| |
| ▲ | orbisvicis 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I know vegans who consume dairy/eggs once they become responsible for the husbandry of those sources. | | |
| ▲ | zxexz 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I wish this form of Veganism was more well-known. I know a few Vegans who went down a similar path and who were told by a few people they were no longer Vegan. They took the easier path and stopped calling themselves Vegans, which I thought was sad given their objectives when becoming Vegan were clear from the get-go. | | |
| ▲ | constantius 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | How is this veganism? Or a form of it? It's by definition not vegan to consume animal products. I'm happy that the term is considered so virtuous that people want to self-identify as such (I've even heard meat-eaters say they're vegan "except from time to time"), but I don't think it's intolerant/bigoted to simply look at the definition. | | |
| ▲ | aziaziazi 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Here's the definition from the guys behind the word "veganism": > Veganism is 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 animals, humans 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 The short definition you're talking about is abridged for time saving, it miss the essence ["for the benefit of..."] and the necessary feasibility adaptations ["as far as is possible and practicable"]. | | |
| ▲ | constantius an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | That quote seems to be reinforcing my point but your excerpts indicate you disagree, so I'm.not sure why you posted this: I will assume you're disagreeing, sorry if I misunderstood. The adaptations in that quote are about the animals who will be harmed without your intending to do so during your own attempts to survive, like the insects killed during harvest. The essence and the last sentence of the definition are also in line with what I am saying. Eating dairy by choice while identifying as vegan is not due to one coming to the limits of 'as far as possible', under any definition of 'possible' or 'practicable'. | |
| ▲ | maxerickson an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Your argument then rests on it being easier to keep cattle than to not keep cattle. |
| |
| ▲ | BobaFloutist 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Basically, if you're vegan because you object to industrial farming practices, and value animal welfare, eating animal products (or even meat) that you personally produced, while personally overseeing the animal welfare and farming practices doesn't necessarily violate your values. I get that in a literal sense you wouldn't be vegan anymore, but if you're maintaining the same ethical framework that led you to veganism, it's not unreasonable to want to express that. | | |
| ▲ | constantius an hour ago | parent [-] | | It is indeed unreasonable. No animal evolved solely to produce food for humans and to be property, and I think that's a major blindspot that people have, which allows them to believe into this idea. Buying an animal, restraining it in your property, subjecting it to whatever's needed for it to produce (look this up if you need to), consuming said products, and in the end of its useful life selling the animal (and let's not imagine that it's sold to animal sanctuaries): none of this is in line with being vegan. All of it harms the animal in some way and normalises the dismissal of animal life, independent of whatever the person wants to believe. Someone who believes veganism is the right way, but is not personally vegan, can say just that: it's a perfectly tenable philosophical position to have. Self-identifying as vegan while not being vegan is where it becomes absurd. |
| |
| ▲ | Eddy_Viscosity2 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > It's by definition not vegan to consume animal products Definitions can change, especially when it comes to personal beliefs of what is right and wrong. Christianity, for example, has split countless versions as people redefine what it means to them. Yet they all still call themselves Christians. | | |
| ▲ | constantius 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | I seriously feel like I'm being DDoS'd, because this position is so absurd and has so many counters to it (can you really not realise this?) that I don't know where to start. The definition of veganism includes more than just not eating animal products, but that aspect of it leaves no place to ambiguity. What's the appeal of including vegetarians and carnists into veganism? It's not like vegans wield political power or are privileged in some way, where does this strange type of inclusivity at the detriment of reality come from? |
|
| |
| ▲ | kurthr 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think it's often called ovo-lacto vegetarian.
There are also pescetarians. | |
| ▲ | Imustaskforhelp 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I wish more Vegans were able to accept this form of spectrum that you are talking about. Food is quite a social thing. JaidenAnimation has done a great video[0] summarizing something like this of her vegan journey and exactly this type of nuance as well, I highly recommend checking it out Let me give you a personal example as well, I am Hindu and Milk is very very preferred where I live. Due to my taste preference, I dislike Milk but I am really expected to have something milk based so I like Yogurt. Even just this small act of preference of yogurt rather than Milk which could seem pretty small has genuinely left my relatives asking many many questions and I am sometimes forced to drink milk when I go to people when I would prefer otherwise because of social pressure. I can probably take vegan yogurt if I particularly want so but we take milk fresh from the milkman who owns the cow in their house. where I live, the way people treat animals in their house is a very ethical point of view, its basically like how pets are except they help in livelihood/income So I have some sympathies to people who you are talking about. There is enough social pressure from the people around you. More broadly speaking, Veganism might perhaps land better as a spectrum rather than a binary switch. It has a lot of things going for it which could help its future but at the same time, it gets a large amount of flack from a loud minority and bad clips [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gKJ9mMPuIQ | | |
| |
| ▲ | Imustaskforhelp 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | There is a concept that my maternal grandmother had that they would always having their own husbandry (cows/buffalos) within her village and yes, they didn't eat eggs as well. My maternal grandfather was a teacher which was a really prestigious job at that time, the only reason that they had their own cows was because of the belief. Reflecting upon it now, I believe it to be a good faith belief, they took care of the animals as well in terms of personal care from what I've heard of stories growing up, my mother still remembers some of the cows/buffalos and their names and other things so that's nice to hear as well :) |
| |
| ▲ | akdor1154 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Jains would be vegan though i assume? | | |
| ▲ | kurthr 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don't know any Jain well, but I believe they drink milk and fermentation products, but do not consume honey. Open to correction. | | |
| ▲ | wtmt 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | Jains in India are heavy consumers of dairy products. They consume honey too. Most of them would avoid vegetables that grow underground and avoid the use of leather. They’re generally a bit closer to orthodox Hindus in practice. |
|
|
|
