Guest guest Report post Posted December 31, 2009 happy new year everybody! can a vegan eat meat that was road kill and still be considered a vegan? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 31, 2009 No. Being vegan means abstaining from ALL animal products. That means no leather clothing, no wool, no silk...why would dead animal flesh, however way it was killed, ever be an exception? On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 1:42 PM, lhundrup108 <lhundrup108 wrote: happy new year everybody! can a vegan eat meat that was road kill and still be considered a vegan? --- To send an email to -! Groups Links <*> / <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: /join ( ID required) <*> To change settings via email: -digest -fullfeatured <*> Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 1, 2010 Happy New Year :-) No. Jo - lhundrup108 Thursday, December 31, 2009 6:42 PM freegan happy new year everybody!can a vegan eat meat that was road kill and still be considered a vegan? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 5, 2010 , " lhundrup108 " <lhundrup108 wrote: > > happy new year everybody! > > can a vegan eat meat that was road kill and still be considered a vegan? > I got annoyed at someone is class, presenting a projoect (We were all doing a DIET project) and they said " you can be a vegan and still eat road kill " Me being vegetarian, trying to become vegan (finances cut me short), was a bit appauled at the thought and honestly a bit upset they'd even suggest it (many knowing Im vegetarian). Vegan itself mean, NO animal products, no skin of dead animals, no dead animals on the walls, no eating of dead animals. Why would eating a road killed animal, be different than eating factory farmed dead animal? Needless, they are still killed by a person, and even if a bear decided to kill a deer and leave its corpse, if yoyu are vegan, you still cannot eat it. Mercedez Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 7, 2010 Hi, and thanks for reply. Well, I think that being vegan means you don't harm animals. So you don't kill them and you don't buy leather or animal products to wear on your body because that implies that you support the industry. But why should it be a problem to find some dead meat on the road and eat it and why should it matter if we see a leather coat in a garbage can and wear it, or buy it in a used clothing store? So in this second scenario, we are just using what mother earth has left behind as a remnant scrap and use it for sustanance or bodily protection. Both without harming. So the question is, isn't there two types of vegans? One that lives by vegan action of not harming and one by vegan appearance, that does not or cannot be seen eating flesh or wearing it even though no harm was inflicted by oneself. Nor supporting the infliction of harm? This is my question. Not fighting words, but just some serious reflection on the meaning of vegan. I am a vegetarian by the way. I eat cheese because I can't help myself. But if I could stop, I would. , Blue Rose <bluerose156 wrote: > > No. Being vegan means abstaining from ALL animal products. That means no > leather clothing, no wool, no silk...why would dead animal flesh, however > way it was killed, ever be an exception? > > > On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 1:42 PM, lhundrup108 <lhundrup108 wrote: > > > happy new year everybody! > > > > can a vegan eat meat that was road kill and still be considered a vegan? > > > > > > > > --- > > > > To send an email to -! > > Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > -- > AIM: A Blue Rose 156 YM: blue_rose_156 > http://x-bluerose-x.livejournal.com > http://timeladydesigns.etsy.com > ~ > Boston_Gothic > Boston_Mystic > Boston-Pagans > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 8, 2010 Hi,By definition, a vegan eats no animal products or any products at all of animal origin. I believe that covers both the scenarios you mention. I think it's a broad definition of principle that covers ethical, animal welfare, personal, health, and environmental reasons for being vegan.Some people think it's ethical to only use waste and bi-products of animals for humans, and I think what you are suggesting would fit with that thinking. However, whilst this might not be considered unethical on some levels, it is not vegan or vegetarian. I think these kinds of discussions are really important, and I know I was engaged in similar dialogues on my journey from vegetariansim to veganism.Bealhundrup108 <lhundrup108 Sent: Thu, 7 January, 2010 21:24:35 Re: freegan Hi, and thanks for reply. Well, I think that being vegan means you don't harm animals. So you don't kill them and you don't buy leather or animal products to wear on your body because that implies that you support the industry. But why should it be a problem to find some dead meat on the road and eat it and why should it matter if we see a leather coat in a garbage can and wear it, or buy it in a used clothing store? So in this second scenario, we are just using what mother earth has left behind as a remnant scrap and use it for sustanance or bodily protection. Both without harming. So the question is, isn't there two types of vegans? One that lives by vegan action of not harming and one by vegan appearance, that does not or cannot be seen eating flesh or wearing it even though no harm was inflicted by oneself. Nor supporting the infliction of harm? This is my question. Not fighting words, but just some serious reflection on the meaning of vegan. I am a vegetarian by the way. I eat cheese because I can't help myself. But if I could stop, I would. @gro ups.com, Blue Rose <bluerose156@ ...