Branch from the "do you cheat on your lifestyle" thread.
Continuing discussion from: http://vegweb.com/index.php?topic=19076.0 (do you cheat on your lifestyle?)
I will copy my post.
I had an idea last night that I think goes with this thread:
OK, assume that the world gives up living on an animal-based diet and everyone is vegetarian/vegan. The global economy completely changes; places that were once used to rear animals for slaughter become cornfields. My question is, in your mind, what happens to the animals? (This is ideally, not necessarily realistically.) Since our economy gives these animals their short, brutish lives ... what happens if we decide to do without them? Do the thousands of beef cows get moved to an animal sanctuary? Do we put them in zoos? Keep them as pets?
I am trying to picture it in my mind I can't really think of anything. (Probably because many of these species have been domesticated by man for centuries ... it would be weird to release them into the wild.)
Ideas?
In my mind, a lot/most of these animals (realistically) will die. No, they most probably can't survive anywhere but their horrid environments in which they came from. I guess everyone would try to save as many as possible, and give them a wonderful remaining life, but that could only be a select few. Our society has created them, and they would die without us. Thankfully, in this hypothetical situation, no more would be created for such a purpose! I guess they could just live on these cornfields. Could we keep big pastures for them? They could live there until they die. Also, why all corn? I want big...avocado fields, or something.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, I honestly think there is a whole lot being blown out of proportion/misunderstood here. (and I'm not meaning that in a way to minimize or devalue anyone's feelings) We are all people communicating. I said over and over that I'm not saying that I'm any better than anyone else, or "I hate you", or whatever. I'm "speaking" my opinion, as everyone else is. Obviously, I'm going to hold the same opinion as some, and not as others. Period. I mean, if we were all sitting around in a room talking, it would play out the same (without as much time to think of what to say..and hopefully without as much misunderstanding).
Also, I want to clear something up. I won't speak for her, but I don't purposely conspire with KMK (or anyone else) against anyone, or to say certain things. We agree 98% of the time, and THAT'S why we are good friends (in part, of course). It's not that we are good friends, so we must agree all the time. Just because we hold the same opinion, it doesn't mean that we are banding together to overthrow anyone.
Re: this favorite business-Isn't it obvious that we're all going to like certain people more than others. Maybe it's just me, but I don't like every single person I meet, and I definitely like some people more than others. IRL ( ::)), I don't pretend to like certain people, and play like we're good friends, but I also don't personally attack others, or say hateful things to them. I guess I don't understand why it's so surprising, and such a horrible thing, that we might not ALL like each other. I don't really have a problem with someone not liking me (online at least...In life, I'd be like, WHAT is wrong with you?!) I also know that on other forums, they have threads talking about how much they love certain members, and so forth. We don't do that, and we don't personally attack each other.
eta before posting in reference to CW's post: I understand that those situations arise, and must be extremely difficult for those that encounter them, but that's not at all what I was talking about in my original posts, and regarding the big picture of it all. Those are extreme situations that arise, and I assume can't be avoided. That's not the same as choosing to eat/do something not vegan, but wanting to be vegan, and justifying it (or not).
http://www.mapsofworld.com/usa/thematic-maps/maps/corn-cotton-and-barley-growing-area.gif
Check that out! That's why I said corn (though I could as easily have said soy, barley and/or cotton). Those crops have come to dominate the landscape in this country. It sure would be nice to live in a sea of avocado trees, though. But for that you'd have to move to Southern California.
Check that out! That's why I said corn (though I could as easily have said soy, barley and/or cotton). Those crops have come to dominate the landscape in this country. It sure would be nice to live in a sea of avocado trees, though. But for that you'd have to move to Southern California.
Yeah, but I think CW had a good point about not needing all the corn fields, if we don't have all the cattle ( >:(). You know, hypothetically. Obviously.
Sort of like this: http://www.casasugar.com/3103046
Basically, I think we should release the goats and cows to rewild those areas. They're old grasslands and meadows that were agriculturized (is that a word?) into cornfields etc. That kills two birds with one stone, so to speak: the land is transformed to its original state, and the domesticated animals have a place to live. The animals' work still has a human benefit, but it doesn't cost them their lives.
Unfortunately I doubt that the government would go for this.
Also, the environmental cost of manufacturing and shipping those new vegan shoes actually does outweigh that of NOT buying anything new, and choosing to wear out a pair of old leather shoes. The synthetic stuff doesn't break down naturally like old leather, too..so those shiny new boots will sit in a landfill for ages after You're done with them.
If You don't want to wear them, that's great. Your alternatives fit Your lifestyle and goals, whereas MY choosing to keep around those few leather items fits mine-- which is based on doing the least amount of harm possible to everything on this planet.
Wow CW, thank you for your condescending response. If you read my post thoroughly, I did not say that you were referring to all vegans. I said "vegans." And I qualified that statement by saying that you didn't acknowledge that there is an in-between. It is possible to live in a way that minimizes waste but is also vegan.
Anyway I pretty much agree with your quoted statement above, so I'm not sure where the issue is. Again, wearing secondhand leather sandals is not vegan, but it is perhaps a more sustainable choice. If you could direct me to the part of my response where I said wearing secondhand leather was bad, that would be helpful. I only say it is not vegan. Perhaps you (and here I am using "you" to refer to an individual and not the collective you.) should read posts more thoroughly.
I don't think it is useful to use unrealistic extremes to guide our daily lifestyle choices. By that same token, we could say something like, "What if everyone one bought things secondhand? We would not have enough clothing, so we would have to produce things, which creates waste. Therefore, your lifestyle choices are wrong." No no no no. That is not even a helpful analogy because we don't live in such situations--we live NOW.
I have to wonder if the people saying, "You should never do this because it's wrong, period!" have ever experienced true poverty. Maybe they've seen commercials for 'Save the Children' or read about the struggles in other parts of the world, but until they've lived in those conditions, they'll never know what it's like to have to choose a scrap of discarded chicken wing from a dumpster, rather than starve to death.
Can you please direct me to the part of the thread where I said it would be wrong for a person in extreme poverty to wear a fur coat or eat a chicken wing? Oh wait, you can't, because I said the opposite about five posts ago. Again, the individual You should read others' posts more carefully.
What I have quoted above offends me greatly. How dare you presume to know anything about the way in which I was raised or my understanding of how devastating poverty is. I redirected my entire career path and essentially threw away two college degrees (paid for entirely by myself) so I could work daily to fight the cycle of poverty in some small way in the country's second poorest city. Don't tell me about poverty, please. You know nothing about my life, and my life has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
I have to wonder if the people saying, "You should never do this because it's wrong, period!" have ever experienced true poverty. Maybe they've seen commercials for 'Save the Children' or read about the struggles in other parts of the world, but until they've lived in those conditions, they'll never know what it's like to have to choose a scrap of discarded chicken wing from a dumpster, rather than starve to death.
Can you please direct me to the part of the thread where I said it would be wrong for a person in extreme poverty to wear a fur coat or eat a chicken wing? Oh wait, you can't, because I said the opposite about five posts ago. Again, the individual You should read others' posts more carefully.
What I have quoted above offends me greatly. How dare presume to know anything about the way in which I was raised or my understanding of how devastating poverty is. I redirected my entire career path and essentially threw away two college degrees (paid for entirely by myself) so I could work daily to fight the cycle of poverty in some small way in the country's second poorest city. Don't tell me about poverty, please. You know nothing about my life, and my life has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
I think the question here is, can we compromise our veganism in favor of sustainability, environmental impact, and/or personal need and still call ourselves vegans?
I feel like that's really what we should be discussing here.
I think the question here is, can we compromise our veganism in favor of sustainability, environmental impact, and/or personal need and still call ourselves vegans?
I feel like that's really what we should be discussing here.
Thanks for redirecting the conversation; I'm not sure why it got so off track as to be talking about "who is poorer than whom." ::)
My answer to that question is no. There should be a different term for that--like AC said, we are essentially describing freeganism, which is not always vegan. Which isn't to say that's a bad thing.
Yeah, it's an interesting question. I feel like it's similar to the "honey: yes or no?" debate, you know?
(As in, it identifies a divide in the vegan community.)
You Guys bring up good points, while I consider myself a vegan 99.99% of the time, I guess some of you probally think I should call myself a vegetarian..I eat totally vegan at home, but when I'm outside the home and can't find Vegan options, I'll go vegetarian, also I use soy creamer at home, but if I'm out and want coffee and soy creamer isn't available...I'll have half and half.
I don't own anything made of leather or fur,I don't buy anything tested on animals, and all of my clothes are 100% cotton..so I guess my question to you all is...what would you call my lifestyle...Vegan or vegetarian?....I don't offend easily, and would really appreciate your feedback...
I am one of those people who think that the belief takes precedence over the practice. If you believe in veganism, and try your best to live up to it, you're a vegan. (Of course, the other school of thought says that if you don't follow the definition of veganism, you're a vegetarian. I don't disagree with this; it's just not what I believe.)
I, also, try to wear primarily cotton. It's biodegradable (even though it's an environmentally destructive cash crop) and not animal-based. However, I stupidly bought 50% polyester sheets last week and I feel all creepy about it. Maybe because it's a synthetic fiber?
I don't know. I feel like my lifestyle is one compromise after another.
from the original thread:
...
Personally, I had struggled to maintain a commitment to veganism for like, two years before I could finally stop breaking down and eating chocolate and real cheese. If You check my profile, I have my old lacto-veg self-description from a previous profile entry.... That was when my situation did not give me a whole lot of choice in many cases, and I often accepted non-vegan food when my only other option was iceberg lettuce. :P
So at that time, I kept my status as "lacto-vegetarian" because while I tried to maintain vegan ideals as often as possible, I still slipped up during other times when it was my choice (like drunken pizza parties with my ex and his friends) and not a forced situation.
ETA: these also include the cheese lasagna and other non-vegan food presented at family gatherings with my ex. talk about pressure!
Now, I keep the vegan status up because I do consider my life as such. Stupid slips--like the situation with the accidentally purchased honey-infested bread--are not the same as the ones before January of 2008.... there have been just a couple of instances--like the salt and vinegar Lay's a few months ago--since then that I regret, but I still keep the vegan status because that is who I am.
Some of Y'all know that I've struggled with ED behaviours before, and have been ashamed to admit to times of binge-eating without much regard for my personal ethics or lifestyle. Sad I had one of those few slip-ups last year during a binge, and I ate cheez-its out in a state of mindless chowing. Of course I regret the non-vegan food, but I mostly regret the binge itself. I've binged several times on 100% vegan food, too, but that's still unhealthy and destructive, and the disorder is my main concern there.
....
Thank You for moving this thread over, AC. ;)b ...this totally fits on the debate board.
*sigh*
*deep breath*
......
Thanks for redirecting the conversation; I'm not sure why it got so off track as to be talking about "who is poorer than whom." ::)
please, can We refrain from virtual eye rolling and mockery when discussing these things?
I feel demeaned when I see the "STFU" or eye roll smileys in response to something that was perfectly honest and valid.
Wow CW, thank you for your condescending response. If you read my post thoroughly, I did not say that you were referring to all vegans. I said "vegans." And I qualified that statement by saying that you didn't acknowledge that there is an in-between. It is possible to live in a way that minimizes waste but is also vegan.
Anyway I pretty much agree with your quoted statement above, so I'm not sure where the issue is. Again, wearing secondhand leather sandals is not vegan, but it is perhaps a more sustainable choice. If you could direct me to the part of my response where I said wearing secondhand leather was bad, that would be helpful. I only say it is not vegan. Perhaps you (and here I am using "you" to refer to an individual and not the collective you.) should read posts more thoroughly.
Yes, I should have included a note to clarify: That statement about new vegan shoes was for a collective "You," and I was specifically thinking about the few vegans I know from other sites who spend hundreds of dollars on these damn things like, every other month...but the facts still apply to the chemical and biological nature of synthetic vegan shoes.
(the bold "You" is collective, my statement about doing the least harm possible is what I assume Your (KMK's) goals are as well, just so We know I'm not being a high-noser)
As for vegan vs. sustainable.... I just think that if a vegan person is given a pair of secondhand leather shoes (like my mom's old sandals that I still wear), she should be able to wear them and still consider herself vegan, especially if she and her family cannot afford new shoes.... I have other shoes, like high heels, flip flops, and crappy old boots, but those can't be worn when I need good, solid sandals in hot weather. I have still yet to find a vegan replacement for that type of rugged outerwear sandal that I can afford, or that someone would buy for me.
I also don't really buy the notion that it's processed, shipped, vegan crap on one hand, or "healthy," local, may-or-may-not-be-vegan stuff on the other. It's not binary like that. It's perfectly easy to find items that are vegan and don't have catastrophic effects on the environment.
Neither do I. So I did not claim that those were the only two possibilities; rather, I pointed out the difference between the two scenarios, and expressed that blackrabbit's choices were, in my opinion, a better alternative for her than being a processed food junkie or a compulsive, constant online shopper. ...those people do exist, sure, but they account for a fraction of the Veg*n community.
Wow CW, thank you for your condescending response. If you read my post thoroughly, I did not say that you were referring to all vegans. I said "vegans." And I qualified that statement by saying that you didn't acknowledge that there is an in-between. It is possible to live in a way that minimizes waste but is also vegan.
Yes, You did:
.....The part where she said that vegans are counterproductive in their actions because they buy all processed shipped crap is inaccurate and unfair, I feel.
....You claimed that I was speaking of ALL vegans, when I was talking about some. I, too, would say that the above italicized statement is unfair.
and
Thank YOU for a thoroughly self-promoting and condescending reply. I made statements about my own choices, named some people in particular as examples, and there were particular times when I referenced You ....but You took this way too far, and You've clearly disregarded my words and twisted them into something else Your mind before replying.
Can you please direct me to the part of the thread where I said it would be wrong for a person in extreme poverty to wear a fur coat or eat a chicken wing? Oh wait, you can't, because I said the opposite about five posts ago. Again, the individual You should read others' posts more carefully.
What I have quoted above offends me greatly. How dare you presume to know anything about the way in which I was raised or my understanding of how devastating poverty is. I redirected my entire career path and essentially threw away two college degrees (paid for entirely by myself) so I could work daily to fight the cycle of poverty in some small way in the country's second poorest city. Don't tell me about poverty, please. You know nothing about my life, and my life has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
OH WAIT, I didn't.
I never said that You, KMK, said that.
I am talking about people who use their dogmatic system of beliefs to insult the way some people have to live; which, while technically "vegan," is not fucking cool.
Never did I mention Your name or quote You in that statement. ...The fact that You're getting all defensive (like You did in the EFF Gender thread about that website that stereotypes internet users) is really troubling. I did. NOT. reference. ANYbody in particular.
Why must You wave around Your accomplishments in defense of a statement I made that was directed toward...um...NOT You?
I paid for my college education by myself, too...and I do volunteer work to improve my community and help those in need, too.....but this isn't a damn contest, so don't make it one.
also from an earlier post:
« Reply #192 on: May 09, 2009, 10:36:20 AM »
...
As I often remind myself, it is always valuable to question and re-evaluate Our beliefs and ways of living and thinking. Where do our "rules" come from? Who else can We give credit for how We choose to act? ..And most importantly, what alternatives are there?
Dig deep, try to dispel biases, and figure out all that You can about why You oppose some things and support others. Weigh all other imaginable possibilities against what You've established for Yourself.
It can be a real mindfuck, but it's worthwhile and sometimes fun! ;)b
I figure, if this process is done regularly and thoroughly, You should be able to defend Your positions and not be too troubled by the hailstorms that may occur.
:-*
....
Dogma = Dangerous ground, man.
take heed when you subscribe to any established system of thought, especially when they involve rulebooks for daily life. (*ahem* likethebible*cough*)
Some of Us here are Christian, but I can guarantee that many of those same people have had pre-marital sex, lied to their parents, used their Lord's name in vain, eaten meat on Fridays, and not supported the beating of an adulterous woman.
Are those people "not Christians" ?? surely, they mustn't be if they don't follow every single word of the book every single damn day? No, they ask for forgiveness when they slip up, and do not decide to call themselves something else when asked about their religion.
my old leather sandals make me "not vegan," apparently.......
Some of Us here are Christian, but I can guarantee that many of those same people have had pre-marital sex, lied to their parents, used their Lord's name in vain, eaten meat on Fridays, and not supported the beating of an adulterous woman.
Check, check, check, check, and check.
I'm going to give that a big, sarcastic OOPS! :>
Some of Us here are Christian, but I can guarantee that many of those same people have had pre-marital sex, lied to their parents, used their Lord's name in vain, eaten meat on Fridays, and not supported the beating of an adulterous woman.
Check, check, check, check, and check.
I'm going to give that a big, sarcastic OOPS! :>
As in, I've done those things, and don't regret them. If the God I believe in is the kind of God I suspect He is, I'm sure He doesn't regret them, either.
I'm done with this. I'm not sure how this conversation devolved into this, but I'm not participating anymore. Doesn't matter if your statements were made in reference to me or to another person who is present or absent--they are offensive, patronizing generalizations. No one here even posited that it was bad to eat a chicken wing out of the garbage if you were starving to death, and yet we're still arguing about it.
I'll be happy to discuss the questions that blackrabbit and AC raised, but I'm done with the godforsaken leather sandals and chicken wings. We are not going to agree.
I've referenced this before, by I really like the way Colleen Patrick Goudreau addresses this question. I think the name of the podcast is "Drawing the Line: How Vegan is Vegan?" She uses the example of eggs. She says that eating free-range eggs from chickens you know is not vegan. But it's also not necessarily a bad decision. But she goes on to talk about how it might convolute the notion of "vegan."
I also like Vegan Freaks' take on this issue, which is similar.
Also, I fundamentally disagree that being vegan is a luxury. Naturally, I exclude cases of extreme poverty in which you eat anything you can get. But if you live with a very tight budget, I still believe that you can eat vegan. Many poverty-stricken countries depend on vegan staples. I'd be happy to discuss this further if people want to, but I'm not sure if that is the direction of that thread. Doesn't matter to me.
I'm glad the religion analogy was posed. I like that analogy and I know a lot of people don't.
I know that nobody who calls herself Christian is a perfect Christian day in and day out. That is the basic premise of Christianity--we are all sinners. But if a person breaks the commandments over and over and over, with intent, I would question why. This is why I no longer feel comfortable calling myself a Christian. I'm going to choose to have extramarital sex sometimes, I'm going to choose to support homosexuality, I'm going to covet things--purposefully and without regret. If I felt bad about these things and repented for them, and tried to improve myself, that would be in line with Christianity. But I'm not. I can't in good conscience have sex on a regular basis, on purpose, without repenting, and say that I am trying my best to follow Christian principles. Because I'm not. And if I don't care about those principles, why am I Christian?
Now, we know that some Christians are more liberal and don't follow the Bible to the letter--but they share the same basic acceptance of Christ as the common thread. That is why there are different denominations of Christians. You can be worship Christ in whatever way you want and you are still Christian. But a Baptist wouldn't call herself a Catholic or a Mormon, for instance.
We can use this same model, but I don't think that "Vegan" is the big umbrella term here the way "Christian" is. I think veganism, vegetarianism, freeganism, local eating, et al, all exist under some larger umbrella of living in a way that exhibits a consciousness for the well being of others. Whatever we want to call that--veganism would be one denomination of this conscious type of living.
So it's like we could make a tree for each:
Types of Christians: Catholics, Mormons, protestants, etc
Types of conscious-lifestyle-people: vegans, freegans, vegetarians, raw foodists, local-food eaters, animal-welfare omnis, etc
I hope that makes sense. Vegan doesn't have to be the end all be all for everyone.
If I felt bad about these things and repented for them, and tried to improve myself, that would be in line with Christianity. But I'm not. I can't in good conscience have sex on a regular basis, on purpose, without repenting, and say that I am trying my best to follow Christian principles. Because I'm not. And if I don't care about those principles, why am I Christian?
Now, we know that some Christians are more liberal and don't follow the Bible to the letter--but they share the same basic acceptance of Christ as the common thread. That is why there are different denominations of Christians. You can be worship Christ in whatever way you want and you are still Christian. But a Baptist wouldn't call herself a Catholic or a Mormon, for instance.
I snipped your quote to make it more salient, hope I didn't misconstrue anything ...
This thread is obviously not intended to be a discussion of religion -- I brought up the idea of Christianity as a metaphor for veganism, which you neatly continued in your post.
My intention in drawing the parallel was more to point out that, just as in religion, there is a varying amount of fervor in veganism. There are the very "devout" (I called them "purists") who believe that if you don't put veganism first, even to the detriment of yourself, you fail and you can't be considered vegan anymore. There are the very "liberal" who believe that if you "feel vegan" you are vegan. (It's the Unitarian approach to veganism, if you will.)
My point was: as in religion, it's not our jobs to judge one anothers' beliefs in a negative way. Just as you'd never say, "well, if you don't keep Kosher, you're not really a Jew," or "if you refuse to wear a chador, you're not a proper Muslim" -- you'd never say, "because you ate a piece of butter, you're not a real vegan."
That's my opinion. It's pretty obvious that there is more than one valid viewpoint here; all of them are equally valuable, and can clearly coexist.
Our jobs (in faith as well as in dietary choices) is to challenge one another in a positive way, and raise the questions that will eventually lead to deeper self discovery ... not to dictate what "is and is not." That, to my mind, should be the goal of any community, religious or not.
I guess our basic difference is that I don't place as much value on the feeling as I do on the actions. Like AC said, I think you have to follow through--talk is cheap.
I was having a discussion the other day about circuses with K (the circus is in town). I asked, "Do you think it's ok that circus animals are treated the way they are?" and he said no, of course not, but he would rather enjoy the circus and let someone else worry about how the animals are treated. So, for argument's sake, let's say he feels the same way I do, deep down, but he doesn't act on those feelings. So I wouldn't call him an animal rights activist, and neither would he.
In truth, most people probably believe that we should choose to avoid unnecessary suffering. Those of us who act on this feeling call ourselves vegan. If you are sympathetic to the plight of exploited animals, then you need to act on it. Otherwise it's just a feeling. What good are our values if we don't live them? I argue that they're not worth more than the paper we could write them on.
I guess to me, calling an action "not vegan" is not a judgment. It's a description. From animals = not vegan.
I don't think eating butter once makes you "not a real vegan." But I think if you do it on a regular basis, on purpose, then you might want to rethink whether your actions are aligned with your purported belief system, and whether that system is important to you. And pick a new system or make a plan for better adhering to what you believe.
Also, I don't subscribe to a particular religious system at the moment, for many of the reasons you described. I feel like if you break too strongly with the basic practices of that religion, then it's not really your religion. I'm not going to go around telling people they aren't really Jewish or Muslim, of course not. But for me, like I said, if I am consistently breaking the practices of that religion, then I wouldn't call myself that religion. I would find a religion that fit more closely with my beliefs.
(Which is often why I think religion is bs sometimes--if you can just pick the one you like, does it really have a larger meaning other than fulfilling an emotional need? Just something I think about a lot, which obviously isn't the topic at hand....these questions hurt my brain.)
If I consistently eat butter, then either (a) there is something keeping me from practicing what I believe, and I need to fix that, or (b) I don't really care if I eat butter, and I'm not really vegan after all.
If I consistently eat butter, then either (a) there is something keeping me from practicing what I believe, and I need to fix that, or (b) I don't really care if I eat butter, and I'm not really vegan after all.
That's a good way of putting it.
For me, there's definitely a spectrum of veganism. I do think that if you self-identify as a vegan, then you're a vegan, and you live up to it in your own way. Whether those terms are mutually compatible with a particular community is up for grabs, though. (As in, whether or not you'll be considered "acceptable" by others.)
I do think that belief is more important than action, but I think that's because it's a belief I have about more than one system. I feel that way about sexual orientation, racial identity, religion, and other things, too. So for me it's a generalization that applies to all of these things. You see what I mean?
I guess the crux of my argument is the idea that if you are self-identifying as a vegan, and do your utmost to fulfill your idea of what veganism is/means, that makes you a "vegan." (As in, if it looks like a penguin, walks like a penguin, and thinks like a penguin, it's a penguin ... not a polar bear with an identity crisis.) It's the internal definition (self dictates identity) instead of the external (community dictates identity).
Pages