The vegan position on shellfish is inconsistent.

[user_id]

False; there were several vegan communities long before Watson was even born. As early as 1834, there were vegan communities, they were simply not called vegan yet; just vegetarian or strict vegetarian. Watson coined the word, but he did not invent it.

Strict-vegetarian isn't vegan....and what were these groups? Can you actually refer to them? It would be interesting to know how they were actually able survive without any source of B-12.

The vegan society is not the definitive authority on veganism. George Rodger, the current chair of the organization, is not the leader of veganism. He is not the vegan version of the pope. Their magazine, 'The Vegan', is not the vegan version of the bible. It's not organized like that, and the

You said its not organized, but its clearly organized and organized from the start. And you're right, its not organized like the catholic church and nor did I suggest it was......but it is organized in a way similar to a protestant sect. In this case there is no clear single authority but instead a number of authority figures and a number of groups with slightly differing views.....but they share a common core. Same goes with veganism today, there are a variety of authority figures and a variety of groups with slightly different views...but with a common core which is the consumer boycott of "non-vegan" products as defined by the groups.

Now, just to be clear, I'm not necessarily suggesting veganism is a religion....but its certainly well organized and organized in a way that is similar to some religious sects.

Exactly; there are many vegan groups. And they disagree with each other all the time, because there is no central authority or doctrine.

If there is no central doctrine.....then everyone is vegan if they just start calling themselves such? Without a central doctrine....what exactly does it mean to be vegan?

I think this is a case where you say one thing and act in another.....because what it means vegan is rather clear. You become vegan by following the lifestyle boycott of "non-vegan" products. The fact that there is some slight variations as to what counts as a "non-vegan" product doesn't mean there isn't a doctrine, just as slight disagreement between churches doesn't mean protestantism isn't a religion.

The ethical basis for veganism varies between vegans, depending on what kind of normative ethics they subscribe to. The easiest distinction to make is between deontology and consequentialism. Deontological vegans are more likely to believe the consumption of shellfish is unethical, because they think shellfish, being animals, have certain inalienable rights, such as the right not to be used. Consequentialist vegans might believe shellfish are sentient and therefore avoid them. Or they could be unsure whether or not shellfish are sentient, and decide to not take the risk.

It does? So then what exactly does it mean to be vegan? Is it just as I said? You become vegan by following a doctrine...namely the lifestyle boycott of "non-vegan" products and activities?

And, just to note again, my post wasn't about bivalves but instead shell-fish as a whole. Bivalves lack of sentience wasn't the issue I was getting at. Both "consequentialist vegans" and "deontological vegans" need to provide an explanation for this apparent inconsistency.....failure to do so hints at dogmaticism. The way I phrased things in the OP was in terms of consequentism....but you could as just as easily asked it within a deontic framework.

[DarlBundren]

I guess you consider abolitionism a doctrine too, right?

[miniboes]

Strict-vegetarian isn't vegan....and what were these groups? Can you actually refer to them? It would be interesting to know how they were actually able survive without any source of B-12.

They certainly had vegan diets; they did not eat/drink any animal products. There just wasn't a word for it yet, so they called it strict vegetarianism. Here's two examples:

The British and Foreign Society for the Promotion of Humanity and Abstinence from Animal Food, 1843 (101 years before 'vegan' was coined by Watson):
http://www.ivu.org/history/societies/britfor.html

The Fruitlands, 1844:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruitlands_%28transcendental_center%29

I'm not sure whether or not these communities were vegan beyond diet (if they used leather, wool, etc.). There was an article in the magazine of the Vegetarian Society in 1851 (93 years ahead of Watson) which discusses alternatives to leather shoes, which implies that there were people that condemned the use of animals for non-food purposes too.

On the B12 issue, I'd note that they probably weren't vegan from birth. Therefore, they could've had built up B12 reserves from the animal products they consumed. Secondly, perhaps B12 was still abundant in vegetables and such back then, since they did not remove all the bacteria through a rigorous cleaning process (I'm not sure what food production in 1844 looked like). And maybe they did have health problems due to B12 deficiency, but they weren't documented or noticed.

I'll respond to the rest of your post tomorrow.

[PsYcHo]

Perhaps I just took issue with you not directly addressing the argument and going the lazy route, calling it "pathetic".