> wrote: > > No. Being vegan means abstaining from ALL animal products. That means no > leather clothing, no wool, no silk...why would dead animal flesh, however > way it was killed, ever be an exception? > > > On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 1:42 PM, lhundrup108 <lhundrup108@ ...> wrote: > > > happy new year everybody! > > > > can a vegan eat meat that was road kill and still be considered a vegan? > > > > > > > > ------------ --------- --------- ------ > > > > To send an email to -unsubscr ibe! > > Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > -- > AIM: A Blue Rose 156 YM: blue_rose_156 > http://x-bluerose- x.livejournal. com > http://timeladydesi gns.etsy. com > ~ > http://groups. / group/Boston_ Gothic > http://groups.. / group/Boston_ Mystic > http://groups. / group/Boston- Pagans > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 8, 2010 You cannot put your own interpretation on a descriptive word. Vegan means someone who does not eat or use anything from animals. To then use roadkill would be like a person stating that they are Christian but then saying that they don't believe in Jesus! I don't see anything unethical in eating roadkill, but it cannot and does not fit into to 'vegan' ethic. Jo , " lhundrup108 " <lhundrup108 wrote: > > Hi, and thanks for reply. > > Well, I think that being vegan means you don't harm animals. So you don't kill them and you don't buy leather or animal products to wear on your body because that implies that you support the industry. > > But why should it be a problem to find some dead meat on the road and eat it and why should it matter if we see a leather coat in a garbage can and wear it, or buy it in a used clothing store? > > So in this second scenario, we are just using what mother earth has left behind as a remnant scrap and use it for sustanance or bodily protection. Both without harming. > > So the question is, isn't there two types of vegans? One that lives by vegan action of not harming and one by vegan appearance, that does not or cannot be seen eating flesh or wearing it even though no harm was inflicted by oneself. Nor supporting the infliction of harm? > > This is my question. Not fighting words, but just some serious reflection on the meaning of vegan. > > I am a vegetarian by the way. I eat cheese because I can't help myself. But if I could stop, I would. > > , Blue Rose <bluerose156@> wrote: > > > > No. Being vegan means abstaining from ALL animal products. That means no > > leather clothing, no wool, no silk...why would dead animal flesh, however > > way it was killed, ever be an exception? > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 1:42 PM, lhundrup108 <lhundrup108@> wrote: > > > > > happy new year everybody! > > > > > > can a vegan eat meat that was road kill and still be considered a vegan? > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > To send an email to -@! > > > Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > AIM: A Blue Rose 156 YM: blue_rose_156 > > http://x-bluerose-x.livejournal.com > > http://timeladydesigns.etsy.com > > ~ > > Boston_Gothic > > Boston_Mystic > > Boston-Pagans > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 14, 2010 Well thanks. If the definition of vegan is more based on the abstaining from eating meat product than whether you commit cruelty to animals or not, then it is more clear that eating road kill cannot be vegan. But it also worries me a bit. Most vegans or at least most I know are vegan because they want to harm less animals. According to your definition, a person could be vegan but still get a job driving a meat truck. I guess he could even kill the animal as long as he doesn't eat it? Is that right? , " heartwerk " <jo.heartwork wrote: > > You cannot put your own interpretation on a descriptive word. > > Vegan means someone who does not eat or use anything from animals. To then use roadkill would be like a person stating that they are Christian but then saying that they don't believe in Jesus! > > I don't see anything unethical in eating roadkill, but it cannot and does not fit into to 'vegan' ethic. > > Jo > > > > , " lhundrup108 " <lhundrup108@> wrote: > > > > Hi, and thanks for reply. > > > > Well, I think that being vegan means you don't harm animals. So you don't kill them and you don't buy leather or animal products to wear on your body because that implies that you support the industry. > > > > But why should it be a problem to find some dead meat on the road and eat it and why should it matter if we see a leather coat in a garbage can and wear it, or buy it in a used clothing store? > > > > So in this second scenario, we are just using what mother earth has left behind as a remnant scrap and use it for sustanance or bodily protection. Both without harming. > > > > So the question is, isn't there two types of vegans? One that lives by vegan action of not harming and one by vegan appearance, that does not or cannot be seen eating flesh or wearing it even though no harm was inflicted by oneself. Nor supporting the infliction of harm? > > > > This is my question. Not fighting words, but just some serious reflection on the meaning of vegan. > > > > I am a vegetarian by the way. I eat cheese because I can't help myself. But if I could stop, I would. > > > > , Blue Rose <bluerose156@> wrote: > > > > > > No. Being vegan means abstaining from ALL animal products. That means no > > > leather clothing, no wool, no silk...why would dead animal flesh, however > > > way it was killed, ever be an exception? > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 1:42 PM, lhundrup108 <lhundrup108@> wrote: > > > > > > > happy new year everybody! > > > > > > > > can a vegan eat meat that was road kill and still be considered a vegan? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > To send an email to -@! > > > > Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > AIM: A Blue Rose 156 YM: blue_rose_156 > > > http://x-bluerose-x.livejournal.com > > > http://timeladydesigns.etsy.com > > > ~ > > > Boston_Gothic > > > Boston_Mystic > > > Boston-Pagans > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 14, 2010 Just because one is one thing does not preclude the other. You assume that if someone cannot eat road kill they can drive a meat truck. False. Being vegan isn't just a food choice; it's a lifestyle choice.In short, we can neither eat dead animals, wear them, or use them. It's about death and it's also about harming animals. On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 1:10 PM, lhundrup108 <lhundrup108 wrote: Well thanks. If the definition of vegan is more based on the abstaining from eating meat product than whether you commit cruelty to animals or not, then it is more clear that eating road kill cannot be vegan. But it also worries me a bit. Most vegans or at least most I know are vegan because they want to harm less animals. According to your definition, a person could be vegan but still get a job driving a meat truck. I guess he could even kill the animal as long as he doesn't eat it? Is that right? , " heartwerk " <jo.heartwork wrote: > > You cannot put your own interpretation on a descriptive word. > > Vegan means someone who does not eat or use anything from animals. To then use roadkill would be like a person stating that they are Christian but then saying that they don't believe in Jesus! > > I don't see anything unethical in eating roadkill, but it cannot and does not fit into to 'vegan' ethic. > > Jo > > > > , " lhundrup108 " <lhundrup108@> wrote: > > > > Hi, and thanks for reply. > > > > Well, I think that being vegan means you don't harm animals. So you don't kill them and you don't buy leather or animal products to wear on your body because that implies that you support the industry. > > > > But why should it be a problem to find some dead meat on the road and eat it and why should it matter if we see a leather coat in a garbage can and wear it, or buy it in a used clothing store? > > > > So in this second scenario, we are just using what mother earth has left behind as a remnant scrap and use it for sustanance or bodily protection. Both without harming. > > > > So the question is, isn't there two types of vegans? One that lives by vegan action of not harming and one by vegan appearance, that does not or cannot be seen eating flesh or wearing it even though no harm was inflicted by oneself. Nor supporting the infliction of harm? > > > > This is my question. Not fighting words, but just some serious reflection on the meaning of vegan. > > > > I am a vegetarian by the way. I eat cheese because I can't help myself. But if I could stop, I would. > > > > , Blue Rose <bluerose156@> wrote: > > > > > > No. Being vegan means abstaining from ALL animal products. That means no > > > leather clothing, no wool, no silk...why would dead animal flesh, however > > > way it was killed, ever be an exception? > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 1:42 PM, lhundrup108 <lhundrup108@> wrote: > > > > > > > happy new year everybody! > > > > > > > > can a vegan eat meat that was road kill and still be considered a vegan? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > To send an email to -@! > > > > Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > AIM: A Blue Rose 156 YM: blue_rose_156 > > > http://x-bluerose-x.livejournal.com > > > http://timeladydesigns.etsy.com > > > ~ > > > Boston_Gothic > > > Boston_Mystic > > > Boston-Pagans > > > > > > --- To send an email to -! Groups Links <*> / <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: /join ( ID required) <*> To change settings via email: -digest -fullfeatured <*> Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 14, 2010 At 6:10 PM +0000 1/14/10, lhundrup108 wrote: ....According to your definition, a person could be vegan but still get a job driving a meat truck. > Being vegan affects every area of my life, not only what I eat and wear. It's a world view and a philosophy as well as a menu choice. It determines what kinds of businesses I patronize and how I choose to spend my time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 15, 2010 No, that’s not right. I cannot imagine a situation where a vegan would kill an animal or drive a meat truck. Jo On Behalf Of lhundrup108 14 January 2010 18:10 Re: freegan Well thanks. If the definition of vegan is more based on the abstaining from eating meat product than whether you commit cruelty to animals or not, then it is more clear that eating road kill cannot be vegan. But it also worries me a bit. Most vegans or at least most I know are vegan because they want to harm less animals. According to your definition, a person could