Vegan gone unvegan because of bone broth craze?
Options
Replies
-
janejellyroll wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »OMG seriously?
That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard
So you completely renege on an ethical decision that means you have to work hard to ensure adequate nutritional markers are met and your entire life is lived without animal by-products in order to drink soup, which has no discernible scientific benefit above the fact it's soup
Of all the cockamamie things I have ever heard
Calling @BecomingBane and @janejellyroll to comment on this one because I would like to hear their responses
Not everyone is vegan for ethical reasons.
At the risk of repeating myself: People don't give up fur, beeswax candles, leather, wool, animal entertainment, and lanolin in lotion for health reasons. Veganism is an ethical position on animal exploitation.
And, not everyone eats fur, beeswax candles, leather, wool, animal entertainment, or lanolin.
Some vegans are just people who don't eat animal products (Dietary vegans, ie Sikhs).0 -
coreyreichle wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »OMG seriously?
That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard
So you completely renege on an ethical decision that means you have to work hard to ensure adequate nutritional markers are met and your entire life is lived without animal by-products in order to drink soup, which has no discernible scientific benefit above the fact it's soup
Of all the cockamamie things I have ever heard
Calling @BecomingBane and @janejellyroll to comment on this one because I would like to hear their responses
Not everyone is vegan for ethical reasons.
At the risk of repeating myself: People don't give up fur, beeswax candles, leather, wool, animal entertainment, and lanolin in lotion for health reasons. Veganism is an ethical position on animal exploitation.
And, not everyone eats fur, beeswax candles, leather, wool, animal entertainment, or lanolin.
Some vegans are just people who don't eat animal products (Dietary vegans, ie Sikhs).
I would hope that nobody is eating fur, candles, leather, or wool. I'm not even sure how one would eat entertainment.
Veganism is an ethical position on animal exploitation. Someone avoiding animal products in the diet is on a plant-based diet.0 -
But what about products (whether food or cosmetic) that are advertised as vegan? I always thought of products labeled this way as being "without animal components", but not necessarily attached to the ethics of it.janejellyroll wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »OMG seriously?
That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard
So you completely renege on an ethical decision that means you have to work hard to ensure adequate nutritional markers are met and your entire life is lived without animal by-products in order to drink soup, which has no discernible scientific benefit above the fact it's soup
Of all the cockamamie things I have ever heard
Calling @BecomingBane and @janejellyroll to comment on this one because I would like to hear their responses
Not everyone is vegan for ethical reasons.
At the risk of repeating myself: People don't give up fur, beeswax candles, leather, wool, animal entertainment, and lanolin in lotion for health reasons. Veganism is an ethical position on animal exploitation.
And, not everyone eats fur, beeswax candles, leather, wool, animal entertainment, or lanolin.
Some vegans are just people who don't eat animal products (Dietary vegans, ie Sikhs).
I would hope that nobody is eating fur, candles, leather, or wool. I'm not even sure how one would eat entertainment.
Veganism is an ethical position on animal exploitation. Someone avoiding animal products in the diet is on a plant-based diet.
Also, in regards to the study Wetcoaster linked to, scientific studies and anecdotal accounts do conflict. I know there are enough stories on the Internet of people who have seen tremendous health benefits once they started consuming bone broth.
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
But what about products (whether food or cosmetic) that are advertised as vegan? I always thought of products labeled this way as being "without animal components", but not necessarily attached to the ethics of it.janejellyroll wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »OMG seriously?
That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard
So you completely renege on an ethical decision that means you have to work hard to ensure adequate nutritional markers are met and your entire life is lived without animal by-products in order to drink soup, which has no discernible scientific benefit above the fact it's soup
Of all the cockamamie things I have ever heard
Calling @BecomingBane and @janejellyroll to comment on this one because I would like to hear their responses
Not everyone is vegan for ethical reasons.
At the risk of repeating myself: People don't give up fur, beeswax candles, leather, wool, animal entertainment, and lanolin in lotion for health reasons. Veganism is an ethical position on animal exploitation.
And, not everyone eats fur, beeswax candles, leather, wool, animal entertainment, or lanolin.
Some vegans are just people who don't eat animal products (Dietary vegans, ie Sikhs).
I would hope that nobody is eating fur, candles, leather, or wool. I'm not even sure how one would eat entertainment.
