It used to be extracted from animals but for the last decade or so they produce it from E. Coli so unless you have achieved the level of veganism where you think bacteria have rights...
I have to agree but still call it convenient morality. If you put a stir fry that was “mostly plants with only a very small portion of animal by mass” most vegans wouldn’t eat it. Many vegans I know personally and through anecdote won’t eat vegetables cooked in animal fat, or even in the presence of and using the same surfaces and tools that were used to serve animals. So there’s a level of nitpicking often present in vegans who at the same time would shrug while using fossil fuel and say: “meh, it’s mostly plants...” as for natural causes- maybe. Maybe they died of natural causes, maybe they didn’t. Maybe the cow that made that antique leather coat died of natural causes too- there’s no proof or even indication it came from an operation specifically for harvesting leather. Maybe it died in a way unrelated to the making of leather and someone didn’t want to waste the hide. And yet, I suspect in that case most would still turn their nose up at the idea. But when it is most convenient...
I understand your point, but there's a difference with using sometging and eating. While most vegans would wantbto use vegan and cruelty free products, that could be a choice, even if it seems/is hypocritical. Not cooking the food in animal products is not necessarily a choice. I mean maybe they choose not to because of animal rights but it can be harmful too. I'm not even vegan, just vegetarian, and I have been sick for eating animal protein (other than egg) without knowing. Your body really rejects it after a while. Once, I realized something was cooked with pork fat and said oh well I already ate it. And it was not pretty the next day... lol
Man, crawdads smell so good when they are cooking for the small time before my allergy kicks in and kills my sense smell. A bit part of me wants to just say "fuck it if I die I die" and try one just to see if it tastes as good as it smell
I understand. Many people (including me the first few times) have similar “not pretty” next days when eating vegan food. In fact, any radical switch even to/from processed and I processed foods can do that. That’s a big part of why omnivorous diets evolve, so that it’s “not pretty” and not “fatal.” There are many ways and reasons to oppose cruelty to animals, support animal rights, and as you say, some may even have no moral reason but do so simply for their own thoughts on health. That’s fine. But by definition a “vegan” is one who does not eat or use animal products. If one doesn’t satisfy those criteria, one doesn’t meet the definition. It’s like a communist who owns a villa and brokers stocks. People are free to do as they like, eat as they like, and that’s fine. As a philosophy though veganism takes certain roots and borders on religion with its interpretations and exceptions. As a philosophy one can’t justify saying it is ok to use X animal product without consent and not Z.
Oh. And I half agree with you on the choice part. In your example getting sick is not a choice, it is a consequence of a choice, so one does have a choice wether they want to eat sick or not when eating something novel to their digestion, by eating small amounts more often to maintain the elements for proper digestion.
Well first communists are tge biggest hypocrites ever. So bad example lol (joke/not a criticism to you because you probably know that) yes. Not eating meat is my choice and that has changed my metabolism. But my pount was that I don't want to be picky even if it might seem like that is just that i dont't want to get sick. Like another time i just took the chicken of a salad instead of returning it and asking for a new one because I hate yo waste food. And still got sick (maybe bc of some fat left behind or small pieces of chicken I missed idk) and I'm fine usually and the change has helped me and my digestion actually (I can't tolerate meat now because of it but I'm ok with that causr was nevrr a fan and has helped with other health issues) but in some cases others make mistakes. I mean not even in the menu that salad was supposed to have chicken.
I understand completely (and appreciate the joke.) and that is exactly what I’m talking about. I don’t believe people should care so much. If you tell me that you don’t eat.... grapefruit- do you not like it? Do you have an allergy? Did a grapefruit kill your sensei? It doesn’t matter. You’ve made that choice and I need to respect it. If you say: “I can’t eat Grapefruit” or “I can’t have food that was prepared near grapefruit” I now know that it’s not some aversion, but I absolutely must not give you food which fits those criteria. I don’t need to care why, we can share that information if we both like to, and we can work out wether I’m going to produce food that Comes from a grapefruit sterile existence, or just not offer you food. Either solution satisfies the criteria of not givin you what you have said to not give you, and we have respected each other’s choices. If we respect even that we don’t understand or agree with, we don’t have to deal with the nonesense.
Yup on a side note some friends try to "tempt" me into eating meat like mixing me almost or making "yummy noises" when they eat it. I don't day anything but I'm there like no, that is not going to work specifically when i remember how bad it makes me feel now.
Strictly speaking a “vegan” isn’t supposed to use ANY product or byproduct of an animal, regardless of suffering. The philosophical beliefs of the individual lead to reasons such as “animal suffering” or “animal exploitation” or so on. “Animal suffering” is the most popular, and one of the most convenient, since whether an animal is or was suffering, and the connection between that suffering and the product, are up to individual interpretation. A good example would be a religion that simply said: “if you think it is good, it’s good. If you think it is bad, it is bad.” Within that framework one is free to do as they please with universal justification for any behavior. Thus the practice and results of such philosophy are extremely based on the individual.
Vegan here. Vegans do their best to reduce the amount of suffering and death they cause in the world. Using fossil fuels, though not the best type of fuel for the planet, does not create a demand for the exploitation/suffering of animals. The other thing is that vegans are "allowed" to do anything they want. I really dislike that wording bc we are /choosing/ to avoid certain products.
Perhaps the pharsing should be: “are you still a vegan if...” or “should you be considered a vegan if...” So- you say that you are a vegan. To you, being a vegan means doing your best to reduce the suffering and death one causes- now, there are vegans who’s answer may differ from yours, but let’s explore just yours. You give us a criteria: “does not create a demand for the exploitation/suffering....” But 30% of domestic leather goes to cars. The petroleum industry feeds the auto industry and vice versa, which in turn is one of the largest single consumers of leather products- not to mention other ways this creates a demand for animal suffering. Ah. But you said: vegans do their best” best isn't perfect. Touché. Except... question number 2... what is “your best” and isn’t everyone’s “best” different? So if I become a vegan, and am allowed to do anything I want, and I want to eat meat, but I do my best not to, but I still do- then I am a vegan because I’ve satisfied all your criteria no?
Agreed with some people try their best. And for most it is a gradual transition while you learn or adapt. Also, I have been criticized before like oh you want to "save the planet but do x or y" like yes I would likw to live in a farm and be 100% green, but you know so far I can't do that so not going to go there opposite way and be 0% and not even recycle. So, I'll try my best. And I mean who knows maybe some people drive an electric no leather car or just a bike and have solar power?
@itsamemaria- driving an electric car is even worse for death and suffering. It’s almost certain that the batteries used space child labor on the strip mining of heavy metals like cobalt in their construction. Electronics are thought of as green because they tend to be more efficient than analog designs. An efficient piece of electronics will consume most of the resources for its lifetime in being manufactured, and after that it uses very little to run. The problem being that most consumer electronics (including cars) don’t have a long enough lifespan that the increased efficiency starts to pay back the cost of manufacturing before it’s replaced with a new model. Also, the fact that some, all, or none do a thing is irrelevant to the original statement which was that a “vegan” “does not create demand for the exploitation and suffering...” but one can support such actions without themselves partaking in them. A cheerleader supports a player but doesn’t run plays in the game no?
Yeah but the original post is if they should be allowed to use fuel since it comes from animals. Or if it fits the vegan definition. Now I would day yes because is natural causes. But others might say no because of reasons you point out such as pollution. And I was just saying some people might do their best not to use fuel. And furthermore someone might think an electric car is better for the environment without thinking about/ knowing of the tgings you point out.
Precisely. “Do your best” is meaningless. If you “do your best” not to eat meat but still do anyway- are you a vegan? Is it more a religious thing, where one is simply a vegan in their hearts regardless of worldly action? Is “vegan” not a diet but a state of mind, and what you actually do is irrelevant so long as you hold to certain principals? What is the purpose of a word that has no definition, or of using the same word to define many often conflicting things? At that point why even use the word anymore, as it’s use would tell you nothing about a person other than they liked to self identify by that particular label.
Yes but if we focus on fuel and that's the only thing not 100% vegan a vegan person uses I think is pretty safe to safe that person qualifies as vegan.
Or they can also be defined as vegans a dietary restriction. Just as gluten free is a dietary restriction and not a life style (I mean anyways there is not gluten free shampoos but you get the point)
So then we get back to what it even means to be vegan. If I eat a steak at dinner every night but otherwise not use anything “not vegan” would it be fair to say I am also a vegan? If Cruella Deville kept her fur hobby but otherwise didn’t use non vegan anything, would she be vegan? Now- as you say, it can just be a diet. But you aren’t identifying as a vegan if you’re on a vegan diet. You’re identifying as on a vegan diet. It’s a firm distinction. “My Dr/nutritionist/whoever is making me eat a vegan diet...” is a far leap from “I am the Lorax, I speak for the cheese...” if your doctor says you can’t eat salt, you aren’t protesting social or echological issues of the salt mines. The distinction is clear enough that a whole word is required beyond “vegetarian” to define it. The definition doesn’t require a reason, only actions which fit or do not fit that definition.
That is why I said, so it is simple/fair we can say the so called vegans have a vegan diet. Products might not be. For whatever reason misinformation or hypocracy that's anither lifestyle choice didn't than diet
And regarding cruella. I have decided from some time now not to buy anything leather. And never really bought fur. I do have bags made out of leather because I was not paying attention before. I would feel bad throwing them away since anyways it is already made and bought i just won't anymore. So I would understand if cruella keeps a fur coat for the winter eventhough she is now vegan If she didn't buy them anymore of course. she just maybe doesn't like for things to go to waste. Now, why she hates on puppies I would never agree on. Who hates puppies!? Besides her and Chandler!!!?
Anyways "i'm vegan" means those people are on a vegan diet. Most vegans I know try to do the lifestyle too as much as possible. It is just easier I guess or understood you mean you don't eat anything animal. Just like people say I'm lactose intolerant amd they don't say I eat a lactose free diet
Then by definition they are not vegan. Grab a dictionary or google what the word means. Being vegan is very specifically a person who does not use animal products. When used as an adjective it describes what you say: containing or using no animal products. One who is on a vegan diet is not vegan. Eating shmurah (matzo) at Passover doesn’t make you Jewish, and if you decided to observe an orthodox diet as a goy you wouldn’t say you’re orthodox- you’d say you’re onlynesting orthodox foods. Being lactose intolerant isn’t anything but a medical condition. Plenty of lactose intolerant people regularly eat lactose, but by definition a vegan can’t regukarly eat meat can they? If you still drink milk you are still lactose intolerant. If you torture 100 baby seals, bath in their blood and feast upon their flesh 365 days a year while sitting on your baby seal bone throne, no one will consider you vegan, and you are not are you?
So my examples, as well as the English language, must refute your claims. If the logic of “not letting it go to waste” was valid, why would their even be a moral imperitave to not use animal products since there are so many animals slaughtered daily and so much meat and material are wasted in our society that to not waste them, if would make sense to consume them. Non perishables like a hand bag wouldn’t go to waste either, nor a nice old fur coat. There are plenty of non vegans who would take them as a gift (selling them would benefit from animal cruelty, even if you donate the money to animal charities as you’re still financing reliant on blood money.) So that’s not anything but a justification. And that’s fine. You’re allowed to have something you like. People break their moral codes all the time, make little exceptions. What honest person hasn’t told a white lie or done something dishonest? There’s no police force that would lock you up for it in America. But it’s not vegan.
To “be vegan” as opposed to “have some vegan beliefs” or the much simpler “believe in animal rights” one must meet the definition of the word. A vegan diet, a vegan wardrobe, vegan principals- if you dress up like Superman/woman and believe in truth and justice that doesn’t make you a superhero by default. That’s why we say “heroic actions.” Even a villain is capable of “heroic actions,” it’s a verb imparted on an aspect and not the whole. But I don’t care. I don’t think anyone really should. If someone puts on a hat and wants to think they’re the pope, I’m not here to shit on them. Until they come out of the house and start telling moralizing about following the dogma as the pope, or if they want to discuss Catholicism, it’s gonna come up they ain’t the pope if they say to me “well as the pope...” we will have that talk. “Because I want to” is a good enough reason to eat a cheeseburger as to not. When we try to justify ourselves that is where our logic can be picked at if faulty.
Dude. These examples got out of hand lol. Just saying... people use the term vegan and vegan diet interchangeably.... is just the way is. Like we used to call xerox to all copy machines...
Most “vegans” or vegans or permutation of adjective vegan xyz... are just trying to do good in the world, or trying to be healthy. Most people are. There’s no special word for it, it’s called trying to be a good human being. People have different ideas about what that means is all. It’s like a Christian and a Muslim shouting at each other trying to convert each other, or running around trying to convert as many people as they can. No one appreciates that, but no sane person has an issue with them practicing their faith In their own lives as a personal choice, or going to their holy places to be with others like them. It’s when they try to explain to you why their way is better, when you didn’t ask, that there’s a problem. And not one of them follows their book to the letter. But that’s ok. It’s all about trying to be better in our own way, not being perfect. justifications are just that- ways we convince ourselves we are good. Being good requires self awareness, dillusion hurts all.
In regards to the "waste" yes Ibtry not to waste. If i have something from animal origin in my house well itvis already there. They idea not to buy animal products even though they are already made is that you are not giving money/suppirting that practice anymore. And that is my choice of not throwing it away. But again everyone is different.
Yeah but it is easier to say "i'm vegan" than listing all the things you eat or don't eat when someone invites you for dinner... it is just practical in some situations.
“I eat vegan.” That is also not formally correct, but manages to convey the same thing in colloquial English, uses one more letter than “I am vegan,” in speech takes approximately the same time and effort, and would be accurate. It also avoids the potential to have to discuss why you’re “vegan” but wearing a coat made of Dalmatian fur. “I am vegan” paints an inaccurate description of your belief structure and invites confrontation by people who either have a problem with vegans, a chip on their shoulder, or can’t stonach inaccuracy or perceived hypocrisy. An excellent tactic if one takes joy in such activities. It also could lead to offense, as someone has gone to possibly extra expense or effort to accommodate under false pretense that you are vegan. They may even put away animal products in the home or change toiletries to accommodate when all they had to do was serve a vegan option meal because of this innacuracy. It’s one right to be innacurate just as it’s ones right to be a jerk
Ok. But most people aren’t vegan. Most people don’t join the peace corps or volunteer. Most people don’t let strangers who need a place stay in their spare space. Some are. I can’t control the “passive observers” in life, unable or unwilling to engage beyond a reactive level in life and unable or unwilling to engage or consider others. If one can’t communicate with, identify with, and be considerate of their own species- how is an entire species supposed to show consideration and understanding of every other species on earth? If one can take the time to think of the minute animal abuses found on a chemical level in foods and products but not think of the ways their behavior and words impact others, I see a distinct flaw there. Humans are animals too.
They produce insulin from E. Coli?