be vegan but still get a job driving a meat truck. I guess he could even kill the animal as long as he doesn't eat it? Is that right? , " heartwerk " <jo.heartwork wrote: > > You cannot put your own interpretation on a descriptive word. > > Vegan means someone who does not eat or use anything from animals. To then use roadkill would be like a person stating that they are Christian but then saying that they don't believe in Jesus! > > I don't see anything unethical in eating roadkill, but it cannot and does not fit into to 'vegan' ethic. > > Jo > > > > , " lhundrup108 " <lhundrup108@> wrote: > > > > Hi, and thanks for reply. > > > > Well, I think that being vegan means you don't harm animals. So you don't kill them and you don't buy leather or animal products to wear on your body because that implies that you support the industry. > > > > But why should it be a problem to find some dead meat on the road and eat it and why should it matter if we see a leather coat in a garbage can and wear it, or buy it in a used clothing store? > > > > So in this second scenario, we are just using what mother earth has left behind as a remnant scrap and use it for sustanance or bodily protection. Both without harming. > > > > So the question is, isn't there two types of vegans? One that lives by vegan action of not harming and one by vegan appearance, that does not or cannot be seen eating flesh or wearing it even though no harm was inflicted by oneself. Nor supporting the infliction of harm? > > > > This is my question. Not fighting words, but just some serious reflection on the meaning of vegan. > > > > I am a vegetarian by the way. I eat cheese because I can't help myself. But if I could stop, I would. > > > > , Blue Rose <bluerose156@> wrote: > > > > > > No. Being vegan means abstaining from ALL animal products. That means no > > > leather clothing, no wool, no silk...why would dead animal flesh, however > > > way it was killed, ever be an exception? > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 1:42 PM, lhundrup108 <lhundrup108@> wrote: > > > > > > > happy new year everybody! > > > > > > > > can a vegan eat meat that was road kill and still be considered a vegan? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > To send an email to -@! > > > > Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > AIM: A Blue Rose 156 YM: blue_rose_156 > > > http://x-bluerose-x.livejournal.com > > > http://timeladydesigns.etsy.com > > > ~ > > > Boston_Gothic > > > Boston_Mystic > > > Boston-Pagans > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 18, 2010 Dear Jo, I really do appreciate your contributions to this discussion and I really hope you don't think be to be antagonistic in any way. I am just striving for some understanding. I am not sure if I follow your arguments clearly. I think some words are missing in your bit about " Just because one is one thing does not preclude the other. " It doesn't seem to make grammatical sense, so I am interested to know what you meant. I never said that I assume that a vegan who doesn't eat roadkill, can drive a meat truck. I think that is your extraction. You has said, " Vegan means someone who does not eat or use anything from animals, " as a definition of being vegan. I am just saying that the definition doesn't seem accurate. Maybe the definition needs to be expanded, so it doesn't include the possibility of driving a meat truck, since driving one doesn't not imply eating or using something from an animal, unless of course the seat was made of leather. I am maybe challenging the definition that you put forth because I would rather that vegan had more to do with ultimately not harming animals then including more of not eating them. Because the latter can make more room for veganism to be a fad rather than a sincere ethical way to live. You said in one of the posts that you can see nothing unethical about eating roadkill, but still it is not vegan. Fair enough I guess, but I wonder what the value of being vegan is if just by avoiding overtly eating animal flesh, one can be vegan, when paying taxes to a government that allows the mass slaugther of animals is okay as that it is unavoidable. In that sense, nobody is vegan if paying taxes or any monies support mistreatment of animals. So if that is the case, I wonder what is doing more harm...eating roadkill, or paying taxes? There are a lot of freegans who avoid paying taxes and I am willing to consider that they are doing more to help animals by avoiding taxes but eating roadkill, then paying taxes and eating some " karma free meat " in order to honor the death of the animal so it was not killed in vain. I realize it is quite controversial to bring it all up on one hand, but on the other hand, not at all, since the concern is the well being of animals. Lhundrup , Blue Rose <bluerose156 wrote: > > Just because one is one thing does not preclude the other. You assume that > if someone cannot eat road kill they can drive a meat truck. False. Being > vegan isn't just a food choice; it's a lifestyle choice. > > In short, we can neither eat dead animals, wear them, or use them. It's > about death and it's also about harming animals. > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 1:10 PM, lhundrup108 <lhundrup108 wrote: > > > Well thanks. If the definition of vegan is more based on the abstaining > > from eating meat product than whether you commit cruelty to animals or not, > > then it is more clear that eating road kill cannot be vegan. > > > > But it also worries me a bit. Most vegans or at least most I know are > > vegan because they want to harm less animals. According to your definition, > > a person could be vegan but still get a job driving a meat truck. > > > > I guess he could even kill the animal as long as he doesn't eat it? Is > > that right? > > > > > > , " heartwerk " <jo.heartwork@> wrote: > > > > > > You cannot put your own interpretation on a descriptive word. > > > > > > Vegan means someone who does not eat or use anything from animals. To > > then use roadkill would be like a person stating that they are Christian but > > then saying that they don't believe in Jesus! > > > > > > I don't see anything unethical in eating roadkill, but it cannot and does > > not fit into to 'vegan' ethic. > > > > > > Jo > > > > > > > > > > > > , " lhundrup108 " <lhundrup108@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, and thanks for reply. > > > > > > > > Well, I think that being vegan means you don't harm animals. So you > > don't kill them and you don't buy leather or animal products to wear on your > > body because that implies that you support the industry. > > > > > > > > But why should it be a problem to find some dead meat on the road and > > eat it and why should it matter if we see a leather coat in a garbage can > > and wear it, or buy it in a used clothing store? > > > > > > > > So in this second scenario, we are just using what mother earth has > > left behind as a remnant scrap and use it for sustanance or bodily > > protection. Both without harming. > > > > > > > > So the question is, isn't there two types of vegans? One that lives by > > vegan action of not harming and one by vegan appearance, that does not or > > cannot be seen eating flesh or wearing it even though no harm was inflicted > > by oneself. Nor supporting the infliction of harm? > > > > > > > > This is my question. Not fighting words, but just some serious > > reflection on the meaning of vegan. > > > > > > > > I am a vegetarian by the way. I eat cheese because I can't help myself. > > But if I could stop, I would. > > > > > > > > , Blue Rose <bluerose156@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > No. Being vegan means abstaining from ALL animal products. That means > > no > > > > > leather clothing, no wool, no silk...why would dead animal flesh, > > however > > > > > way it was killed, ever be an exception? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 1:42 PM, lhundrup108 <lhundrup108@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > happy new year everybody! > > > > > > > > > > > > can a vegan eat meat that was road kill and still be considered a > > vegan? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > > To send an email to -@! > > > > > > Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > AIM: A Blue Rose 156 YM: blue_rose_156 > > > > > http://x-bluerose-x.livejournal.com > > > > > http://timeladydesigns.etsy.com > > > > > ~ > > > > > Boston_Gothic > > > > > Boston_Mystic > > > > > Boston-Pagans > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > To send an email to -! > > Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > -- > AIM: A Blue Rose 156 YM: blue_rose_156 > http://x-bluerose-x.livejournal.com > http://timeladydesigns.etsy.com > ~ > Boston_Gothic > Boston_Mystic > Boston-Pagans > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 18, 2010 Hi,Literally speaking, I've looked back to the dictionary definition of Vegan,‘a vegetarian who omits all animal products from the diet', and a definition in one of VIVA's publications- 'Nutrition in a Nutshell'-' a vegan eats food free from any animal products'. These definitions are based on consumption. Technically speaking, I do get what you are saying, based on these definitions based around diet, it's not inconceivable that a vegan could drive a meat truck. They could even get a job in a slaughter house. But this is incredibly unlikely, because the choice to become and remain vegan is usually accompanied by lifestyle and moral choices about the use and harm of animals in our society. It is very hard to separate dietary choice from lifestyle choice. For example, in VIVA's literature, the four key advantages of a vegan diet go further to elaborate on what it means to be Vegan- specifically- saving animals, helping the planet, helping the third world and improving your own health. Someone may opt for a Vegan diet coming from just one of the above four perpectives, but most people end up embracing more, or indeed, all of them. Some changes and adaptations may be instant, or evolve over time.For example, although I am vegan, I initially decided to continue to wear out leather shoes I still own from a few years back along with clothing containing wool , although resolving never to buy them again. But when it comes to the crunch of actually wearing them, the thought has become abhorent. And dipping into this forum from time to time is really helping me consolidate Vegan issues..