Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Are there different terms for different types of vegans?
Options
Replies
-
No takers on my topic of debate? Probably just as well.
My apologies for a lame attempt to be funny.
Carry on! 0 -
Neither Twinkies nor Doritos are vegan.
Not every distinction between groups needs a name.
Actually, Doritos can be. Most aren't, but the Sweet Chili flavor is.
Otherwise, I agree with you. I find it fruitless to further divide vegans. Some eat healthy foods, some eat junk food, some eat a mixture of both. They don't need separate categories.2 -
Wicked_Seraph wrote: »Neither Twinkies nor Doritos are vegan.
Not every distinction between groups needs a name.
Actually, Doritos can be. Most aren't, but the Sweet Chili flavor is.
Otherwise, I agree with you. I find it fruitless to further divide vegans. Some eat healthy foods, some eat junk food, some eat a mixture of both. They don't need separate categories.
Sweet Chili Doritos are my go to junk food snack. I love them... until I've eaten them all... then I hate them for leaving me so unsatisfied.
2 -
SingRunTing wrote: »I've heard of raw food vegans. Other than that, I don't really see a need for more distinction.
But then there'd be no way to turn your nose up at the vegans you don't approve of.3 -
BecomingBane wrote: »Wicked_Seraph wrote: »Neither Twinkies nor Doritos are vegan.
Not every distinction between groups needs a name.
Actually, Doritos can be. Most aren't, but the Sweet Chili flavor is.
Otherwise, I agree with you. I find it fruitless to further divide vegans. Some eat healthy foods, some eat junk food, some eat a mixture of both. They don't need separate categories.
Sweet Chili Doritos are my go to junk food snack. I love them... until I've eaten them all... then I hate them for leaving me so unsatisfied.
When a bag of those are around, I am a Doritos vegan until they are gone.3 -
extra_medium wrote: »SingRunTing wrote: »I've heard of raw food vegans. Other than that, I don't really see a need for more distinction.
But then there'd be no way to turn your nose up at the vegans you don't approve of.
Seems to me there might be some people (not necessarily the OP) who need a reason to feel smug about the fact that they're "proper vegans", as opposed to the "convenience vegans" who are only avoiding animal products for health.
There's already enough of a divide between the meat eaters - clean eating, paleo, junk food, whatever. We're all omnivores, vegans are not. Does it really matter exactly where our nutrition comes from? Why do we always have this need to divide ourselves into groups? Is it really just so that we can just feel superior to others?
Wikipedia had this to say on the subject of veganism:
"Distinctions are sometimes made between several categories of veganism. Dietary vegans (sometimes referred to as strict vegetarians or followers of a plant-based diet) refrain from consuming animal products, not only meat but also eggs, dairy products, and other animal-derived substances. Dietary vegans are often more focused on the health aspects of whole foods, and, as such, may consume honey or wear clothing that include animal products (for example, leather or wool). The term ethical vegan is often applied to those who not only follow a vegan diet, but extend the philosophy into other areas of their lives, and oppose the use of animal products for any purpose. Another term is environmental veganism, which refers to the avoidance of animal products on the premise that the harvesting or industrial farming of animals is environmentally damaging and unsustainable."
I would think that "dietary vegan" and "ethical vegan" are enough of a distinction in the lifestyle, without worrying about the percentage of processed content in one's diet. 3 -
extra_medium wrote: »SingRunTing wrote: »I've heard of raw food vegans. Other than that, I don't really see a need for more distinction.
But then there'd be no way to turn your nose up at the vegans you don't approve of.
Seems to me there might be some people (not necessarily the OP) who need a reason to feel smug about the fact that they're "proper vegans", as opposed to the "convenience vegans" who are only avoiding animal products for health.
There's already enough of a divide between the meat eaters - clean eating, paleo, junk food, whatever. We're all omnivores, vegans are not. Does it really matter exactly where our nutrition comes from? Why do we always have this need to divide ourselves into groups? Is it really just so that we can just feel superior to others?
