis', and this is generally regarded as dickish and inappropriate.

There are times where it's arguably appropriate, like if you see a vegan chowing down on a hamburger when he or she thinks nobody is watching (in which case he or she is probably a "poser"), or making poor arguments for something (in which case counter-argument is appropriate since this person brought it up), but when people are making a legitimate effort it's appropriate to give the benefit of the doubt.
carnap wrote: Wed Feb 21, 2018 4:01 amIts visible in some cases, its totally missing in others. But rarely is it emphasized and that is because its not well regarded by the average consumer.
You're really stretching.
Which is proof that the general public is antisemitic?

Kosher symbols are small and not emphasized on products, therefore Jews are poorly regarded by the public at large?
Pew says otherwise.
carnap wrote: Wed Feb 21, 2018 4:01 amUsually its criticism of the lifestyle, for example, Angelina Jolie had this to say:

"I joke that a big juicy steak is my beauty secret. But seriously,I love red meat. I was a vegan for a long time, and it nearly killed me. I found I was not getting enough nutrition."
A bunch of personal claims as rationalization.
She diagnoses herself that she wasn't getting enough nutrition. Still, it was a very shitty thing for her to say like that. The "nearly killed me" line was a very bad joke/exaggeration.

Is that the worst you can find? And that's proof that veganism is badly regarded, that some random dumb actor felt she had to joke and rationalize her quitting veganism?
carnap wrote: Wed Feb 21, 2018 4:01 amBased on what? I don't know of any study that has looked at the overall disposition of ex-vegans on vegans or veganism.
Based on the surveys that have been done, where they asked them if they'd be willing to try again.
carnap wrote: Wed Feb 21, 2018 4:01 amAnecdotally I hear current and ex-vegans complain about the vegan community all the time.
There's a lot to complain about in the vegan community, and a lot of bad behavior (as with any in-group) particularly for ex-vegans because quitting veganism may mean being ostracized. About veganism generally though? No, there's still a lot of lip service that it's a good thing to do, but just too hard/that vegans aren't supportive enough (from ex-vegans), and the latter is pretty legitimate criticism that we need to listen to.
carnap wrote: Wed Feb 21, 2018 4:01 amIn terms of interest in trying again, the faunalytics study did look at that and around only around 30% were interested in trying again.
That's the one. 37% for vegetarians/vegans actually, which is very good from my perspective (not sure what it is for just vegans).
More than a third (37%) of former vegetarians/vegans
indicated that they are interested in resuming a vegetarian/
vegan diet. Of these individuals, more than half (59%) said
they are likely or very likely to do so.
https://faunalytics.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Faunalytics_Current-Former-Vegetarians_Full-Report.pdf

These are people who retain positive enough attitudes toward it that they want to try again.

Given that, the ratio who have distinctly negative attitudes is likely very small, a fraction of those 63% who aren't interested in resuming it, since neutral attitudes should be expected to prevail (most ex-vegans I have met said they tried it and it wasn't for them, but expressed admiration for my being vegan and a generally positive attitude). We would reasonably expect more people to have positive attitudes toward veganism generally but not be interested in trying again (since wanting to try again is on the extreme end of positivity).
carnap wrote: Wed Feb 21, 2018 4:01 am http://onestepmatters.com/UofAZMarketingResearch.pdf
Onestep is an interesting idea. Is that something you're doing?
carnap wrote: Wed Feb 21, 2018 4:01 amSecular value systems are typically rooted in some moral or political philosophy and not blatant inconsistencies.
Eh, not really. Look at Dillahunty. Most secular value systems seem pretty rife with contradictions.
User avatar
PsYcHo
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1166
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:24 pm
Diet: Pescetarian

Re: Jellies and jams/ Gelatin

Post by PsYcHo »

that moment when you realize your simple debate topic has evolved into an intellectual "clash of the titans" :shock:

;)
Alcohol may have been a factor.