(a good time to say Thank you everyone!!) .and think more- for example, within this thread I used the term 'roadkill', but then on reading Anouk's and Geoff's expressions, I realised it's a very negative term and doesn't reflect accurately the way I view animals after they have died. Again, it would be hugely unlikely for a vegan to drive a meat truck. People (rightly) have expectations that a vegan wouldn't drive a meat truck. Similarly to the analogy that Jo suggested about Christians- say a Christian commits adultery-just because they are Christian, it doesn't mean they won't, but if they identify them self as a Christian, people have higher expectations that they won't. I think any single step that any individual is taking to reduce animal suffering is something to be celebrated. I just wanted to offer my thoughts, I think they are not all pertinent to the main discussion.Best wishes,Bea Blue Rose <bluerose156 Sent: Thu, 14 January, 2010 20:06:15Re: Re: freegan Just because one is one thing does not preclude the other. You assume that if someone cannot eat road kill they can drive a meat truck. False. Being vegan isn't just a food choice; it's a lifestyle choice.In short, we can neither eat dead animals, wear them, or use them. It's about death and it's also about harming animals. On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 1:10 PM, lhundrup108 <lhundrup108@ > wrote: Well thanks. If the definition of vegan is more based on the abstaining from eating meat product than whether you commit cruelty to animals or not, then it is more clear that eating road kill cannot be vegan. But it also worries me a bit. Most vegans or at least most I know are vegan because they want to harm less animals. According to your definition, a person could be vegan but still get a job driving a meat truck. I guess he could even kill the animal as long as he doesn't eat it? Is that right? @gro ups.com, "heartwerk" <jo.heartwork@ ...> wrote: > > You cannot put your own interpretation on a descriptive word. > > Vegan means someone who does not eat or use anything from animals. To then use roadkill would be like a person stating that they are Christian but then saying that they don't believe in Jesus! > > I don't see anything unethical in eating roadkill, but it cannot and does not fit into to 'vegan' ethic. > > Jo > > > > @gro ups.com, "lhundrup108" <lhundrup108@> wrote: > > > > Hi, and thanks for reply. > > > > Well, I think that being vegan means you don't harm animals. So you don't kill them and you don't buy leather or animal products to wear on your body because that implies that you support the industry. > > > > But why should it be a problem to find some dead meat on the road and eat it and why should it matter if we see a leather coat in a garbage can and wear it, or buy it in a used clothing store? > > > > So in this second scenario, we are just using what mother earth has left behind as a remnant scrap and use it for sustanance or bodily protection. Both without harming. > > > > So the question is, isn't there two types of vegans? One that lives by vegan action of not harming and one by vegan appearance, that does not or cannot be seen eating flesh or wearing it even though no harm was inflicted by oneself. Nor supporting the infliction of harm? > > > > This is my question. Not fighting words, but just some serious reflection on the meaning of vegan. > > > > I am a vegetarian by the way. I eat cheese because I can't help myself. But if I could stop, I would. > > > > @gro ups.com, Blue Rose <bluerose156@> wrote: > > > > > > No. Being vegan means abstaining from ALL animal products. That means no > > > leather clothing, no wool, no silk...why would dead animal flesh, however > > > way it was killed, ever be an exception? > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 1:42 PM, lhundrup108 <lhundrup108@> wrote: > > > > > > > happy new year everybody! > > > > > > > > can a vegan eat meat that was road kill and still be considered a vegan? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------ --------- --------- ------ > > > > > > > > To send an email to -unsubscr ibe@! > > > > Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > AIM: A Blue Rose 156 YM: blue_rose_156 > > > http://x-bluerose- x.livejournal. com > > > http://timeladydesi gns.etsy. com > > > ~ > > > http://groups. / group/Boston_ Gothic > > > http://groups. / group/Boston_ Mystic > > > http://groups. / group/Boston- Pagans > > > > > > ------------ --------- --------- ------ To send an email to -unsubscr ibe Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 20, 2010 I think you have assigned words to me that were not mine. ( " Just because one is one thing does not preclude the other. " - was not from my email). I think this is a strange angle of discussion because I think that none of the vegans I know or converse with online would drive a meat truck, or anything else involved with the meat industry - therefore I cannot see the need for it to be discussed. To any vegan or vegetarian the thought of eating the flesh of an animal is sickening, so therefore a vegan/vegetarian would not eat roadkill. Freegans and vegans are totally different groups of people. I am sure there are groups for Freegans, unless there lifestyle (does this include not paying taxes, which presumably means they don't earn any money) precludes them from having computers etc. Jo , " lhundrup108 " <lhundrup108 wrote: > > > Dear Jo, > > I really do appreciate your contributions to this discussion and I really hope you don't think be to be antagonistic in any way. I am just striving for some understanding. > > I am not sure if I follow your arguments clearly. I think some words are missing in your bit about " Just because one is one thing does not preclude the other. " It doesn't seem to make grammatical sense, so I am interested to know what you