Wikipedia had this to say on the subject of veganism:
"Distinctions are sometimes made between several categories of veganism. Dietary vegans (sometimes referred to as strict vegetarians or followers of a plant-based diet) refrain from consuming animal products, not only meat but also eggs, dairy products, and other animal-derived substances. Dietary vegans are often more focused on the health aspects of whole foods, and, as such, may consume honey or wear clothing that include animal products (for example, leather or wool). The term ethical vegan is often applied to those who not only follow a vegan diet, but extend the philosophy into other areas of their lives, and oppose the use of animal products for any purpose. Another term is environmental veganism, which refers to the avoidance of animal products on the premise that the harvesting or industrial farming of animals is environmentally damaging and unsustainable."
I would think that "dietary vegan" and "ethical vegan" are enough of a distinction in the lifestyle, without worrying about the percentage of processed content in one's diet.
As a vegan, I will say it is less about smugness and more about identifying people who share my position on unnecessary animal exploitation. If someone wants to avoid eating animal products for health reasons, I don't have any problem with that. But veganism is a term that was coined to describe a specific ethical position and it can get confusing when people adopt it when they have no issues with animal exploitation and/or suffering.
It isn't about feeling superior to anyone (I don't feel superior to people on plant-based diets, I don't feel superior to people who consume foods made from animals). Given that veganism is an ethical position, I agree with you that I don't see the point in further labels based on the percentage of processed food in one's diet (although someone who is raw vegan probably finds the term useful to help others understand what they wish to eat).4 -
Jane, you and @BecomingBane are a couple of the most reasonable people I've seen on these boards - I've never seen you put people down or try to shame them for what they choose to eat regardless of your own ethical standpoint, and I salute you for that!
There just always seem to be a few that have a need to feel superior in some way, and to look down on others for their lifestyle or dietary choices. I'm not saying that anyone in this thread is one of them - I was using "we" to refer to humans in general - but it does feel sometimes that labels and group names are used for that reason even if that wasn't the original intention.
I do understand what you're saying about the confusion, though, and perhaps if people were to call themselves "dietary vegans" that would be enough to sort them out from those on the ethical side?
None of which really answers the OP's question about whether 'processed' vs. 'non-processed' vegans need different names, although I think my answer to that would be no, they don't. They're all vegans, either ethical or dietary. But, I'm not vegan or vegetarian, so that's only my uninformed opinion.
3 -
Jane, you and @BecomingBane are a couple of the most reasonable people I've seen on these boards - I've never seen you put people down or try to shame them for what they choose to eat regardless of your own ethical standpoint, and I salute you for that!
There just always seem to be a few that have a need to feel superior in some way, and to look down on others for their lifestyle or dietary choices. I'm not saying that anyone in this thread is one of them - I was using "we" to refer to humans in general - but it does feel sometimes that labels and group names are used for that reason even if that wasn't the original intention.
I do understand what you're saying about the confusion, though, and perhaps if people were to call themselves "dietary vegans" that would be enough to sort them out from those on the ethical side?
None of which really answers the OP's question about whether 'processed' vs. 'non-processed' vegans need different names, although I think my answer to that would be no, they don't. They're all vegans, either ethical or dietary. But, I'm not vegan or vegetarian, so that's only my uninformed opinion.
Thank you. It's an honor to be grouped together with @BecomingBane. 1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Jane, you and @BecomingBane are a couple of the most reasonable people I've seen on these boards - I've never seen you put people down or try to shame them for what they choose to eat regardless of your own ethical standpoint, and I salute you for that!
There just always seem to be a few that have a need to feel superior in some way, and to look down on others for their lifestyle or dietary choices. I'm not saying that anyone in this thread is one of them - I was using "we" to refer to humans in general - but it does feel sometimes that labels and group names are used for that reason even if that wasn't the original intention.
I do understand what you're saying about the confusion, though, and perhaps if people were to call themselves "dietary vegans" that would be enough to sort them out from those on the ethical side?
None of which really answers the OP's question about whether 'processed' vs. 'non-processed' vegans need different names, although I think my answer to that would be no, they don't. They're all vegans, either ethical or dietary. But, I'm not vegan or vegetarian, so that's only my uninformed opinion.
Thank you. It's an honor to be grouped together with @BecomingBane.
Hugs all around.
2 -
BecomingBane wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Jane, you and @BecomingBane are a couple of the most reasonable people I've seen on these boards - I've never seen you put people down or try to shame them for what they choose to eat regardless of your own ethical standpoint, and I salute you for that!
There just always seem to be a few that have a need to feel superior in some way, and to look down on others for their lifestyle or dietary choices. I'm not saying that anyone in this thread is one of them - I was using "we" to refer to humans in general - but it does feel sometimes that labels and group names are used for that reason even if that wasn't the original intention.
I do understand what you're saying about the confusion, though, and perhaps if people were to call themselves "dietary vegans" that would be enough to sort them out from those on the ethical side?
None of which really answers the OP's question about whether 'processed' vs. 'non-processed' vegans need different names, although I think my answer to that would be no, they don't. They're all vegans, either ethical or dietary. But, I'm not vegan or vegetarian, so that's only my uninformed opinion.
Thank you. It's an honor to be grouped together with @BecomingBane.
Hugs all around.
I do approve of labelling "evil wizard vegans." The rest of us need to know who to watch out for.4 -
Hey, I resemble that remark.
0 -
Is there a distinction between people who are vegetarians because they like animals, and vegetarians because they hate plants?1
-
afwatson15 wrote: »Is there a distinction between people who are vegetarians because they like animals, and vegetarians because they hate plants?
Given the number of plants fed to domestic animals, if you hate plants choosing meat would be the more effective choice. A huge portion of the food grown around the world is fed to domesticated animals.5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »afwatson15 wrote: »Is there a distinction between people who are vegetarians because they like animals, and vegetarians because they hate plants?
Given the number of plants fed to domestic animals, if you hate plants choosing meat would be the more effective choice. A huge portion of the food grown around the world is fed to domesticated animals.
Thank you 'science-side-of-mfp'.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »afwatson15 wrote: »Is there a distinction between people who are vegetarians because they like animals, and vegetarians because they hate plants?
Given the number of plants fed to domestic animals, if you hate plants choosing meat would be the more effective choice. A huge portion of the food grown around the world is fed to domesticated animals.
This was awesome. I'm just trying to picture a person vindictively eating plants because they hate them so much.
Edited because I found a better comic.
6 -
WinoGelato wrote: »This debate section is not turning out the way I thought it would... I had such high hopes for a place where we could discuss thought provoking topics with science and logic and get to the heart of some issues without worrying about offending posters just looking for support.
Alas, this thread proves that is just not the case...
It's because people only read Health & Fitness and ignore/don't see Debate. There's already a Fitness sub forum, but not one specifically for Health. Then again, there are people who only see Debate and want to discuss whatever their internet link-clicking takes them.
Nah, roll it up one more level of abstraction: It's because half the population is less smart than average. 1 -
BecomingBane wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »afwatson15 wrote: »Is there a distinction between people who are vegetarians because they like animals, and vegetarians because they hate plants?
Given the number of plants fed to domestic animals, if you hate plants choosing meat would be the more effective choice. A huge portion of the food grown around the world is fed to domesticated animals.
This was awesome. I'm just trying to picture a person vindictively eating plants because they hate them so much.
Edited because I found a better comic.
One of my dogs really loves greens. When I give him a piece of kale, he will shake it in his jaws like he's trying to break its neck. It's adorable. That's how I imagine someone vindictively eating a plant.2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »BecomingBane wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »afwatson15 wrote: »Is there a distinction between people who are vegetarians because they like animals, and vegetarians because they hate plants?
Given the number of plants fed to domestic animals, if you hate plants choosing meat would be the more effective choice. A huge portion of the food grown around the world is fed to domesticated animals.
This was awesome. I'm just trying to picture a person vindictively eating plants because they hate them so much.
Edited because I found a better comic.
One of my dogs really loves greens. When I give him a piece of kale, he will shake it in his jaws like he's trying to break its neck. It's adorable. That's how I imagine someone vindictively eating a plant.
That's perfect, lol. For my cats it's melon and broccoli that they will fight me over.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 913 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions