Well whatever a “vegan” really is – whether a cowskin wearing cowboy or an effete college suck-up ------- here’s my take. Kurt Vonnegut said in his book Slapstick that one of our basic drives was to be part of a “group” – any group. Groups, like any extended family, toss in a little extra security in our uncertain world. So I wonder – is it more important for vegans to ‘get it right’ and think about what the position means or sign up and feel a part of some family ------ a group or family that feels bigger, more secure and therefore more important than their singular selves.
How is not eating animal products a “position” which must be “gotten right?” It had zero philosophical significance to me. You’re using a straw definition. It’s just a diet.
Diogenes - there is no philosophical significance behind it but the need to feel “safe” and protected within a group---- pretty basic stuff. It’s not “philosophical” it “animal - human.” Maybe you should read my post again --.
What has this got to do with anything? Vegans are humans who don’t eat animals. What other animals do has no bearing on it.
This is also totally irrelevant. The activist vegans, vegetarians and such that I have met are concerned with avoiding animal products to reduce the suffering of animals who are alive or who will be alive in the future. Dinosaurs don’t suffer when they’re oil. They’ve been extinct for millions of years; it’s a little too late to help them. This looks like the fossilized remains of a strawman to me. 
Well it had no group significance for me but I suppose it might for others. I would say the group thing is far more applicible to things like religion, political partisanship and “patriotosm,” though.
I’m with Diogenes on this one. It’s just a diet. It’s what you eat. Not what you wear, what you drive, or about your reasons for adopting the diet.
Some hardcore vegans/vegetarians are very militant, others just want to eat their veggies in peace and not answer annoying questions.
I always bring this up during these kinds of threads: years ago, Vegetarian Times had an article where they interviewed “unusual” vegetarians, who were into it for dietary reasons only. One was a furrier, I remember. These people wore dead animals or in some other way used animal products. They just didn’t eat them. Hence, they were vegetarians. I think it’s safe to say that Vegetarian Times is anti-fur, but hey, facts is facts. If you don’t eat meat, you are technically a vegetarian.
Vegetarians and vegans overlap. All vegans are vegetarians but not all vegetarians are vegans. Vegetarain Times covers all the bases, but it realizes, as many of us do, that it’s just a damned diet. That’s why there are so many veggie cookbooks out there. It’s a diet. It’s about what you eat.
The folks that are militant or super-strict do not make up all vegans and vegetarians. There is often a moral reason involved behind the diet, but certainly not always.
Marley – please! Are you asking me to defend ‘veganism?’ Note: I’m not the ‘don’t use animal products guy.’ I’m the ‘it’s all ridiculous guy.’ I suppose the logic with vegans is that all dead animal product is a symbol. But maybe it isn’t. Some here seem to know other types of ‘vegans.’ So — whether it is – or it isn’t — don’t heap their vegan shame on me.
He wasn’t asking you to defend veganism he was pointing out your own fallacious assertions about vegans somehow being hypocritical if they use fossil fuels. Marley was explaining to you that no hypocrisy exists because fossil fuels do not exploit animals. Your fossil fuel argument is what is made of straw.
If veganism means don’t use any animal products -no, that’s not true. And that’s the difference. If you want to define vegans as those who only eat non-animal products - fine. That’s not my experience with those who call themselves vegans. My experience is that their goal is to avoid all animal products ---- and it’s not ddefined as dead, alive, extinct or not. Again ----- this ain’t ‘my argument’ fellas ---- it’s my experence.
So, people are getting their backs out of joint on what a word means? Well, in lieu of an official definition everyone can accept, I predict this’ll end in exceptionally pointless and stupid tears.
Really? So the way the thread ends is a whimper rather than a bang.
Your “experience” is wrong. Consider youself educated. Veganism is a diet. Vehgans who also avoid non-food uses of animal products do so because they don’t want to make animals suffer. There is no part of veganism which considers fossil fuels to be an exploitation of animals. For one thing, it’s a gross simplification even to say that fossil fuels are made from dinosaurs.
Thanks Diogenes for the insightful assertion. I concede.
And let me add ---- while I don’t see the point - the fact I’ve been sucked into this argument is my own doing. So - if vegans, on the whole believe that you don’t eat animal products - and that’s it — that’s how veganism is defined — period ---- and hey, I’m fine with that. I have no - aaah - “stake” in this argument. If they want to define themselves as people who don’t eat or wear extant animal products — fine again. But please don’t hang me on a meatless cross of giant prehistoric animal bones. Let the true vegans speak for themselves.
can you offer a cite for any “true vegan” who thinks that fossil fuels exploit animals?