Veganism is an ethical position on animal exploitation. Someone avoiding animal products in the diet is on a plant-based diet.
Also, in regards to the study Wetcoaster linked to, scientific studies and anecdotal accounts do conflict. I know there are enough stories on the Internet of people who have seen tremendous health benefits once they started consuming bone broth.
That's like saying because a food is advertised as kosher it no longer has a religious definition. That makes no sense. People market things because there is a target audience that are willing to buy products. Advertising something as vegan is just a way to try to increase sales to people who are vegan.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »OMG seriously?
That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard
So you completely renege on an ethical decision that means you have to work hard to ensure adequate nutritional markers are met and your entire life is lived without animal by-products in order to drink soup, which has no discernible scientific benefit above the fact it's soup
Of all the cockamamie things I have ever heard
Calling @BecomingBane and @janejellyroll to comment on this one because I would like to hear their responses
Not everyone is vegan for ethical reasons.
At the risk of repeating myself: People don't give up fur, beeswax candles, leather, wool, animal entertainment, and lanolin in lotion for health reasons. Veganism is an ethical position on animal exploitation.
And, not everyone eats fur, beeswax candles, leather, wool, animal entertainment, or lanolin.
Some vegans are just people who don't eat animal products (Dietary vegans, ie Sikhs).
I would hope that nobody is eating fur, candles, leather, or wool. I'm not even sure how one would eat entertainment.
Veganism is an ethical position on animal exploitation. Someone avoiding animal products in the diet is on a plant-based diet.
Interesting... Reference.com disagrees:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vegan?s=t
"a vegetarian who omits all animal products from the diet."
First definition is only diet. Which may or may not have ethical reasoning behind it.0 -
coreyreichle wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »OMG seriously?
That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard
So you completely renege on an ethical decision that means you have to work hard to ensure adequate nutritional markers are met and your entire life is lived without animal by-products in order to drink soup, which has no discernible scientific benefit above the fact it's soup
Of all the cockamamie things I have ever heard
Calling @BecomingBane and @janejellyroll to comment on this one because I would like to hear their responses
Not everyone is vegan for ethical reasons.
At the risk of repeating myself: People don't give up fur, beeswax candles, leather, wool, animal entertainment, and lanolin in lotion for health reasons. Veganism is an ethical position on animal exploitation.
And, not everyone eats fur, beeswax candles, leather, wool, animal entertainment, or lanolin.
Some vegans are just people who don't eat animal products (Dietary vegans, ie Sikhs).
I would hope that nobody is eating fur, candles, leather, or wool. I'm not even sure how one would eat entertainment.
Veganism is an ethical position on animal exploitation. Someone avoiding animal products in the diet is on a plant-based diet.
Interesting... Reference.com disagrees:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vegan?s=t
"a vegetarian who omits all animal products from the diet."
First definition is only diet. Which may or may not have ethical reasoning behind it.
If you check a better dictionary like the OED it gives the history of the term, which is consistent with what janejellyroll said.0 -
I think, rather than use an online dictionary to define my ethical standpoint, I'll continue to go by Donald Watson, who helped create the word in 1944. His definition:
"[…] 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 humans, animals and the environment. "0 -
coreyreichle wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »OMG seriously?
That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard
So you completely renege on an ethical decision that means you have to work hard to ensure adequate nutritional markers are met and your entire life is lived without animal by-products in order to drink soup, which has no discernible scientific benefit above the fact it's soup
Of all the cockamamie things I have ever heard
Calling @BecomingBane and @janejellyroll to comment on this one because I would like to hear their responses
Not everyone is vegan for ethical reasons.
At the risk of repeating myself: People don't give up fur, beeswax candles, leather, wool, animal entertainment, and lanolin in lotion for health reasons. Veganism is an ethical position on animal exploitation.
And, not everyone eats fur, beeswax candles, leather, wool, animal entertainment, or lanolin.
Some vegans are just people who don't eat animal products (Dietary vegans, ie Sikhs).
Sikhs are vegetarian not vegan and not all Sikhs choose to eschew meat. In the temples I believe food served is lacto-vegetarian
I once had an argument with a catering company representative who swore blind that tuna sandwiches were vegetarian, this argument reminds me of that one
It ended with me saying...no you're wrong.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
But what about products (whether food or cosmetic) that are advertised as vegan? I always thought of products labeled this way as being "without animal components", but not necessarily attached to the ethics of it.janejellyroll wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »OMG seriously?
That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard
So you completely renege on an ethical decision that means you have to work hard to ensure adequate nutritional markers are met and your entire life is lived without animal by-products in order to drink soup, which has no discernible scientific benefit above the fact it's soup
Of all the cockamamie things I have ever heard
Calling @BecomingBane and @janejellyroll to comment on this one because I would like to hear their responses
Not everyone is vegan for ethical reasons.
At the risk of repeating myself: People don't give up fur, beeswax candles, leather, wool, animal entertainment, and lanolin in lotion for health reasons. Veganism is an ethical position on animal exploitation.
And, not everyone eats fur, beeswax candles, leather, wool, animal entertainment, or lanolin.
Some vegans are just people who don't eat animal products (Dietary vegans, ie Sikhs).
I would hope that nobody is eating fur, candles, leather, or wool. I'm not even sure how one would eat entertainment.
Veganism is an ethical position on animal exploitation. Someone avoiding animal products in the diet is on a plant-based diet.
Also, in regards to the study Wetcoaster linked to, scientific studies and anecdotal accounts do conflict. I know there are enough stories on the Internet of people who have seen tremendous health benefits once they started consuming bone broth.
It's a label letting people know the product is suitable for vegans.0 -
coreyreichle wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »OMG seriously?
That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard
So you completely renege on an ethical decision that means you have to work hard to ensure adequate nutritional markers are met and your entire life is lived without animal by-products in order to drink soup, which has no discernible scientific benefit above the fact it's soup
Of all the cockamamie things I have ever heard
Calling @BecomingBane and @janejellyroll to comment on this one because I would like to hear their responses
Not everyone is vegan for ethical reasons.
At the risk of repeating myself: People don't give up fur, beeswax candles, leather, wool, animal entertainment, and lanolin in lotion for health reasons. Veganism is an ethical position on animal exploitation.
And, not everyone eats fur, beeswax candles, leather, wool, animal entertainment, or lanolin.
Some vegans are just people who don't eat animal products (Dietary vegans, ie Sikhs).
I would hope that nobody is eating fur, candles, leather, or wool. I'm not even sure how one would eat entertainment.
Veganism is an ethical position on animal exploitation. Someone avoiding animal products in the diet is on a plant-based diet.
Interesting... Reference.com disagrees:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vegan?s=t
"a vegetarian who omits all animal products from the diet."
First definition is only diet. Which may or may not have ethical reasoning behind it.
I'm not familiar with reference.com, so it's not that interesting to me if they disagree with the established meaning of the word. I don't know what research the people who work for that site did to come up with that definition, but Donald Watson coined the term to refer to an ethical objection to animal exploitation. If the people at reference.com want to change the meaning, that's on them.0 -
coreyreichle wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »OMG seriously?
That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard
So you completely renege on an ethical decision that means you have to work hard to ensure adequate nutritional markers are met and your entire life is lived without animal by-products in order to drink soup, which has no discernible scientific benefit above the fact it's soup
Of all the cockamamie things I have ever heard
Calling @BecomingBane and @janejellyroll to comment on this one because I would like to hear their responses
Not everyone is vegan for ethical reasons.
At the risk of repeating myself: People don't give up fur, beeswax candles, leather, wool, animal entertainment, and lanolin in lotion for health reasons. Veganism is an ethical position on animal exploitation.
And, not everyone eats fur, beeswax candles, leather, wool, animal entertainment, or lanolin.
Some vegans are just people who don't eat animal products (Dietary vegans, ie Sikhs).
Sikhs are vegetarian not vegan and not all Sikhs choose to eschew meat. In the temples I believe food served is lacto-vegetarian
I once had an argument with a catering company representative who swore blind that tuna sandwiches were vegetarian, this argument reminds me of that one
It ended with me saying...no you're wrong.
Exactly. Even lacto-vegetarian, lacto-ovo-vegetarian, et al. Not always for ethics reasons, sometimes, just vegetarian for dietary reasons, is my point.
Just because some fanatics co-opted the term to require ethical backing, doesn't make it fact is my only point.0 -
coreyreichle wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »OMG seriously?
That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard
So you completely renege on an ethical decision that means you have to work hard to ensure adequate nutritional markers are met and your entire life is lived without animal by-products in order to drink soup, which has no discernible scientific benefit above the fact it's soup
Of all the cockamamie things I have ever heard
Calling @BecomingBane and @janejellyroll to comment on this one because I would like to hear their responses
Not everyone is vegan for ethical reasons.
