Vegan, plant based family of 10
Replies
-
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
-
Squatcleananddeadlift wrote: »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.
Expressing annoyance that people took time to respond to your comments in a detailed way and acting as if it's a waste of your time to even read it seems way more unnecessary than pointing out the definition of "vegan." I mean, like, we're people. It's okay to just not respond if you don't think someone's thoughts are worth your time.7 -
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.
I agree with you on all points. Re: judgement, I’ve unfortunately seen a fair deal of judgement and mockery towards both ”sides”, and I wish that would stop altogether. I also agree that reducing meat and exploring meat-free options without making a declaration of some exotic or restrictive-sounding diet would help normalize plant-based options.
A major cultural shift is happening, both regionally and generationally, I think. The colleague who was puzzled by my choice of tofu is a middle-aged man (and also doesn’t know when to shut up about other people’s business), while I haven’t eaten meat in any event hosted by my student organization in several years - so many participants are vegetarians or vegans that they usually end up making all dishes meat-free for two reasons: practical and easier to only make one thing, and reduces the overall carbon footprint of each event. Last year my mom hosted a dinner party where one person was pescetarian. She was concerned and couldn’t come up with anything she could serve, my sister and I immediately came up with several options and everyone was happy (my sister and I both eat meat, but going meat-free is increasingly common in our social circles so we’re more familiar with diferent options).1 -
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.
I think this is one of the difficulties of communicating in forums - people interpret tone all sorts of weird ways. I probably go overboard clarifying and putting nuance in my replies to avoid sounding too blunt. I'd rather say a bunch of unnecessary stuff than be misinterpreted as unkind. That's due to my own sensitivity, though, and I'm aware a lot of other posters are "just the facts" type people, or if they've been in a place for a while they've seen some things and know the trends.0 -
Squatcleananddeadlift wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I feel like I'm a hybrid. I haven't eaten beef in over a year, I replaced real cheese with vegan cheeses.
I'm still stuck on the fish, poultry, eggs, and occasionally pork.
Hardly anyone eats the full range of animal-based foods that are available to them. That doesn't make you a "hybrid," it just makes you a non-vegan who doesn't eat beef or dairy cheese.
Why do you get to dictate how she or he describes her diet?
Hybrid vegan diet suggests she is actively trying to change her diet from a meat eater to more of a vegan one. Any change to a more ethical environmental friendly way of living surely deserves a well done than a put down?
"Hybrid vegan" makes me think of "mostly monogamous" or Leonard Cohen's song "Everybody Knows"
Everybody knows that you love me baby
Everybody knows that you really do
Everybody knows that you've been faithful
Ah, give or take a night or two5 -
Squatcleananddeadlift wrote: »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.
Gosh that seems rather rude.
as well as meaningless - not sure how you can know if you disagree if you havent read their posts
People gave polite and informative explanations - if you have no interest, just dont open the thread.
I am not vegan nor vegetarian and I make no claims of following any particular diet or lifestyle - but I can still learn from others and try to use correct terminology.
7 -
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'm not a vegan, not even close...but I do think words matter and words have meaning. I eat a lot of seafood...5-6 times per week usually. I don't label myself a "pescatarian" or "hybrid pescatarian" just because I eat a lot of seafood and have actively moved to reduce consumption of other animal proteins and actively moved to eat more fish...I'm still an omnivore...I still eat chicken, beef, and pork...just much less of it than I used to.
I see no reason to label myself as something I am not, even if I lean more heavily in that particular direction. The only reason I can really see is that it's somewhat trendy in certain circles.4 -
cwolfman13 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.
I'm not a vegan, not even close...but I do think words matter and words have meaning. I eat a lot of seafood...5-6 times per week usually. I don't label myself a "pescatarian" or "hybrid pescatarian" just because I eat a lot of seafood and have actively moved to reduce consumption of other animal proteins and actively moved to eat more fish...I'm still an omnivore...I still eat chicken, beef, and pork...just much less of it than I used to.
I see no reason to label myself as something I am not, even if I lean more heavily in that particular direction. The only reason I can really see is that it's somewhat trendy in certain circles.
I would understand you if the original poster called herself vegan and then went onto say that she ate meat but as she didn't I am failing to see your point?0 -
paperpudding wrote: »Squatcleananddeadlift wrote: »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.
Gosh that seems rather rude.
as well as meaningless - not sure how you can know if you disagree if you havent read their posts
People gave polite and informative explanations - if you have no interest, just dont open the thread.
I am not vegan nor vegetarian and I make no claims of following any particular diet or lifestyle - but I can still learn from others and try to use correct terminology.
I don't think you read the whole thread as clearly you will see I am aware of what veganism is. My initial point was made further up. The long replies and the back and fourth have muddied the water so I fail to see the point in continuing with a back and fourth. Like I said agree to disagree.
0 -
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."
Careful now; you literally just called people who eat meat scum. I take offense to that, as a person who considers myself flexitarian. I eat plant based most of the time, but see nothing morally wrong in occasionally eating animal products including some meat. I don’t know if anyone else addressed this specific slight of yours. I’m only on page two of this thread.1 -
Squatcleananddeadlift wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »Squatcleananddeadlift wrote: »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.
Gosh that seems rather rude.
as well as meaningless - not sure how you can know if you disagree if you havent read their posts
People gave polite and informative explanations - if you have no interest, just dont open the thread.
I am not vegan nor vegetarian and I make no claims of following any particular diet or lifestyle - but I can still learn from others and try to use correct terminology.
I don't think you read the whole thread as clearly you will see I am aware of what veganism is. My initial point was made further up. The long replies and the back and fourth have muddied the water so I fail to see the point in continuing with a back and fourth. Like I said agree to disagree.
you think wrong then - I read the whole thread
I still found your response rude.3 -
happysquidmuffin wrote: »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."
Careful now; you literally just called people who eat meat scum. I take offense to that, as a person who considers myself flexitarian. I eat plant based most of the time, but see nothing morally wrong in occasionally eating animal products including some meat. I don’t know if anyone else addressed this specific slight of yours. I’m only on page two of this thread.
she sees that ( purity testing) would be doing ....xyz...... and telling meat eaters what scum they are.
and that such is very different to just expecting people to use correct terminology and pointing out correct meanings.
She didnt literally call anyone scum herself.
That how I read the post - and indeed would be very odd to call meat eaters scum when Lemur is, going by post prior to that one, a meat eater herself.
2 -
happysquidmuffin wrote: »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."
Careful now; you literally just called people who eat meat scum. I take offense to that, as a person who considers myself flexitarian. I eat plant based most of the time, but see nothing morally wrong in occasionally eating animal products including some meat. I don’t know if anyone else addressed this specific slight of yours. I’m only on page two of this thread.
I interpreted it that way myself on a first fast read, but knowing the poster, I knew I was wrong. She meant no one here is purity testing, purity testing would be...0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Squatcleananddeadlift wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I feel like I'm a hybrid. I haven't eaten beef in over a year, I replaced real cheese with vegan cheeses.
I'm still stuck on the fish, poultry, eggs, and occasionally pork.
Hardly anyone eats the full range of animal-based foods that are available to them. That doesn't make you a "hybrid," it just makes you a non-vegan who doesn't eat beef or dairy cheese.
Why do you get to dictate how she or he describes her diet?
Hybrid vegan diet suggests she is actively trying to change her diet from a meat eater to more of a vegan one. Any change to a more ethical environmental friendly way of living surely deserves a well done than a put down?
"Hybrid vegan" makes me think of "mostly monogamous" or Leonard Cohen's song "Everybody Knows"
Everybody knows that you love me baby
Everybody knows that you really do
Everybody knows that you've been faithful
Ah, give or take a night or two
One of my favorites.1 -
happysquidmuffin wrote: »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."
Careful now; you literally just called people who eat meat scum. I take offense to that, as a person who considers myself flexitarian. I eat plant based most of the time, but see nothing morally wrong in occasionally eating animal products including some meat. I don’t know if anyone else addressed this specific slight of yours. I’m only on page two of this thread.
The person you'd addressing eats meat. You're misunderstanding the statement: they're saying that purity testing would be saying "telling people that doing things like reducing meat consumption . . . allows meat eats to not realize what scum they are." The statement is there to provide an example of purity testing, not as a genuine statement of belief about meat eaters.2 -
Squatcleananddeadlift wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »Squatcleananddeadlift wrote: »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.
Gosh that seems rather rude.
as well as meaningless - not sure how you can know if you disagree if you havent read their posts
People gave polite and informative explanations - if you have no interest, just dont open the thread.
I am not vegan nor vegetarian and I make no claims of following any particular diet or lifestyle - but I can still learn from others and try to use correct terminology.
I don't think you read the whole thread as clearly you will see I am aware of what veganism is. My initial point was made further up. The long replies and the back and fourth have muddied the water so I fail to see the point in continuing with a back and fourth. Like I said agree to disagree.
Your previous statements indicate that you don't understand veganism -- that's the whole issue. It's okay to not understand it, many people don't. The point is when you're making definitive statements about something that you don't understand, people who do understand it may correct you.
An example of you not understanding veganism is when you said that it's "problematic" to tell people that they're not vegan if they can't be 100% vegan. That reveals you don't understand that veganism only involves requiring people to avoid unnecessary animal exploitation when it is possible. If something isn't possible for a person, it isn't expected.1 -
paperpudding wrote: »happysquidmuffin wrote: »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."
Careful now; you literally just called people who eat meat scum. I take offense to that, as a person who considers myself flexitarian. I eat plant based most of the time, but see nothing morally wrong in occasionally eating animal products including some meat. I don’t know if anyone else addressed this specific slight of yours. I’m only on page two of this thread.
she sees that ( purity testing) would be doing ....xyz...... and telling meat eaters what scum they are.
and that such is very different to just expecting people to use correct terminology and pointing out correct meanings.
She didnt literally call anyone scum herself.
That how I read the post - and indeed would be very odd to call meat eaters scum when Lemur is, going by post prior to that one, a meat eater herself.
Exactly this. Thanks, paperpudding! (and kshama and janejellyroll)
After all, it would be rather weird for me to say that no one has been purity testing, and then go on to engage in an extreme example of it (hold my beer!). That seems an illogical enough interpretation that you would think it would cause someone to think twice before accusing anyone of doing that. However, I do find being called out for my "slight" (insult based on not giving someone the proper respect or attention) rather delightful! I hate it when us meat-eaters get slighted. There is clearly a disturbing lack of that in this thread, so it had to be imagined, I suppose. Signed, lemurcat2, militant meat-eating vegan who has been arguing that meat eaters aren't vegan. ;-)4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »happysquidmuffin wrote: »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."
Careful now; you literally just called people who eat meat scum. I take offense to that, as a person who considers myself flexitarian. I eat plant based most of the time, but see nothing morally wrong in occasionally eating animal products including some meat. I don’t know if anyone else addressed this specific slight of yours. I’m only on page two of this thread.
The person you'd addressing eats meat. You're misunderstanding the statement: they're saying that purity testing would be saying "telling people that doing things like reducing meat consumption . . . allows meat eats to not realize what scum they are." The statement is there to provide an example of purity testing, not as a genuine statement of belief about meat eaters.
Thanks. I had to do some re-reading to really get what lemurcat was saying. It makes more sense to me now.
Carry on; this is an interesting conversation.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions