Vegan, plant based family of 10
Options
Replies
-
Adding: if one is focusing specifically on the impact, I guess it could make sense to say that there isn't a big difference between a non-vegan who limits their usage of animal products and a vegan. But if one considers part of the value of veganism is taking a position on the moral appropriateness of using animals for pleasure or convenience, there is a big, very relevant, difference.
I believe most vegans would argue that the value of veganism as a concept is not just the impact it makes, but the concrete impact of having a concept that describes an objection to animal exploitation. For that reason, it's very appropriate to push back against terms like "hybrid vegan" or "mostly vegan" or concepts like "fully vegan."1 -
MostlyWater wrote: »are all of you happy to eat this way? 10 people must have all kinds of opinions and likes and dislikes.
Wouldnt that happen whether you eat animal products or not?
I presume some of the 10 are children - so, as with all families, children eat what adults provide.
ETA no need to presume - if I read OP properly, she says 8 are children.
3 -
nvm0
-
I think that veganism generally defines itself as seeking to exclude exploitation and cruelty to animals to as far as is possible and practicable. I'm not sure that eating cake when you are out because it is convenient would qualify, but it is probably impossible to be completely "perfect" about it in our current society.
I had the discussion about it a while back with regards to things like vaccines and drugs that were perhaps discovered years ago with the use of animal products or testing. I think for a lot of people the point is to move forward to a time when those choices won't need to be made, not risking your health to make a point.
I mean when I was vegan for several years a very good friend of mine at the time went out of his way to cook me something "vegan", which wasn't really vegan, but I thanked him and ate it anyway. I still considered myself vegan. Some people might quibble about that I guess.
Yes, when we talk about unnecessary animal exploitation, it's specifically referring to those forms of animal exploitation that it is possible and practicable to avoid.2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Adding: if one is focusing specifically on the impact, I guess it could make sense to say that there isn't a big difference between a non-vegan who limits their usage of animal products and a vegan. But if one considers part of the value of veganism is taking a position on the moral appropriateness of using animals for pleasure or convenience, there is a big, very relevant, difference.
I believe most vegans would argue that the value of veganism as a concept is not just the impact it makes, but the concrete impact of having a concept that describes an objection to animal exploitation. For that reason, it's very appropriate to push back against terms like "hybrid vegan" or "mostly vegan" or concepts like "fully vegan."
OK, I get your point regarding animal rights and the absoluteness of being vegan within that motivational argumentation. Most vegans I know, and vegetarians too, have changed their diet because of environmental impact and sometimes make exceptions they are OK with because their focus is specifically on the impact of their overall lifestyle and not the concept.
From these motivational standpoints, I guess it makes more sense to participate in things like eating the birthday cake someone else already made so it doesn’t go to waste, or eating meat that would otherwise be thrown out since the total carbon footprint of eating that meat is smaller than throwing that already grown, killed and packed meat away AND buying something vegan to eat instead. The people I know don’t intentionally leave these ”loopholes” for themselves, either, and tell others they are vegan/vegetarian whenever asked about dietary requirements or it’s polite to notify people.1 -
I am not posting this to start a controversy but to really state facts by definition.
A "True" Vegan is someone who abstains from ALL animal food. Almost Vegan" is Plant based. The term plant based came about to encompass people who are eating a mostly plant based foods. Vegans, by definition ate just that. I am vegan, and my friends and room mate. There are some, many vegans who are strictly ethical. They are doing it for the planet, animals or combination of both. Some are religious and some are doing it for health. I started as plant based, then vegan. It was for health and now it is both ethical and for health.
There is nothing wrong with being either plant based or vegan. It is a matter of choice. For some, plant based can include environmental and animal concerns, but they are d0o0ing the best for themselves at that time.3 -
Wow... I think this stance that you only get acknowledged if you are 100% Vegan is problematic. You run the risk of alienating those who can't, for whatever reason just be 100% vegan. I think a step by step approach to veganism is sometimes a necessity for people. Kindness and understanding and a gentle push towards your cause can go further (longer term) than one where you say "if you don't go 100% vegan then you don't give a *kitten* about animals". Also, this idea that "harm is decorated with buttercream frosting" is a simplistic view on why people may struggle with full veganism from the get go.