At the risk of repeating myself: People don't give up fur, beeswax candles, leather, wool, animal entertainment, and lanolin in lotion for health reasons. Veganism is an ethical position on animal exploitation.
And, not everyone eats fur, beeswax candles, leather, wool, animal entertainment, or lanolin.
Some vegans are just people who don't eat animal products (Dietary vegans, ie Sikhs).
Sikhs are vegetarian not vegan and not all Sikhs choose to eschew meat. In the temples I believe food served is lacto-vegetarian
I once had an argument with a catering company representative who swore blind that tuna sandwiches were vegetarian, this argument reminds me of that one
It ended with me saying...no you're wrong.
Exactly. Even lacto-vegetarian, lacto-ovo-vegetarian, et al. Not always for ethics reasons, sometimes, just vegetarian for dietary reasons, is my point.
Just because some fanatics co-opted the term to require ethical backing, doesn't make it fact is my only point.
"Fanatics" didn't co-opt the term. They created it to describe those who object to animal exploitation -- including, but not limited to, exploiting animals for food.
The people doing the co-opting are those seeking to have the term apply to people who avoid animal products in their diet, but practice other forms of animal exploitation.1 -
coreyreichle wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »OMG seriously?
That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard
So you completely renege on an ethical decision that means you have to work hard to ensure adequate nutritional markers are met and your entire life is lived without animal by-products in order to drink soup, which has no discernible scientific benefit above the fact it's soup
Of all the cockamamie things I have ever heard
Calling @BecomingBane and @janejellyroll to comment on this one because I would like to hear their responses
Not everyone is vegan for ethical reasons.
At the risk of repeating myself: People don't give up fur, beeswax candles, leather, wool, animal entertainment, and lanolin in lotion for health reasons. Veganism is an ethical position on animal exploitation.
And, not everyone eats fur, beeswax candles, leather, wool, animal entertainment, or lanolin.
Some vegans are just people who don't eat animal products (Dietary vegans, ie Sikhs).
Sikhs are vegetarian not vegan and not all Sikhs choose to eschew meat. In the temples I believe food served is lacto-vegetarian
I once had an argument with a catering company representative who swore blind that tuna sandwiches were vegetarian, this argument reminds me of that one
It ended with me saying...no you're wrong.
Exactly. Even lacto-vegetarian, lacto-ovo-vegetarian, et al. Not always for ethics reasons, sometimes, just vegetarian for dietary reasons, is my point.
Just because some fanatics co-opted the term to require ethical backing, doesn't make it fact is my only point.
Yes exactly
that's the difference between vegetarian and vegan (vegan is an ethical stance, vegetarian is a dietary one)0 -
I drink Bone Broth daily it's really helped with my skin & health in general but most of the time I'm on a plant based diet0
-
Holy zombie thread.0
-
[/quote]At the risk of repeating myself: People don't give up fur, beeswax candles, leather, wool, animal entertainment, and lanolin in lotion for health reasons. Veganism is an ethical position on animal exploitation.[/quote]
I apologize for the hijack here but I have a question. With 12000 posts in this forum, I m sure you know what you are talking about.
I am new to veganism and I struggle with some concepts. Animal exploitation is one terrible thing; Exploitation of any kind is another.
It is hard for new people to embrace veganism when all is "black or white", "all or nothing" from a certain point of view. If I understand your point correctly, Ethics is what should prevent a vegan from consuming animal parts as jackets and lotions; is that correct?0 -
MobOfBricks wrote: »
I apologize for the hijack here but I have a question. With 12000 posts in this forum, I m sure you know what you are talking about.
I am new to veganism and I struggle with some concepts. Animal exploitation is one terrible thing; Exploitation of any kind is another.
It is hard for new people to embrace veganism when all is "black or white", "all or nothing" from a certain point of view. If I understand your point correctly, Ethics is what should prevent a vegan from consuming animal parts as jackets and lotions; is that correct?
Ethics are what would lead a vegan to reject jackets or lotions that involve animal exploitation, that's correct.0 -
I'm not a vegan but I don't eat meat and no, it's a pretty disgusting idea to me. There are loads of other ways I can nourish my body without resorting to this trend.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 939 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions