is this vegan?
Posted by mattcat5 on Oct 23, 2010 · Member since Oct 2010 · 1 posts
i do everything vegan ................execpt i have a vita pak thats vegetrian not vegan i need vitamins and thats the only one i can aford and the only one thats at least vegetrian...so am i still vegan
I will now demand to be called THE LORD OF ALL THAT BREATHES, because that's I want and I don't have to do anything to satisfy the title. Nyah. (Sarcasm, for anyone who didn't feel it)
You know what? if you can fulfill those obligations 99.99% of the time, i say go for it, TLOATB! and more power to ya. ;D
That sounds perfect for you, TFYOV. If, as The Lord of All That Breathes, you decide some people should die, you can kill 1 out of every 10,000 people and no one should get upset. That's Dexter's working theory, too.
eta: SoCal has about 22 million people, so you could kill 2,200 people here before you pass the threshold for concern. <- Start in Los Angeles. I think the LAPD shares that philosophy.
Kill people?! Why would I want to do that? Or even need to do that? I can just call myself whatever I want without doing anything at all. I'm pretty sure there's no definition for TLOATB.
Anyway, the point is that there is a perfectly suitable title/definition/label/word to describe the OP and that word is vegetarian. I still want a logical explanation as to why he can't use that word. Are vegetarians not as good as vegans?
That was the point. ;)
Anyway, the point is that there is a perfectly suitable title/definition/label/word to describe the OP and that word is vegetarian. I still want a logical explanation as to why he can't use that word. Are vegetarians not as good as vegans?
The point is that the OP clearly identifies more with vegan; nothin' wrong with either term, just that it sounds like one is accurate almost all the time (and is a goal he's working towards), and one is accurate a tiny percentage of the time in one specific instance. You want only the tiny percentage to be counted in the definition; i think what the OP does almost all the time makes for more accurate labeling, if he wants to self-label by group identity. There's no 'logical explanation why he can't use that word' (vegetarian) b/c it's none of our business! he can use any word he wants, if it accurately reflects his intent &/or actions to the best degree, in his own mind. You're the only one trying to dictate which word he can't use... either label seems ok to me... or (better yet) he could avoid this mock problem by simply doing his best to avoid consuming any animal junk, and just forget the labels altogether.
That said-- i think we can agree that it's easy to find good supplements with no animal ingredients; whatever self-description one uses or avoids, these are highly recommended! (*not* just because you want this label or that one-- but because they don't have animal junk in 'em...)
I myself had a similar dilema. Because I wanted so bad the label "vegan" but I lack the time and wilpower to obtain it 100%, I would jump on and off the bandwagon so much it would make Obama proud.
But I found it much easier if I just drop the label "vegan" and say, no, I am NOT vegan...however, I am MOST of the time. Then in this case if I do fall off the bandwagon and eat something not vegan (friend chicken is my ultimate weakness I am sooooo sorry!!! :'() then it isn't a holy God forbidden sin. So, for me it just works better. Sure, I am not vegan maybe once a month, maybe twice on occasion, but the way I figure it, with as much meat as I eat, it would probably amount to maybe one chicken a year. I had to give up dairy though because I am getting lactose intollerant as I get older :-\.
Don't worry about the title and do what works best for you. Heck, if you are 90% vegan, then you are doing 90% better then the omni population! Congrats on being 99.9999% vegan!!! That is really something to be proud of. Veganism takes a lot of dedication, willpower, and inner strength. You all that are 100%, I admire you, and I so wish I had your conviction. Veganism rocks!
The point is that the OP clearly identifies more with vegan; nothin' wrong with either term, just that it sounds like one is accurate almost all the time (and is a goal he's working towards), and one is accurate a tiny percentage of the time in one specific instance. You want only the tiny percentage to be counted in the definition; i think what the OP does almost all the time makes for more accurate labeling, if he wants to self-label by group identity. There's no 'logical explanation why he can't use that word' (vegetarian) b/c it's none of our business! he can use any word he wants, if it accurately reflects his intent &/or actions to the best degree, in his own mind. You're the only one trying to dictate which word he can't use... either label seems ok to me... or (better yet) he could avoid this mock problem by simply doing his best to avoid consuming any animal junk, and just forget the labels altogether.
Agree with you that actions are more important than lables. Also, agree that we can label ourselves whatever we choose.
Agree to disagree on the rest. I understand that some lables aren't an all or nothing...like liberal....I am pro-life, but still call myself a liberal. So in this respect I follow your example that I label myself with what I most closely identify with.
Still the question "am I a vegan if I consume nonvegan products (when there are vegan options available to me)" is a no-brainer to me...the answer is no. Because by definitation a vegan doesn't consume animal products and it is one of those all-or-nothing lables. I don't think that it's right to label oneself a vegan if you're not, even if that's your intention and it more accurately relfects his/her lifestyle, or it's what you aspire to. Doesn't make sense to me.
Still I understand the desire to want to be associated with veganism when you're almost there. On this board I would often say "I'm 95% vegan" when describing myself, but to say that I was vegan just because I could call myself whatever I wanted isn't right.
I think everyone wherever they are is o.k. and should be encouraged.
The point is that the OP clearly identifies more with vegan; nothin' wrong with either term, just that it sounds like one is accurate almost all the time (and is a goal he's working towards), and one is accurate a tiny percentage of the time in one specific instance. You want only the tiny percentage to be counted in the definition; i think what the OP does almost all the time makes for more accurate labeling, if he wants to self-label by group identity. There's no 'logical explanation why he can't use that word' (vegetarian) b/c it's none of our business! he can use any word he wants, if it accurately reflects his intent &/or actions to the best degree, in his own mind. You're the only one trying to dictate which word he can't use... either label seems ok to me... or (better yet) he could avoid this mock problem by simply doing his best to avoid consuming any animal junk, and just forget the labels altogether.
Agree with you that actions are more important than lables. Also, agree that we can label ourselves whatever we choose.
Agree to disagree on the rest. I understand that some lables aren't an all or nothing...like liberal....I am pro-life, but still call myself a liberal. So in this respect I follow your example that I label myself with what I most closely identify with.
Still the question "am I a vegan if I consume nonvegan products (when there are vegan options available to me)" is a no-brainer to me...the answer is no. Because by definitation a vegan doesn't consume animal products and it is one of those all-or-nothing lables. I don't think that it's right to label oneself a vegan if you're not, even if that's your intention and it more accurately relfects his/her lifestyle, or it's what you aspire to. Doesn't make sense to me.
Still I understand the desire to want to be associated with veganism when you're almost there. On this board I would often say "I'm 95% vegan" when describing myself, but to say that I was vegan just because I could call myself whatever I wanted isn't right.
I think everyone wherever they are is o.k. and should be encouraged.
I'm not sure we actually disagree on much! i think the only difference in our perspectives is about *who* gets to define it-- i say the person in question; not other people... Your ideas make sense, and i don't necessarily disagree with them. I just think that each person gets to sort out the self-labels (or avoidance thereof) for themselves, and decide based on what makes sense to them-- this is guaranteed to vary, b/c humans are freakin' diverse! To me, the worst possible outcome is *not* someone calling themselves the wrong thing; it's for someone interested in plant-based eating to be discouraged & pushed away from the idea, due to this kind of emphasis on naming (and the bickering/ judgmental tones-- not from you, Tweety, but generally-- that so often emerge along with it).
To me, the worst possible outcome is *not* someone calling themselves the wrong thing; it's for someone interested in plant-based eating to be discouraged & pushed away from the idea, due to this kind of emphasis on naming (and the bickering/ judgmental tones-- not from you, Tweety, but generally-- that so often emerge along with it).
Understood. I've get turned off by vegans and their attitudes sometimes, especially before taking the final plunge myself. I often thought "these are not people I want to be associated with." I remember saying "I eat about 95% vegan" and a certain poster here said "I'm 100% Vegan Fuck You!".........it stung a little bit, but I know and love the guy, and that's how he is...but someone else reading it might have though something totally different.
I respect all people trying to make a difference, even the ones who go veg for a day. I just want honesty.
BTW, why haven't we heard back from the OP? Mattcat5, where are you and what are your thoughts now?
Pages