Anyway... il come away from this conversation as I find people like this do more damage than good. Good luck to you all.0 -
Squatcleananddeadlift wrote: »Wow... I think this stance that you only get acknowledged if you are 100% Vegan is problematic. You run the risk of alienating those who can't, for whatever reason just be 100% vegan. I think a step by step approach to veganism is sometimes a necessity for people. Kindness and understanding and a gentle push towards your cause can go further (longer term) than one where you say "if you don't go 100% vegan then you don't give a *kitten* about animals". Also, this idea that "harm is decorated with buttercream frosting" is a simplistic view on why people may struggle with full veganism from the get go.
Anyway... il come away from this conversation as I find people like this do more damage than good. Good luck to you all.
I think part of the issue is that colloquially we use the term "vegan" to refer to products too, not just a philosophy or lifestyle. I can see how that could be annoying to people who want to be very strict about the term. I am not vegan, and am not interested in becoming one, but I do see value in reducing consumption of animal-based products and foods for environmental, health, and compassion-related reasons. That's why I bothered contributing to this thread in the first place. But there are lots of people who think seriously about the ethics of food (as I do) who may end up making different choices.
I am in 100% agreement that "purity testing," in any group of people, tends to do more harm than good.0 -
Squatcleananddeadlift wrote: »Wow... I think this stance that you only get acknowledged if you are 100% Vegan is problematic. You run the risk of alienating those who can't, for whatever reason just be 100% vegan. I think a step by step approach to veganism is sometimes a necessity for people. Kindness and understanding and a gentle push towards your cause can go further (longer term) than one where you say "if you don't go 100% vegan then you don't give a *kitten* about animals". Also, this idea that "harm is decorated with buttercream frosting" is a simplistic view on why people may struggle with full veganism from the get go.
Anyway... il come away from this conversation as I find people like this do more damage than good. Good luck to you all.
If someone literally can't do something, then it wouldn't be possible or practicable, so it wouldn't be required of them to be vegan. It's right in the definition. Let's not invent reasons to be upset at vegans. We do plenty of stuff that upsets people who want to justify animal exploitation, you don't have to invent imaginary reasons to dislike us.
If someone is struggling to become vegan because they want to eat birthday cake, I'd simply recommend that they check out the huge world of vegan cakes. If the cake still matters to them more than the animals harmed in producing it, then I'm not sure why they're so keen to label themselves as vegan anyway.7 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Adding: if one is focusing specifically on the impact, I guess it could make sense to say that there isn't a big difference between a non-vegan who limits their usage of animal products and a vegan. But if one considers part of the value of veganism is taking a position on the moral appropriateness of using animals for pleasure or convenience, there is a big, very relevant, difference.
I believe most vegans would argue that the value of veganism as a concept is not just the impact it makes, but the concrete impact of having a concept that describes an objection to animal exploitation. For that reason, it's very appropriate to push back against terms like "hybrid vegan" or "mostly vegan" or concepts like "fully vegan."
OK, I get your point regarding animal rights and the absoluteness of being vegan within that motivational argumentation. Most vegans I know, and vegetarians too, have changed their diet because of environmental impact and sometimes make exceptions they are OK with because their focus is specifically on the impact of their overall lifestyle and not the concept.
From these motivational standpoints, I guess it makes more sense to participate in things like eating the birthday cake someone else already made so it doesn’t go to waste, or eating meat that would otherwise be thrown out since the total carbon footprint of eating that meat is smaller than throwing that already grown, killed and packed meat away AND buying something vegan to eat instead. The people I know don’t intentionally leave these ”loopholes” for themselves, either, and tell others they are vegan/vegetarian whenever asked about dietary requirements or it’s polite to notify people.
I think we could use a term for people who are fine with animal exploitation but are reducing their consumption of animal products for environmental reasons.0 -
Squatcleananddeadlift wrote: »Wow... I think this stance that you only get acknowledged if you are 100% Vegan is problematic. You run the risk of alienating those who can't, for whatever reason just be 100% vegan.
Why on earth would it be alienating to use the word as intended when it was created? It's hardly a big issue to say "I'm mostly plant-based" or whatever. And there are other words too, like vegetarian.
None of this really relates to the person who said he or she eats meat but for beef and has eliminated dairy, which IMO doesn't seem like an effort to be vegan at all, but is a typical omnivore diet with some foods one chooses not to eat for preferences or health or whatnot. I limit meat and try to have it no more than once a day and not at all on many days, but I don't think that needs a special name to motivate me.