It would have to be an ignorant vegan indeed since fossil fuels are not really made from dinosaurs but from entire forests, swamps and other ecosystems. (Cecil wrote a column on this once but my archive searching skills suck)
I don’t understand this need to define veganism as something other than what it actually is:
I suppose one might claim that vegans do not use any animal products out of sheer happenstance, but I think the more parsimonious assumption would be that there is some philosphical basis behind the choice.
I think the word “especially” muddies the water a bit. What do they mean by “especially”? Does that mean that someone who does wear fur or leather, (but avoids eating all animal products) is not a vegan at all? Or are they vegan, but just not the “especially” kind?
And then there’s another definition of vegan on that same dictionary.com page:
No mention of fur or leather here.
And let’s say a vegan doesn’t use fur or leather. Do we know that it must be because they feel strong moral objections, or could it be that some avoid fur or leather simply because it’s “icky”? Is “icky” a strong moral philosphy?
Not really. The word vegan is used like the word vegetarian. There’s different levels. There’s different levels of vegetarianism. Why don’t lacto-ovo vegetarians refer to themselves that way? Why don’t pesco-ovo-vegetarians (probably not the proper name) refer to themselves that way? 95% of the time, vegan means “vegetarian that doesn’t eat dairy”. How would they be vegetarians trying to be trendy or cool? You’re a vegetarian. If you eat dairy too, you’re just that. If you don’t eat dairy or eggs, then you’re a vegan. It’s a descriptor. How is it trying to be “trendy or cool”?
It’s really more of a matter of simplicity rather than some ingenious evil plot to pose as something you’re not or to pretend you’ve got certain moral and ethical views that you don’t.
I think you’re referring to a fruitarian. Yet another subset of vegetarianism. I won’t go off about them being flaky as I think that’s rather judgmental and I’d prefer people didn’t make character judgments about me based on what I eat, but it’s an…odd diet. But no, that’s not a vegan. I’d probably advise against making inflammatory and judgmental statements about a group of people until you’ve aquired a basic understanding as to their general practices.
As many others have said in this thread, vegans vary as to the extent of their adversion to animal products. Like Diognes said, the term is used to describe a diet predominantly. Beyond that, it depends on the individual. The word is used to describe the diet, not the reasons for it, nor the ethical beliefs accompanying it.
It appears as if astro and Tigers2b have pre-concieved notions about vegans that they’re desperate to cling to. While I’m sorry about any militant vegans that left a bad taste in your mouth (pun intended) I’d ask you not to take out your frustrations on vegans as a group. Not all, or even most, of us are like that. Most vegans, like myself and yosemite (yes, I know she’s not a vegan, but a vegetarian) just want to, in her words, eat our veggies in peace and not answer annoying questions.
Also, if you’re looking for a respectful debate, asking loaded questions like “If it’s really that amorphous aren’t a lot of people calling themselves “Vegans” simply vegetarians trying to be trendy and cool?” probably isn’t the best way to go about it. Most of us aren’t too willing to walk into such an obvious trap.
Just popping in to state that the self identified vegans I know wore leather…lots of leather in fact. They did it for health reasons - and as wearing your leather jacket and Birkenstocks doesn’t have personal health consequences, didn’t see a problem with it. I’ve met “political” vegans, but the vegans I know were “health” vegans. (and I suspect “inconvience my mother and shock my grandmother” vegans)
They also ate honey. But no dairy or eggs.
I’m an omnivore, but I have friends who follow a lot of diets. Vegetarianism and Veganism are particularly hard to pin down. Unlike a kosher diet - which is pretty proscribed and I know exactly what my kosher friend can and can’t eat (and even there, she is not strict, she will eat out of my non-kosher kitchen), Vegetarianism runs an entire continuum, from “no red meat” or “only fish” (which a lot of vegetarians don’t think is vegetarianism at all - but my no red meat friends say its an easier word to use than to get into arguments about pork - less risk of getting fed something they can’t eat and they don’t bore their friends to tears with the details of their diet). To veganism at the “no animal products - to eat, to wear” level. Like Diogenes, I know a vegetarian who hunts (we are both in Minnesota, wonder if its the same one?) - the only meat he eats is the stuff he shoots himself.
Qadgop’s point is well taken. Don’t define someone simply by the label they choose to describe themselves. Labels are inheriently limiting - particularly when you get into something as complex as a personal philosophy.
i’m a tenth degree vegan – i won’t eat anything that casts a shadow.
seriously, i’m an omnivore and have more than a few vegetarian/vegan friends. i think virtually all fall under the health/lifestyle reasons for not eating meat. maybe i’ve known two people who claim moral/political reasons for being vegans, but i think both of those cases involved bandwagon jumping.
i have heard the “how can you be a vegan when your shoes/coat are leather?” argument many times, and as long as none of the participants try to stop me from eating the entire back of a pig whenever i damn well please, i care not who wins.