Taxation is theft.
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 21, 2018 3:49 pm Hard to fight socially. It may not be worth complaining about organic things being non-vegan because it's more likely to confuse people and not worth the extended argument about how organic food is not healthier nor is its production better for the environment.
Its also hard to fight against the use and consumption of animal byproducts. If one is going to provide practical reasons for not focusing on organic, why wouldn't the same practical issues apply to animal byproducts? Having to nitpick every packaged food you buy for traces off animal ingredients is a big deal. My point here is that there doesn't appear to be anything morally relevant to the avoidance of byproducts while the acceptance of organic, its an arbitrary aspect of veganism based on its history that is dogmatically maintained today.

brimstoneSalad wrote: Wed Feb 21, 2018 3:49 pm It means that the definitions don't cluster strongly around a couple discrete points, but that people define it differently on nearly an individual level, BUT those definitions aren't spread randomly; they can be plotted on a spectrum within a certain typical range.
If the definitions aren't "spread randomly" then you should be able to explain what is core and that should, in fact, be the definition of the term.

Philosophers, mathematicians, etc all provide clear definitions for abstract notions all the time. So the lack of such a definition for "veganism" indicates, if anything, a lack of philosophic rigor....at least to me.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Wed Feb 21, 2018 3:49 pm There's a spectrum of acceptable definition from following the teachings of a human teacher on forgiveness and love, to using a man-god as a scapegoat and technical loophole for your sins and without which you won't get into heaven.
There is also a notion of "core Christianity" which is widely discussed in Christianity theology. Having sects of a core ideology doesn't exempt one from providing a definition for the core ideology.

But we aren't talking about sects of a common core here, describing veganism as "a heuristic" is categorically different than defining on some moral principle. Now there are people that will suggest religions are a sort of heuristic to the "divine", but these people are making a clear distinction between the heuristic (religion) and the goal of the heuristic (the divine) and their position is directly at odds with the religions themselves.

So suggesting that veganism is a heuristic is just fine, but suggesting that its a heuristic and a moral position is conceptually flawed. But if veganism is a heuristic then one needs explain what it is a heuristic towards.

brimstoneSalad wrote: Wed Feb 21, 2018 3:49 pm
"A philosophy and 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; 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."
Its the same definition which just describes a lifestyle, prefixing it with "A philosophy" doesn't change anything. The point is the definition describes a lifestyle and not "a philosophy".

And I would suggest post-hoc definitions "matter" because they indicate how the ideas are being developed. In this case what veganism meant "in dietary terms" came first and that indicates what veganism is really about.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Wed Feb 21, 2018 3:49 pm ALL of the largest and growing voices in the vegan movement are gravitating toward effective altruism and pragmatism based on the philosophical definition of veganism which is innately pragmatic. You can ignore that if you want or employ a no true Scotsman fallacy and claim they aren't vegan anymore, but the definition clearly has substantial influence if you look at the actual movers.
What is the philosophical definition veganism? The moral stance of vegans seems to differ significantly from person to person, the only common core is that they practice a vegan lifestyle. For example some vegans believe in a sort of consequentialism while others uphold a rights-based approach (i.e., deontology) and these are philosophically rather different moral stances to have.

And I think the claim that *ALL* the largest and growing voices follow what you suggest is wrong, there are are number of abolitionist vegans that are popular. For example DxE is large and growing and is oriented more long abolitionist lines than pragmatic ones.

And personally I don't care who calls themselves vegan.


brimstoneSalad wrote: Wed Feb 21, 2018 3:49 pm Obviously I disagree, but that's not the definition we use on this forum, so let's leave it there OK?
Here we use the philosophical definition first and foremost, and the dietary one only applies to foods when it comes to crude heuristics like certification, not to people.
That is fine, but what is the "philosophical definition"? Also if its just the definition employed on this forum and not representative of veganism as a whole in what sense is it "the" philosophical definition but instead the definition of whoever runs the forum?
brimstoneSalad wrote: Wed Feb 21, 2018 3:49 pm Kosher symbols are small and not emphasized on products, therefore Jews are poorly regarded by the public at large?
Pew says otherwise.
Never did I suggest such a thing, I provided research that looks at how the general public views the "vegan" label.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Wed Feb 21, 2018 3:49 pm Is that the worst you can find? And that's proof that veganism is badly regarded, that some random dumb actor felt she had to joke and rationalize her quitting veganism?
No, again, I provided research as "proof" that veganism is badly regarded. I referred to the celebrity comment because you asked, my point was that celebrities going vegan often become ex-vegans that speak poorly of veganism.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Wed Feb 21, 2018 3:49 pm Given that, the ratio who have distinctly negative attitudes is likely very small, a fraction of those 63% who aren't interested in resuming it, since neutral attitudes should be expected to prevail (most ex-vegans I have met said they tried it and it wasn't for them,
Why would the ratio be small? All we know from the study is that 63% had no interest in trying again, what the overall disposition of this group wasn't studied. Since they don't want to try again it seems clear that their view is is negative, now how many have "distinctly negative attitudes"? I don't know....that is something you'd have to research.
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: Sun Feb 25, 2018 3:51 pm
brimstoneSalad wrote: Wed Feb 21, 2018 3:49 pm Hard to fight socially. It may not be worth complaining about organic things being non-vegan because it's more likely to confuse people and not worth the extended argument about how organic food is not healthier nor is its production better for the environment.
Its also hard to fight against the use and consumption of animal byproducts. If one is going to provide practical reasons for not focusing on organic, why wouldn't the same practical issues apply to animal byproducts?
They do, and that's why we don't care very much about animal byproducts here. We are unlikely to tell somebody he or she isn't vegan for not reading a lengthy ingredients list. The small stuff doesn't matter much. Just like we're probably not going to say somebody isn't vegan for eating something organic, maybe unless we're in an argument where the person is claiming organic is good and ignoring the evidence. We're probably more likely to call somebody out on organic due to the pseudoscience, but that's here: in the wild that might not be as productive.

I agree that PETA is probably right on this issue:
https://www.peta.org/living/food/making-transition-vegetarian/ideas-vegetarian-living/tiny-amount-animal-products-food/

However, there is a difference in terms of heuristics that one is much easier in practice to explain than the other.
Even many vegans get very defensive of their organic foods, while nobody is particularly attached to all of these animal byproducts.

Virtually nobody thinks these extensive ingredients list and all of these byproducts are good for the world, but they do think organic is a force for good. :roll:

With byproducts it's just the reasonable approach to not wanting to nitpick; not wanting it but not caring enough to worry about it. With organic people are actively advocating FOR it and choosing it over alternatives; there's emotional investment there, rather than just a question of practicality.
carnap wrote: Sun Feb 25, 2018 3:51 pmHaving to nitpick every packaged food you buy for traces off animal ingredients is a big deal.
Sure, and not very many vegans are being critical of other vegans for not doing that. PETA, one of the largest animal rights organizations in the world, even actively encourages people NOT to do that.

The trouble in terms of certification of something as vegan is that such a heuristic is extremely difficult.
Having to take into account farming methods, when there's very little information on that available, would also be extremely difficult.

It's easy to say animal derived = not vegan for labeling purposes.
carnap wrote: Sun Feb 25, 2018 3:51 pmMy point here is that there doesn't appear to be anything morally relevant to the avoidance of byproducts while the acceptance of organic, its an arbitrary aspect of veganism based on its history that is dogmatically maintained today.
Then avoid organic and ignore the micro-ingredients in foods if you want to?

The reason we have the labeling standards we do is probably a combination of simplicity and the irrational pro-organic bias based on pseudo-scientific beliefs.
carnap wrote: Sun Feb 25, 2018 3:51 pmIf the definitions aren't "spread randomly" then you should be able to explain what is core and that should, in fact, be the definition of the term.
Not if they're plotted on a spectrum. I can only define the axis for you. It ranges from one to another.
carnap wrote: Sun Feb 25, 2018 3:51 pmPhilosophers, mathematicians, etc all provide clear definitions for abstract notions all the time. So the lack of such a definition for "veganism" indicates, if anything, a lack of philosophic rigor....at least to me.
The common definition of "vegan" is not philosophically rigorous, because it also defines a loose threshold of practice, so there are a lot of potential contradictions between letter and spirit.

This has been a problem in discourse, and among vegans arguing what is or isn't vegan.