The point is that one can't say one shares the vegan understanding of the ethics (and I don't) and also say it's fine to eat animals when it's convenient or as a special treat or whatnot. That doesn't mean non vegans don't care about animals -- I care about animals, IMO, but I don't agree it's wrong to eat them or raise them for food. That vegans would say I am wrong on the ethics doesn't bother me, and I do't know why it should be considered some hurtful thing to point out that I obviously am not operating by a vegan ethical understanding of the issue. (I have various ethical views that I have differences is with others and in the proper context I see no harm in acknowledging this, and this is one.)2 -
alisdairsmommy wrote: »I am in 100% agreement that "purity testing," in any group of people, tends to do more harm than good.
I don't see anyone here purity testing -- I see that as telling people that doing things like reducing meat consumption or even going vegetarian or working to get rid of the worst conditions through law does more harm than good, as it allows meat eaters not to realize what scum they are. I've seen/heard such arguments, but that's a very different thing than simply pointing out that "vegan" has a specific meaning distinction from "eating a mostly plant-based diet."2 -
alisdairsmommy wrote: »I am in 100% agreement that "purity testing," in any group of people, tends to do more harm than good.
I don't see anyone here purity testing -- I see that as telling people that doing things like reducing meat consumption or even going vegetarian or working to get rid of the worst conditions through law does more harm than good, as it allows meat eaters not to realize what scum they are. I've seen/heard such arguments, but that's a very different thing than simply pointing out that "vegan" has a specific meaning distinction from "eating a mostly plant-based diet."
This makes sense to me.
Thanks. 1 -
The point is that one can't say one shares the vegan understanding of the ethics (and I don't) and also say it's fine to eat animals when it's convenient or as a special treat or whatnot. That doesn't mean non vegans don't care about animals -- I care about animals, IMO, but I don't agree it's wrong to eat them or raise them for food. That vegans would say I am wrong on the ethics doesn't bother me, and I do't know why it should be considered some hurtful thing to point out that I obviously am not operating by a vegan ethical understanding of the issue. (I have various ethical views that I have differences is with others and in the proper context I see no harm in acknowledging this, and this is one.)
Yes, I think part of the issue here is that we don't have a great vocabulary to talk about various consumption/treatment choices that involve strong conviction, so "vegan" sometimes gets roped into these conversations in an inappropriate way. The truth is that virtually everyone is operating from a moral POV in their lives and that someone isn't vegan doesn't mean that they don't have other strong convictions that are impacting their choices in a serious and important way. They're just . . . not vegan. When that is pointed out, sometimes it's taken as an an attempted insult or responded to with "Why are you trying to put people down?"
Some of the most lovely people on earth aren't vegan. In reality, caring and compassionate people of good will do disagree on when and how it's appropriate to use animals for certain purposes. What's troubling to me is less the disagreement (although obviously I'd prefer more people to adopt veganism), than the attempt of some non-vegans to pretend that the difference doesn't even exist and that veganism can somehow be implemented alongside deliberate choices to engage in animal exploitation. Instead of disagreement, that feels more like an attempt at erasure.
4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Squatcleananddeadlift wrote: »Wow... I think this stance that you only get acknowledged if you are 100% Vegan is problematic. You run the risk of alienating those who can't, for whatever reason just be 100% vegan. I think a step by step approach to veganism is sometimes a necessity for people. Kindness and understanding and a gentle push towards your cause can go further (longer term) than one where you say "if you don't go 100% vegan then you don't give a *kitten* about animals". Also, this idea that "harm is decorated with buttercream frosting" is a simplistic view on why people may struggle with full veganism from the get go.
Anyway... il come away from this conversation as I find people like this do more damage than good. Good luck to you all.
If someone literally can't do something, then it wouldn't be possible or practicable, so it wouldn't be required of them to be vegan. It's right in the definition. Let's not invent reasons to be upset at vegans. We do plenty of stuff that upsets people who want to justify animal exploitation, you don't have to invent imaginary reasons to dislike us.
If someone is struggling to become vegan because they want to eat birthday cake, I'd simply recommend that they check out the huge world of vegan cakes. If the cake still matters to them more than the animals harmed in producing it, then I'm not sure why they're so keen to label themselves as vegan anyway.
The poster who sparked this conversation didn't refer to herself as vegan. She didn't mention vegan at all. She described herself as a hybrid. Suggesting that she is neither vegan or anything else but someone who is trying to explore her own ethics and how that translates to what she has on her plate.
I'm not inventing anything. I stand by what I say which is you made a completely unnecessary comment to someone who was describing how she eats, this can translate to more harm to your ethical standpoint and can/does prevent people from exploring it further and making ethical changes. By the way I have no issue with vegans lol.
I have to admit though after reading the additional comments that a wider vocabulary might help. Ethical eating might be a good one ... not vegan but stating think about how your habits impact the animals and the planet we live on.0 -
This thread has been very educational, thanks to all participants and especially @janejellyroll . I've always thought vegan or veganism is simply a descriptor for an animal-free diet/lifestyle that can have varying motivations. Might be a language barrier (English isn't my first language, but vegan is a word in my native language too), might be just lack of understanding. I wholeheartedly agree that if veganism is considered a moral stance based on abstaining from all products of animal exploitation, climate-oriented plant-based eating might need a separate term.
I do still think that the world overall would be better for people, animals and climate alike if more people simply reduced their animal product intake and society allowed more flexibility by appreciating each small step. It would create less demand for animal products and more demand for plant-based products, making them more profitable for businesses and thus more readily available, making it easier for crowds of maybe less convicted people to try out plant-based products and shift their habits. I eat regularly both plant-based meals and meals with animal products, but these black-and-white limits of "vegan" or "not vegan" sometimes throw people for a loop (hence, need for a suitable term). I'm still annoyed by a colleague who once literally stared at me and said "tofu?? but you eat meat!" when I ordered a vegan dish for lunch. Flexibility and plant-based dishes becoming mainstream will hopefully reduce the amount of these statements and allow more people to start shifting towards plant-based, without judgement from either other meat-eaters like my colleague or from vegans who think they should go all in immediately.2 -
Squatcleananddeadlift wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Squatcleananddeadlift wrote: »Wow... I think this stance that you only get acknowledged if you are 100% Vegan is problematic. You run the risk of alienating those who can't, for whatever reason just be 100% vegan. I think a step by step approach to veganism is sometimes a necessity for people. Kindness and understanding and a gentle push towards your cause can go further (longer term) than one where you say "if you don't go 100% vegan then you don't give a *kitten* about animals". Also, this idea that "harm is decorated with buttercream frosting" is a simplistic view on why people may struggle with full veganism from the get go.
Anyway... il come away from this conversation as I find people like this do more damage than good. Good luck to you all.
If someone literally can't do something, then it wouldn't be possible or practicable, so it wouldn't be required of them to be vegan. It's right in the definition. Let's not invent reasons to be upset at vegans. We do plenty of stuff that upsets people who want to justify animal exploitation, you don't have to invent imaginary reasons to dislike us.
If someone is struggling to become vegan because they want to eat birthday cake, I'd simply recommend that they check out the huge world of vegan cakes. If the cake still matters to them more than the animals harmed in producing it, then I'm not sure why they're so keen to label themselves as vegan anyway.
The poster who sparked this conversation didn't refer to herself as vegan. She didn't mention vegan at all.
The context is that he/she was a hybrid vegan or hybrid between vegan and not (and that poster doesn't seem gravely insulted by the idea that he or she is not a hybrid vegan). The poster also said nothing about ethics.
It's great if the poster is trying to reduce meat consumption for ethical reasons (again, I didn't get this from the post at all), but I don't see how pointing out the meaning of vegan somehow puts the poster down (especially if, as you say, the poster was not claiming the term at all).
The broader question is if it is somehow problematic to try to keep the existing meaning of vegan because one thinks it is a valuable concept to have a word to describe. I think it is, and so I think it is worth distinguishing between it and even "mostly plant-based" or "100% plant-based for health reasons," even though in practice the plate of such people might look identical to the plate of a vegan person. IME, vegetarians and plant-based people typically have no problem acknowledging that they are not and not currently trying to be vegan (and plenty of people have started as plant-based or vegetarian and then moved over to full veganism).2 -
Squatcleananddeadlift wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Squatcleananddeadlift wrote: »Wow... I think this stance that you only get acknowledged if you are 100% Vegan is problematic. You run the risk of alienating those who can't, for whatever reason just be 100% vegan. I think a step by step approach to veganism is sometimes a necessity for people. Kindness and understanding and a gentle push towards your cause can go further (longer term) than one where you say "if you don't go 100% vegan then you don't give a *kitten* about animals". Also, this idea that "harm is decorated with buttercream frosting" is a simplistic view on why people may struggle with full veganism from the get go.
Anyway... il come away from this conversation as I find people like this do more damage than good. Good luck to you all.
If someone literally can't do something, then it wouldn't be possible or practicable, so it wouldn't be required of them to be vegan. It's right in the definition. Let's not invent reasons to be upset at vegans. We do plenty of stuff that upsets people who want to justify animal exploitation, you don't have to invent imaginary reasons to dislike us.
If someone is struggling to become vegan because they want to eat birthday cake, I'd simply recommend that they check out the huge world of vegan cakes. If the cake still matters to them more than the animals harmed in producing it, then I'm not sure why they're so keen to label themselves as vegan anyway.
The poster who sparked this conversation didn't refer to herself as vegan. She didn't mention vegan at all. She described herself as a hybrid. Suggesting that she is neither vegan or anything else but someone who is trying to explore her own ethics and how that translates to what she has on her plate.
I'm not inventing anything. I stand by what I say which is you made a completely unnecessary comment to someone who was describing how she eats, this can translate to more harm to your ethical standpoint and can/does prevent people from exploring it further and making ethical changes. By the way I have no issue with vegans lol.
I have to admit though after reading the additional comments that a wider vocabulary might help. Ethical eating might be a good one ... not vegan but stating think about how your habits impact the animals and the planet we live on.
I was responding to this comment of yours: "I think this stance that you only get acknowledged if you are 100% Vegan is problematic. You run the risk of alienating those who can't, for whatever reason just be 100% vegan."
The point is that someone who is avoiding unnecessary animal exploitation when possible is vegan. If you're concerned that vegans are somehow de-veganizing those who cannot be "100% vegan," (whatever you think that means) then you're inventing something to be concerned about because if someone cannot do something, then it isn't possible.
What does harm to my ethical standpoint (to the extent that non-vegans can harm it) is the myth that vegans expect the impossible of people, which is why I take the time to correct that when it comes up.
I suppose I could have been incorrect in my thinking that when someone responded to a thread about veganism with the comment that they were a "hybrid" that there were not referring to anything related to veganism, but when I made my response, they didn't clarify that they weren't talking about veganism. Instead, they acknowledged that "hybrid" probably wasn't the best self-description.1 -
I eat regularly both plant-based meals and meals with animal products, but these black-and-white limits of "vegan" or "not vegan" sometimes throw people for a loop (hence, need for a suitable term). I'm still annoyed by a colleague who once literally stared at me and said "tofu?? but you eat meat!" when I ordered a vegan dish for lunch. Flexibility and plant-based dishes becoming mainstream will hopefully reduce the amount of these statements and allow more people to start shifting towards plant-based, without judgement from either other meat-eaters like my colleague or from vegans who think they should go all in immediately.
IMO, saying something is not veganism is NOT (and I really don't get why people are thinking otherwise) a judgment against those who aren't vegan. It's simply pointing to a difference in viewpoints. I assume someone vegan would want others to adopt vegan ethics, but saying someone is or is not vegan is not saying it's somehow worthless in all respects to go vegetarian or plant based or eat less meat for environmental or health reasons or whatever it is.
To start, it's hardly vegan vs non vegan. There is the much longer standing term vegetarian (which can mean no dairy or eggs also or can mean ovo-lacto vegetarian) and there are terms like pescatarian (no meat but fish, of course) or dairy free or "I don't eat red meat" or I'm reducing my meal intake or whatever. I don't personally feel a need to share my diet with others (off MFP, anyway), so I guess I don't totally get why the ability to claim some term is seen as important or special if it doesn't in fact describe one's POV.
I think it's weird your colleague would act like only vegetarians should eat tofu, but IMO having more people who just reduce meat or have more willingness to explore other types of dishes without claiming they are eating some kind of unusual or atypical diet (I'm semi-vegan or I'm pegan or whatever the label du jour is) actually would help with this. When I was growing up (at least in my US subculture), eating dinner without meat (and breakfast without eggs or dairy) was really weird, to the point that when I was a vegetarian in my 20s my parents couldn't figure out how one would have proper balanced meals without meat, and seemed skeptical even later when my sister and I would cook meatless dinners for them. They got over it, and more to the point eating meatless meals in the US seems much more commonplace now, whether one is vegetarian or not. Most restaurants I go to have good meatless options (something that would not have been the case 20 years ago). Part of this is that I live in a big city, probably (although in the midwest, which is arguably a very meat-centric region), but I think it shows more of a culture shift even here in the meat-happy US. And I'd never get a puzzled remark for ordering tofu or falafel or some other meatless option at a restaurant these days, even though people know I'm not a vegetarian.1 -
Dear lord - sorry I can't be doing with reading through the size of these responses. I'm sure we can agree to disagree. Good luck folks.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K 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
- 390 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
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions