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.