The vegan position on shellfish is inconsistent.

[Mr. Purple]

Of course there is, veganism was created by Donald Watson and further developed by the Vegan Society and this is the doctrine that vegans follow today. Furthermore there is plenty of organizational structure both from the start and today, for one, the Vegan Society still exists and is still a vary active force in veganism.

Others have pointed out that veganism has no authorities that vegans follow, but even If we restrict ourselves to the definition laid out by the vegan society since you seem to think they gave us our "Doctrine", I still don't see why there is a problem.

This is the official definition that I got from the vegan society website:

"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."

This is a loose enough definition that even being as knit picky as you are, I don't think you have an argument. Especially since the definition is clearly addressing intentions with wording like "seeks to exclude", and has built in wiggle room with " As far as is possible and practicable". Eating vegetables or living life without killing any insects isn't possible and practicable. Is it possible and practicable to avoid shellfish? Of course.

[user_id]

Others have pointed out that veganism has no authorities that vegans follow, but even If we restrict ourselves to the definition laid out by the vegan society since you seem to think they gave us our "Doctrine", I still don't see why there is a problem.

While it started with a single person as the authority figure today there is no single authority figure....but that doesn't mean there is no organizational structure or authorities.

Veganism being a doctrine is not, in itself, a problem.....I was merely discussing what I thought was an obvious matter of fact.

This is the official definition that I got from the vegan society website:

"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."
This is a loose enough definition that even being as knit picky as you are, I don't think you have an argument. Especially since the definition is clearly addressing intentions with wording like "seeks to exclude", and has built in wiggle room with " As far as is possible and practicable". Eating vegetables or living life without killing any insects isn't possible and practicable. Is it possible and practicable to avoid shellfish? Of course.

You're right that is a loose "definition".....so loose its meaningless. This definition was also created after veganism was already created....as such its a post-hoc attempt to explain veganism. But how does it align with vegan practice? What exactly does it mean to "seek to exclude"? What is the criteria for possible and practicable? Its both possible and practicable to avoid vaccines (which do typically use animals for their creation and development) so then vegans should avoid vaccines? The "definition", as stated, is far too imprecise to be actionable.......but that I think is the point. The definition is just intended to give some vague moralistic cover to the vegan lifestyle code, namely, the boycott of all products and activities deemed non-vegan.

You can certainly avoid shell-fish.....you can also avoid all leafy vegetables. So why not leafy vegetables? What ethical principle justifies the exclusive of sell-fish hut not some arbitrarily selected plant food that has a high impact on insects? To say it another way, if foods X, Y, Z all harm similar types of animals to the same degree.....what basis is their for insisting that one avoid X rather than Y, Z? The vegan standard is arbitrary.

[Mr. Purple]

This definition was also created after veganism was already created....as such its a post-hoc attempt to explain veganism.

Clearly you aren't familiar how definitions come about. There isn't a central authority for words either. Definitions of words change depending on how they are used. You're trying so hard to force this top down structure it's damaging your ability to appear unbiased.

What exactly does it mean to "seek to exclude"? What is the criteria for possible and practicable?

I don't see why these are so complicated for you. It's pretty straight forward. I try(seek) my best(what is practicable) to exclude behaviors that selfishly harm animals(exploitation, cruelty). The definition is fine for describing other people that are also like this.

The "definition", as stated, is far too imprecise to be actionable.......but that I think is the point. The definition is just intended to give some vague moralistic cover to the vegan lifestyle code, namely, the boycott of all products and activities deemed non-vegan.

To give cover? To be actionable? You really think these are military commands or religious prescriptions or something huh? I don't know how many times we need to tell you otherwise. You're starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist.

It's both possible and practicable to avoid vaccines (which do typically use animals for their creation and development) so then vegans should avoid vaccines?

you can also avoid all leafy vegetables. So why not leafy vegetables?

If you are trying to say that suicide should be considered a reasonable interpretation of practicable, then you are being silly. Aside from that, the spread of disease and mass starvation are both very relevant concerns for someone with the intention of reducing harm, so I don't know why a vegan would advocate for either one of those options.

To say it another way, if foods X, Y, Z all harm similar types of animals to the same degree.....what basis is their for insisting that one avoid X rather than Y, Z? The vegan standard is arbitrary.

If you showed that calorie for calorie, eating shellfish did less harm than eating veggies did, Then you would have a better argument, and it would be something a lot of vegans would talk about. It seems unlikely that a diet of shellfish would even come close to doing this though.

[user_id]

Clearly you aren't familiar how definitions come about. There isn't a central authority for words either. Definitions of words change depending on how they are used. You're trying so hard to force this top down structure it's damaging your ability to appear unbiased.

Yes, words can certainly change meaning depending how they are used but that has nothing to do with my point. The definition you cited didn't change the notion of veganism.....as far as vegan practice went nothing changed at all and nobody appears to actually follow the cited definition. How could you? Its entirely vague.

I'm not "forcing" any top down structure, I'm noting how veganism developed historically and noting the presence of vegan groups with a clear top-down structure.

I don't see why these are so complicated for you. It's pretty straight forward. I try(seek) my best(what is practicable) to exclude behaviors that selfishly harm animals(exploitation, cruelty). The definition is fine for describing other people that are also like this.

Its not straight forward at all. At what point can you say you've "tried your best"? So any act that harms animals that is done for self-serving reasons should be excluded? For example, vegans avoid fossil fuel transit?

To give cover? To be actionable? You really think these are military commands or religious prescriptions or something huh? I don't know how many times we need to tell you otherwise. You're starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist.

I'm not sure why you think merely telling someone you believe they are wrong is going to change their mind. I'm giving particular arguments and refer to particular facts.

The "definition" provided by the vegan society is not actionable in the sense that its too imprecise to guide ones actions.....you'd actually have to first clarify the notions used in the definition. But it never needed to be actionable.....because the actions that made one vegan were decided before the "definition" was formulated.

If you showed that calorie for calorie, eating shellfish did less harm than eating veggies did, Then you would have a better argument, and it would be something a lot of vegans would talk about. It seems unlikely that a diet of shellfish would even come close to doing this though.

Why is it unlikely? There can be thousands of insects on a single vegetable......while it would be difficult to do an official count its clear more than when you grow and cultivate vegetables than shrimp.....and that is because the insects on vegetables are dramatically smaller. But since vegans are suggesting its wrong, the burden of proof should be on them to show that eating shrimp is some how worse for animals than eating common vegetables.

[PsYcHo]

There can be thousands of insects on a single vegetable......while it would be difficult to do an official count its clear more than when you grow and cultivate vegetables than shrimp.....and that is because the insects on vegetables are dramatically smaller. But since vegans are suggesting its wrong, the burden of proof should be on them to show that eating shrimp is some how worse for animals than eating common vegetables.

Humans are an animal, and I think these are worse than what it takes to get a vegetable-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/15/the-shocking-truth-about-shrimp-today/

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/series/modern-day-slavery-in-focus+world/thailand

http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2016/01/six-reasons-think-hard-about-shrimp-craving

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/12/slave-labor-shrimp-thailand-walmart-whole-foods/420837/

http://www.ap.org/explore/seafood-from-slaves/

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/how-the-ap-uncovered-secret-slavery-behind-the-seafood-in-your-supermarket/

I drive for my job a lot, and I have killed many mice and rabbits that ran under my vehicle. So if I accidentally kill 25 rodents over a six month span, am I morally worse than the person who purchases 15 rodents just to kill them with a hammer? After all, "hammer bunny smasher" guy did kill less animals than I did.

[Mr. Purple]

Yes, words can certainly change meaning depending how they are used but that has nothing to do with my point. The definition you cited didn't change the notion of veganism

Of course it didn't change the notion of veganism. It is just one more instance of where humans tend to use the word vegan. Vegan has been used in many contexts and to describe a spectrum of different people. The specific definition the vegan society is using refers to the people like me and a lot of other people on this forum who try their best to exclude behaviors that selfishly harm animals.

as far as vegan practice went nothing changed at all and nobody appears to actually follow the cited definition. How could you? Its entirely vague.

Nobody is supposed to follow the definition of vegan as I have said before. That definition describes a certain way of living. I happen to fall into that way of living because of reasons completely separate from the fact that the word vegan exists. Do you understand that the definition isn't telling me I should do anything? How vague it is really doesn't matter at all other than it's effectiveness in communicating information about vegans. There are thousands of words much more vague than the word vegan that we use every day that I doubt you have this much trouble with( especially since you have been using them for this whole conversation).

Is everyone described by the word "kind" adhering to the doctrines of kindness? The word kind is pretty vague too. Does that mean that the doctrine that these kind people follow is too vague to be actionable? Do you not see how bizarre your wording is? Just talk like a normal person.

Its not straight forward at all. At what point can you say you've "tried your best"?

There is no vegan test or vegan police trying to decide if you really count as a vegan. We don't need a way to find those who didn't really try their best. For people who are trying less, the word applies to them less.

So any act that harms animals that is done for self-serving reasons should be excluded?

I think it is generally accepted that it isn't considered selfish or cruel to act for self preservation. I don't think most people consider the people in their military to be cruel in a war of self preservation. If someone drowned me while trying to stay afloat, I wouldn't call that person cruel either. The only reason this is so difficult for you is because you are getting overly knit-picky while trying to win an argument.

Why is it unlikely? There can be thousands of insects on a single vegetable......while it would be difficult to do an official count its clear more than when you grow and cultivate vegetables than shrimp.....and that is because the insects on vegetables are dramatically smaller.

The measure is not number count, it's amount of cruelty\harm caused. Good luck quantifying that. Until you finish your groundbreaking research showing how to quantify the harm difference between insects and shellfish, the vegans will keep on trying their best.

[user_id]

Humans are an animal, and I think these are worse than what it takes to get a vegetable-
.....

This merely an attempt to evade the issue which was a matter of ethics. With that said, the idea that foreign nations are only using "slave labor" to farm shrimp but not harvest fruits, etc makes little sense. In fact, you can find cases of slave-labor in fruit picking in the US...in particular in California.

I drive for my job a lot, and I have killed many mice and rabbits that ran under my vehicle. So if I accidentally kill 25 rodents over a six month span, am I morally worse than the person who purchases 15 rodents just to kill them with a hammer? After all, "hammer bunny smasher" guy did kill less animals than I did.

This is obviously not a serious comparison, are you better than the person that kills 25 rodents over six months to eat? I don't think so, in both cases you've decided on a lifestyle that kills 25 rodents every 6 months and you could do otherwise. But there is no reason to compare rodents to rodents, there isn't much reason to believe that rodents are any less capable of suffering, etc than cows. Now I reckon a single cow could produce the same amount of food as around 800 or so rabbits. So are you morally worse than the guy that just kills one animal (a cow) over 16 years for food? I'm not sure how you'd argue otherwise, do you have an argument?

[user_id]

Vegan has been used in many contexts and to describe a spectrum of different people. The specific definition the vegan society is using refers to the people like me and a lot of other people on this forum who try their best to exclude behaviors that selfishly harm animals.

The vegan society definition doesn't say anything about "selfishly harming animals". But I'm not sure what you have in mind when you say its been used in "many contexts". Like what?

Nobody is supposed to follow the definition of vegan as I have said before. That definition describes a certain way of living. I happen to fall into that way of living because of reasons completely separate from the fact that the word vegan exists. Do you understand that the definition isn't telling me I should do anything?

As I said earlier, the word "vegan" isn't an issue. It simply refers to someone that avoids non-vegan products as originally defined by the vegan society. Its the claim that one ought to be vegan that is the issue, if that isn't something you believe than my argument doesn't apply.

There is no vegan test or vegan police trying to decide if you really count as a vegan. We don't need a way to find those who didn't really try their best. For people who are trying less, the word applies to them less.

There is a vegan criteria and there are certainly people policing veganism. Google "vegan police".

I think it is generally accepted that it isn't considered selfish or cruel to act for self preservation.

Eating is a matter of self-preservation, so eating meat is okay then? Now if you're going to suggest someone can avoid meat and still survive, well, you can say the same about fossil fuel based transit.

[Mr. Purple]

The vegan society definition doesn't say anything about "selfishly harming animals".

Both exploitation and cruelty have definitions that are encompassed within the definitions of selfish. Once again you choose to nit-pick instead of talk with me honestly.

Your original argument:

Vegan doctrine forbids the consumption of shellfish on the basis that they are animals and therefore should not be "exploited" or "harmed"...or some other ad-hoc explanation and plant crops are given as an alternative. Yet plant cultivation requires the mass killing of huge numbers of insects

As I said earlier, the word "vegan" isn't an issue. It simply refers to someone that avoids non-vegan products as originally defined by the vegan society. Its the claim that one ought to be vegan that is the issue, if that isn't something you believe than my argument doesn't apply.

Your original argument was that the vegan position tends to list things like exploitation and harm as the reason for eating vegetables, but eating vegetables still causes harm; therefore, veganism is inconsistent. Then it was pointed out that there is more than one position for veganism, and that even using the so called "official" vegan society's definition, veganism is clearly more about intention and trying ones best to minimize exploitation and cruelty. Under this definition, the vegan position on shellfish is not inconsistent. You then started talking about how vegans might be wrong about vegetables causing the least amount of cruelty, but that doesn't really refute anything I have said up to this point if I am talking about intentions.

Is this an unfair summary?


I would also say people ought to be vegan if they also claim they are against animal torture.(Which most people would claim) I'm not sure why this is a problem for you.

Eating is a matter of self-preservation, so eating meat is okay then? Now if you're going to suggest someone can avoid meat and still survive, well, you can say the same about fossil fuel based transit.

Yeah, i think eating meat is fine if you are going to die without it. Trying ones best to reduce fossil fuel emissions is included to the extent that it is cruel to animals.

[user_id]

Both exploitation and cruelty have definitions that are encompassed within the definitions of selfish. Once again you choose to nit-pick instead of talk with me honestly.

I'm not sure what you mean here, how are "exploitation" and "cruelty" encompassed in the definition of selfish?

What you call "nit-picking"....is simply seeking conceptual clarity.

Your original argument was that the vegan position tends to list things like exploitation and harm as the reason for eating vegetables, but eating vegetables still causes harm; therefore, veganism is inconsistent.

No, that was no my argument. I've argued that forbidding shellfish while eating vegetables is inconsistent because they both harm similar types of animals in similar numbers and thus there is no reason to prefer one over the other.

The conversation about veganism being a doctrine and organized was a tangent based on other posters comment.

I would also say people ought to be vegan if they also claim they are against animal torture.(Which most people would claim) I'm not sure why this is a problem for you.

The point was that the claim that one ought to follow a vegan lifestyle is a matter of doctrine. Its a doctrine that has its origins in the vegan society.

Yes, most people would claim to be against animal torture and most people would disagree that raising an animal for food is an example of animal torture. You see, that is something you actually have to explain......otherwise its just cheap rhetoric. Torture implies that you are harming something for punishment or because you gain pleasure from hurting them.

Yeah, i think eating meat is fine if you are going to die without it. Trying ones best to reduce fossil fuel emissions is included to the extent that it is cruel to animals.

Included in what? Its not included in veganism. And veganism isn't about "trying ones best to reduce"....its about following a very specific lifestyle code that was created by the vegan society. You still haven't clarified what it means to "try ones best". Just how much inconvenience do you have to commit yourself to before you've "tried your best"?