What argument? An explanation was given why vegans avoid shellfish and, if true, I suggested was pathetic.

I would have taken less issue with you calling the argument pathetic if you had said "I think your argument is pathetic because { X }". There are dozens of other terms you could have used, but ending the sentence with that was rude. I'm definitely not the PC police, (look around, I say all kinds of controversial shit. ), but I believe extending common courtesy to others even if you disagree is not only possible, but quite easy.

I'll address your other points at a later date, but I just wanted to explain why I responded as I did, and I hope we can continue to debate in the future.

[user_id]

The British and Foreign Society for the Promotion of Humanity and Abstinence from Animal Food, 1843 (101 years before 'vegan' was coined by Watson):
http://www.ivu.org/history/societies/britfor.html%0A%5B/quote%5D%0AThe%20existence%20of%20vegetarianism%20prior%20to%20Donald%20Watson%20is%20not%20in%20dispute,%20I%20see%20nothing%20in%20this%20that%20indicates%20that%20this%20was%20anything%20beyond%20the%20following%20of%20a%20meat-free%20%28i.e.,%20vegetarian%29%20diet.%20%20%20%0A%0A%5Bquote=%22miniboes%22%5D%0AThe%20Fruitlands,%201844:%0A%5Bclickylink%5Dhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruitlands_%28transcendental_center%29

The existence of vegetarianism prior to Donald Watson is not in dispute, I see nothing in this that indicates that this was anything beyond the following of a meat-free (i.e., vegetarian) diet.

The Fruitlands, 1844:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruitlands_%28transcendental_center%29

Really? This is your example? "The community was short-lived and lasted only seven months".

On the B12 issue, I'd note that they probably weren't vegan from birth. Therefore, they could've had built up B12 reserves from the animal products they consumed. Secondly, perhaps B12 was still abundant in vegetables and such back then, since they did not remove all the bacteria through a rigorous cleaning process (I'm not sure what food production in 1844 looked like). And maybe they did have health problems due to B12 deficiency, but they weren't documented or noticed.

Your reserves of B-12 will start to run out after 3~5 years and vegetables aren't a source of B-12....cleaning them has nothing to do with it. But, again, I see nothing that you've cited that implies that these people were consuming entirely plant-based diets.

But regardless, veganism was created by Donald Watson. He didn't create it out of a vacuum, it was based on western vegetarianism which was brought to the UK via eastern religion (i.e., Hinduism).

[user_id]

I would have taken less issue with you calling the argument pathetic if you had said "I think your argument is pathetic because { X }". There are dozens of other terms you could have used, but ending the sentence with that was rude. I'm definitely not the PC police, (look around, I say all kinds of controversial shit. ), but I believe extending common courtesy to others even if you disagree is not only possible, but quite easy.

I gave the reason and, sorry, I just don't think calling an idea being put forth pathetic is a big deal. You, on the other hand, attempted to personally attack me.....so perhaps you should give yourself this speech?

[PsYcHo]

I gave the reason and, sorry, I just don't think calling an idea being put forth pathetic is a big deal. You, on the other hand, attempted to personally attack me.....so perhaps you should give yourself this speech?

Do you see why from an outsider perspective your post could be interpreted as a personal attack? And in the grand scheme of things, calling an idea pathetic is a relatively small attack, but you seem smart enough to be able to counter the argument with a much better response than that.

You may have not been trying to actively be a dick, but it did appear that way. I, on the other hand, was intentionally trying to be a dick, so I will agree that on this point, you have the moral high-ground.

Point goes to user!

[user_id]

Do you see why from an outsider perspective your post could be interpreted as a personal attack? And in the grand scheme of things, calling an idea pathetic is a relatively small attack, but you seem smart enough to be able to counter the argument with a much better response than that.

As I pointed out, I gave a reason. In terms of what could and couldn't be interpreted as a personal attack, well, I really can't get into other people's heads.....all I can say is that there is no rational reason to feel insulted by someone attacking an idea and I'm really not the sort to dance around people's feelings (nor am I good at it....).

And I must say, I'm surprised by the behavior and tone here.....I came because it was recommended by "unnatural vegan". But after posting just a few comments....I was threatened with a ban for not having "honest discussions" while they systematically personally insulted me in nearly every comment and made a number of false accusations.

