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 19 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 18 hours 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'.

	▲	aziaziazi 14 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		My message wasn't clear indeed. A word may have different meaning depending on the usage: who, when, context... Formal language isn't the norm for better or for worse. I mostly agree with your two messages but also wanted to add a touch of pluralism: veganism origin and ideal has something to do with ethics by (more or less) avoiding unnecessary harm by avoiding animal exploitation but the goal and means to achieve it may differ. The interpretation of "possible and practicable" you gave is aligned with my understanding but I can understand other people may include: - [as the article subject] the only food you can eat contains flesh, because you're detained in prison/stay at the hospital - The social pressure is too strong for you to possibly cope with it - Avoiding to use any toiletry that contains carmine, collagen or glycerin may be a hassle when one is away in holiday or work Also, some people consider excluding bivalves from the list keep intact the goal of harm avoidance. The cursor is subjective. I can grasp how someone may define themselves vegan and for whatever reason consume some animal products. However debating of the definition itself does not serve the shared cause of animal condition consideration. Instead it is far more effective to focus on shifting the laws (see the article) and bringing the questions/solutions to the public debate, which would solve most of the social pressure. Let's team up for 90% of the animal cause together and when it will be acquired we'll discuss the last 10%. To end this message, I wish you a pleasant day and share with you a conference I had the chance to assit 2 days ago, I think it's very pertinent - but also in french, I hope the auto-translation are good. It's called "Do vegans harm the animal cause?" : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLCRdLa99DE
	▲	readthenotes1 16 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		The vegan who ignores the last sentence and the definition "In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals" It's kind of like the Christian who ignores the conversation in the gospel of John: "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another."

▲

maxerickson 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Your argument then rests on it being easier to keep cattle than to not keep cattle.

▲

BobaFloutist 19 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 18 hours 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 a day 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 21 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?

	▲	Eddy_Viscosity2 15 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I've heard that one of the core tenants of veganism is about not being cruel to animals. In the case of raising your own chickens where you have full knowledge of how well they are cared for and no cruelty is involved, what's the philosophical harm of eating their eggs. In the case, this core tenant of veganism is maintained.