In order to make it rigorous, it must be considered two different things: vegan as practice in terms of a simple heuristic that rejects things that are direct animal products (which is of course somewhat arbitrary), and veganism in its associated philosophical principle which just defines a general consequentialist ethical position of reducing harm (one meant to be generally compatible with many metaethical systems)... which doesn't always mean strict vegan in practice. It's possible that accompanying empirical beliefs can make the latter come to a conclusion similar to the former, but it's not likely for fringe cases like oysters and freeganism.

The principle is not a complete philosophy in itself, it's a statement that is broadly applicable. It's intentionally vague in that sense to not exclude anybody (or to exclude as few as possible).

"Carnism" is actually much more rigorously defined, and if we had a do-over we might define the vegan philosophy as a rejection of carnism.
But of course not all people who happen to be eating meat are carnists, because there's no aspect of practice there.

"Sentientist" is probably better.
"Speciesist" is also more rigorous, but doesn't imply anything about practice at all. Somebody can be non-speciesist and eat meat.

If you want clear conclusions and rigor, you really need to deal with ethical systems directly, talking about various formulations of utilitarianism etc.
carnap wrote: Sun Feb 25, 2018 3:51 pmThere is also a notion of "core Christianity" which is widely discussed in Christianity theology. Having sects of a core ideology doesn't exempt one from providing a definition for the core ideology.
There are attempts at it. But they would exclude MANY people who consider themselves Christian, and that's a problem.
carnap wrote: Sun Feb 25, 2018 3:51 pmNow there are people that will suggest religions are a sort of heuristic to the "divine", but these people are making a clear distinction between the heuristic (religion) and the goal of the heuristic (the divine) and their position is directly at odds with the religions themselves.
Like the distinction I said you'd need to make above, if you want rigor.
carnap wrote: Sun Feb 25, 2018 3:51 pmSo suggesting that veganism is a heuristic is just fine, but suggesting that its a heuristic and a moral position is conceptually flawed.
And yet it is both, because of how the definition is framed. It outlines a general consequentialist moral position, and then it talks about a lifestyle heuristic. Note the "and".
"A philosophy and 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; 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."
carnap wrote: Sun Feb 25, 2018 3:51 pmBut if veganism is a heuristic then one needs explain what it is a heuristic towards.
I think that's done in the definition.

It explains the goal, which is reducing harm to animals, and the heuristic.

Could the definition be more clear? Absolutely.
carnap wrote: Sun Feb 25, 2018 3:51 pm Its the same definition which just describes a lifestyle, prefixing it with "A philosophy" doesn't change anything. The point is the definition describes a lifestyle and not "a philosophy".
It's a poorly written definition, but it's in there.

"and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment."

Clearly consequentialist, looking to benefit humans, animals & the environment.
carnap wrote: Sun Feb 25, 2018 3:51 pmIn this case what veganism meant "in dietary terms" came first and that indicates what veganism is really about.
When it was only a handful of people?
No it doesn't, it indicates what the easiest consensus was to come to because those people were in disagreement on how to frame the philosophical aspect.

Veganism historically arose from vegetarians rejecting dairy and eggs due to ethical concerns. A lot of it was tied to ahimsa in spirituality, which is also a philosophical position.

carnap wrote: Sun Feb 25, 2018 3:51 pmThe moral stance of vegans seems to differ significantly from person to person, the only common core is that they practice a vegan lifestyle.
There are "dietary vegans" who have no moral position and are just doing it for expected health benefits.

I'm not sure if it's worth arguing that they're actually vegetarians (of the not ovo-lacto variety).
carnap wrote: Sun Feb 25, 2018 3:51 pmFor example some vegans believe in a sort of consequentialism while others uphold a rights-based approach (i.e., deontology) and these are philosophically rather different moral stances to have.
It is difficult and perhaps impossible to reconcile a deontological approach with the definition of vegan, but deontology can't even be reconciled with itself or any kind of practice, so they presumably have no problems contradicting themselves.

carnap wrote: Sun Feb 25, 2018 3:51 pmAnd I think the claim that *ALL* the largest and growing voices follow what you suggest is wrong,
The internal culture of PETA has been moving that way for a while (old deontological web material they had has been disappearing), and veganism is gaining traction in effective altruism.
carnap wrote: Sun Feb 25, 2018 3:51 pmthere are are number of abolitionist vegans that are popular. For example DxE is large and growing and is oriented more long abolitionist lines than pragmatic ones.
I think those are just a visible minority due to how absurd they are.

If DxE is really growing as you say that could be a problem unless their culture is shifting to a more evidence based approach of effective activism as PETA has been doing; that could just be a process of growth and maturity for these organizations.
carnap wrote: Sun Feb 25, 2018 3:51 pmAlso if its just the definition employed on this forum and not representative of veganism as a whole in what sense is it "the" philosophical definition but instead the definition of whoever runs the forum?
Because non-rigorous definitions need not apply.
I think the full vegan society definition I cited is fairly rigorous, it's just not very well written which is different, and it references two distinct things (the philosophy and the practice/heuristic).
carnap wrote: Sun Feb 25, 2018 3:51 pm
brimstoneSalad wrote: Wed Feb 21, 2018 3:49 pm Kosher symbols are small and not emphasized on products, therefore Jews are poorly regarded by the public at large?
Pew says otherwise.
Never did I suggest such a thing, I provided research that looks at how the general public views the "vegan" label.
You argued that companies are trying to hide the label because it's poorly viewed, but the same argument would apply to the kosher label.
It being small and often on the back or in the corner is not any kind of evidence for public perception. If they were that worried about it they wouldn't put it on at all, because vegans are a very very small percentage of consumers who will buy it anyway because of the ingredients.

Beyond meat is the only one I can think of that avoids it, and a large part of that is probably due to their appeal to investors and trying to reach another market. It's an interesting approach, but hardly evidence when the vegan label is growing more than ever on other products who obviously are not that concerned.
carnap wrote: Sun Feb 25, 2018 3:51 pmNo, again, I provided research as "proof" that veganism is badly regarded.
What's the research? Because somebody tried veganism and doesn't want to try again doesn't mean that vegans, vegan products, or veganism is badly regarded by that person. People who tried vegan also apparently eat less meat afterwards and keep eating some of the new vegan products they were introduced to and liked. It's very plausible that they have a higher opinion of vegans (in the sense of the difficulties they had).

Can you quote and link to some actual evidence for what you claim? Is there a pew survey I'm not aware of?

Because Dr Oz just released his "Pegan" diet based on paleo and vegan both trending (which is basically a rebranding of the Mediterranean diet).
Anecdotally, vegan is showing up a lot, and there are more products than ever. The meat and dairy alternative markets are both exploding.
carnap wrote: Sun Feb 25, 2018 3:51 pmWhy would the ratio be small?
Because 37% are SO positive that they want to try again.
carnap wrote: Sun Feb 25, 2018 3:51 pmAll we know from the study is that 63% had no interest in trying again, what the overall disposition of this group wasn't studied.
You say this, then you make ridiculous assumptions:
carnap wrote: Sun Feb 25, 2018 3:51 pmSince they don't want to try again it seems clear that their view is is negative
I've met ex-vegans who didn't want to try again, and they were positive about veganism for the world, just thought it wasn't for them because they couldn't do it, craved meat, or they thought their bodies needed it specifically. They were positive and congratulative/admirative of others being vegan.

Being a non-vegan, you probably haven't received personal praise from nearly every ex-vegan you've met for being vegan.

Anecdotally, I can say they're almost all still positive about veganism for the world, animals, etc. but just very down on their own ability to do it.
The survey does nothing to contradict that, and to me says that an astoundingly large number want to try again.
User avatar
VGnizm
Full Member
Posts: 137
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2017 1:31 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: Jellies and jams/ Gelatin

Post by VGnizm »

I would like to share that i have observerd that the interest in Veganism is on the rise globally and in general but it is also generating a plant-based consumer category. This community is attracting many people.

I am encountering many people who want to avoid meat rather than wanting to be vegan and the main reason is health based. I believe this is an excellent development and politics is going to support this as well.

This plant-based community is an easy entry point for people to reduce meat consumption but it also opens the door for further progress towards educating people about the many other benefits of avoiding meat.
Be Strong Be Vegan !
Life Loving Foods™ ! - https://www.LifeLovingFoods.com/index.php :)
Life Loving Foods™ - Twitter! - https://twitter.com/LifeLovingFoods :)
Post Reply