[miniboes]

The existence of vegetarianism prior to Donald Watson is not in dispute, I see nothing in this that indicates that this was anything beyond the following of a meat-free (i.e., vegetarian) diet.

Fruitlands residents began their days with a purging cold-water shower[10] and subsisted on a simple diet containing no stimulants or animal products. They were vegans, excluding even milk and honey from their diets. “Neither coffee, tea, molasses, nor rice tempts us beyond the bounds of indigenous production,” Lane wrote. “No animal substances neither flesh, butter, cheese, eggs, nor milk pollute our tables, nor corrupt our bodies.” Diet was usually fruit and water; many vegetables—including carrots, beets, and potatoes—were forbidden because they showed a lower nature by growing downward."

Really? This is your example? "The community was short-lived and lasted only seven months".

You're moving the goalpost. To determine whether or not veganism existed before Watson coined the word, how long a vegan community lasted is absolutely irrelevant.

Your reserves of B-12 will start to run out after 3~5 years and vegetables aren't a source of B-12....cleaning them has nothing to do with it.

B12 is produced by bacteria, no animal can produce it. Meat contains B12 because the animals obtained it from bacteria. It is very well possible that in the past, B12 producing bacteria were present in human guts, as they are in farm animal guts.

]If there is no central doctrine.....then everyone is vegan if they just start calling themselves such? Without a central doctrine....what exactly does it mean to be vegan?

Purposely abstaining from consuming animal products is what makes somebody vegan. The word 'veganism' does refer to a philosophy rejecting the use of animals as commodities too, but a vegan can reject that philosophy and still be vegan, as many here do. You can, as I do, reject that all use of animals is unethical (I think use of bivalves is probably okay, and am unsure about various things such as honey and guide dogs). You could even completely reject the argument of animal harm, and be a vegan purely because of environmental concerns.

And, just to note again, my post wasn't about bivalves but instead shell-fish as a whole.

I realize that, but since I hold different positions between bivalves and shell-fish as a whole, I used bivalves as an example instead.

I honestly don't know enough about shellfish or how they're production to respond to your argument. I think consuming shellfish is certainly much less unethical than consuming meat, dairy and eggs.

[user_id]

You're moving the goalpost. To determine whether or not veganism existed before Watson coined the word, how long a vegan community lasted is absolutely irrelevant.

Your right in the sense that my comment didn't really address the issue.....I just was amused by the example. But you are equivocating, this wasn't a "vegan community".....it was a short-lived cult that happened to avoid animal products. They also avoided a variety of plant foods for entirely silly reasons. I also find it ironic given the context of the discussion, I'm claiming that veganism is a doctrine and you're giving me an example of a cult.

But, as I said, I never implied that Donald Watson created veganism out of a vacuum....her clearly did not. But he did, along with others in the vegan society, create what is known as veganism today.

Your reserves of B-12 will start to run out after 3~5 years and vegetables aren't a source of B-12....cleaning them has nothing to do with it.

B12 is produced by bacteria, no animal can produce it. Meat contains B12 because the animals obtained it from bacteria. It is very well possible that in the past, B12 producing bacteria were present in human guts, as they are in farm animal guts.

B-12 producing bacteria are present in the human gut......but in the large intestine where as B-12 is absorbed in the small intestine. Herbivorous animals typically obtain B-12 via fermentation in their fore-stomach.....humans are monogastric so that isn't a possibility with us. Humans would have to eat their own feces to obtain B-12 from their digestive track.....but even here its not clear if it would actually work.

Our ancestors have had a dietary source via animal foods for millions of years and vegans develop very high rants of B-12 deficiency when not supplementing.....so I think its pretty safe to say that its very unlikely that a society with a vegan died was possible until recently.

Purposely abstaining from consuming animal products is what makes somebody vegan. The word 'veganism' does refer to a philosophy rejecting the use of animals as commodities too, but a vegan can reject that philosophy and still be vegan, as many here do.

Right....and that is a doctrine, or rather, the claim that one ought to do such. So the diet, in itself, isn't a doctrine....nor is vegetarianism, thhe paleo-diet, etc.....but when you assert that it is something one ought to do....you are making it a doctrine.

And, just to note, that definition doesn't work as you can't abstain from consuming animal products. They are literally....in and on everything. Here I'm referring to insects.