meant. > > I never said that I assume that a vegan who doesn't eat roadkill, can drive a meat truck. I think that is your extraction. You has said, " Vegan means someone who does not eat or use anything from animals, " as a definition of being vegan. I am just saying that the definition doesn't seem accurate. Maybe the definition needs to be expanded, so it doesn't include the possibility of driving a meat truck, since driving one doesn't not imply eating or using something from an animal, unless of course the seat was made of leather. > > I am maybe challenging the definition that you put forth because I would rather that vegan had more to do with ultimately not harming animals then including more of not eating them. Because the latter can make more room for veganism to be a fad rather than a sincere ethical way to live. > > You said in one of the posts that you can see nothing unethical about eating roadkill, but still it is not vegan. Fair enough I guess, but I wonder what the value of being vegan is if just by avoiding overtly eating animal flesh, one can be vegan, when paying taxes to a government that allows the mass slaugther of animals is okay as that it is unavoidable. > > In that sense, nobody is vegan if paying taxes or any monies support mistreatment of animals. So if that is the case, I wonder what is doing more harm...eating roadkill, or paying taxes? > > There are a lot of freegans who avoid paying taxes and I am willing to consider that they are doing more to help animals by avoiding taxes but eating roadkill, then paying taxes and eating some " karma free meat " in order to honor the death of the animal so it was not killed in vain. > > I realize it is quite controversial to bring it all up on one hand, but on the other hand, not at all, since the concern is the well being of animals. > > Lhundrup > > , Blue Rose <bluerose156@> wrote: > > > > Just because one is one thing does not preclude the other. You assume that > > if someone cannot eat road kill they can drive a meat truck. False. Being > > vegan isn't just a food choice; it's a lifestyle choice. > > > > In short, we can neither eat dead animals, wear them, or use them. It's > > about death and it's also about harming animals. > > > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 1:10 PM, lhundrup108 <lhundrup108@> wrote: > > > > > Well thanks. If the definition of vegan is more based on the abstaining > > > from eating meat product than whether you commit cruelty to animals or not, > > > then it is more clear that eating road kill cannot be vegan. > > > > > > But it also worries me a bit. Most vegans or at least most I know are > > > vegan because they want to harm less animals. According to your definition, > > > a person could be vegan but still get a job driving a meat truck. > > > > > > I guess he could even kill the animal as long as he doesn't eat it? Is > > > that right? > > > > > > > > > , " heartwerk " <jo.heartwork@> wrote: > > > > > > > > You cannot put your own interpretation on a descriptive word. > > > > > > > > Vegan means someone who does not eat or use anything from animals. To > > > then use roadkill would be like a person stating that they are Christian but > > > then saying that they don't believe in Jesus! > > > > > > > > I don't see anything unethical in eating roadkill, but it cannot and does > > > not fit into to 'vegan' ethic. > > > > > > > > Jo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , " lhundrup108 " <lhundrup108@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi, and thanks for reply. > > > > > > > > > > Well, I think that being vegan means you don't harm animals. So you > > > don't kill them and you don't buy leather or animal products to wear on your > > > body because that implies that you support the industry. > > > > > > > > > > But why should it be a problem to find some dead meat on the road and > > > eat it and why should it matter if we see a leather coat in a garbage can > > > and wear it, or buy it in a used clothing store? > > > > > > > > > > So in this second scenario, we are just using what mother earth has > > > left behind as a remnant scrap and use it for sustanance or bodily > > > protection. Both without harming. > > > > > > > > > > So the question is, isn't there two types of vegans? One that lives by > > > vegan action of not harming and one by vegan appearance, that does not or > > > cannot be seen eating flesh or wearing it even though no harm was inflicted > > > by oneself. Nor supporting the infliction of harm? > > > > > > > > > > This is my question. Not fighting words, but just some serious > > > reflection on the meaning of vegan. > > > > > > > > > > I am a vegetarian by the way. I eat cheese because I can't help myself. > > > But if I could stop, I would. > > > > > > > > > > , Blue Rose <bluerose156@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > No. Being vegan means abstaining from ALL animal products. That means > > > no > > > > > > leather clothing, no wool, no silk...why would dead animal flesh, > > > however > > > > > > way it was killed, ever be an exception? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 1:42 PM, lhundrup108 <lhundrup108@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > happy new year everybody! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can a vegan eat meat that was road kill and still be considered a > > > vegan? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To send an email to -@! > > > > > > > Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > AIM: A Blue Rose 156 YM: blue_rose_156 > > > > > > http://x-bluerose-x.livejournal.com > > > > > > http://timeladydesigns.etsy.com > > > > > > ~ > > > > > > Boston_Gothic > > > > > > Boston_Mystic > > > > > > Boston-Pagans > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > To send an email to -@! > > > Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > AIM: A Blue Rose 156 YM: blue_rose_156 > > http://x-bluerose-x.livejournal.com > > http://timeladydesigns.etsy.com > > ~ > > Boston_Gothic > > Boston_Mystic > > Boston-Pagans > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 20, 2010 Dear JO, I am sorry about the mix up. That quote was from Blue Rose. I still don't know what she meant to say. I realize that you probably completely disagree with me and that is okay, but I think it is strange that you find this angle of discussion is a strange one. It may not be that any of your friends drive a meat truck but it doesn't make the understanding of what vegan is any more complete. Definitions are arrived at by consensus understanding and not just what one group thinks. But in this case, we aren't making a definition, but trying to figure the actual intent of the definition. Someone posted that I shouldn't impose my own meaning on a word that is already clear, but I think that was a mistaken view altogether. I have already posted earlier (but it hasn't appeared while I write this, but probably will before you read this) that my personal resolution, after Bea's kind post, is that vegan is nothing more than a diet. We might have to add some words to define one's position as a vegan activist or a vegan apologist. It seems pretty clear to me that there are rampant assumptions being imposed on the phenomena called vegan. Not all vegans are the same just like not all christians are the same. In christianity, worshippers often try to impose their definition of what is a christian according to their reading of the bible. I feel now that the same thing is happening in veganism, but it is more outlandish because there is more or less only one way to interpret a definition of a word, not many. So I really feel that you must be a vegan activist in a social sense to attach your moral views of not buying leather and so on. In fact when most vegans state their views, they say, " I don't buy leather because I don't support the slaughter of animals and that is also why I choose a vegan diet. " They dont say, " I don't buy leather because I am vegan. " Or sometimes they do I guess, and I think that is the problem. My whole angle was being based on the definition of a vegan that you or someone gave me about simply not eating animal products or using them. And about a freegan on a computer, there are likely many freegans that do make money but don't pay taxes and do surf the net for free in San Fran or somewhere else where the net is free in public places. I still am not convinced that if the point of veganism is to reduce harm to animals, that they are more capable of stopping animal torture than a freegan who eats roadkill. I would say that a freegan or a vegan who is involved in vegan activism probably does a whole lot and it is clear what they are doing and no assumptions need be made about what they don't do. chirag , " heartwerk " <jo.heartwork wrote: > > I think you have assigned words to me that were not mine. ( " Just because one is one thing does not preclude the other. " - was not from my email). > > I think this is a strange angle of discussion because I think that none of the vegans I know or converse with online would drive a meat truck, or anything else involved with the meat industry - therefore I cannot see the need for it to be discussed. > > To any vegan or vegetarian the thought of eating the flesh of an animal is sickening, so therefore a vegan/vegetarian would not eat roadkill. > > Freegans and vegans are totally different groups of people. I am sure there are groups for Freegans, unless there lifestyle (does this include not paying taxes, which presumably means they don't earn any money) precludes them from having computers etc. > > Jo > > , " lhundrup108 " <lhundrup108@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Jo, > > > > I really do appreciate your contributions to this discussion and I really hope you don't think be to be antagonistic in any way. I am just striving for some understanding. > > > > I am not sure if I follow your arguments clearly. I think some words are missing in your bit about " Just because one is one thing does not preclude the other. " It doesn't seem to make grammatical sense, so I am interested to know what you meant. > > > > I never said that I assume that a vegan who doesn't eat roadkill, can drive a meat truck. I think that is your extraction. You has said, " Vegan means someone who does not eat or use anything from animals, " as a definition of being vegan. I am just saying that the definition doesn't seem accurate. Maybe the definition needs to be expanded, so it doesn't include the possibility of driving a meat truck, since driving one doesn't not imply eating or using something from an animal, unless of course the seat was made of leather. > > > > I am maybe challenging the definition that you put forth because I would rather that vegan had more to do with ultimately not harming animals then including more of not eating them. Because the latter can make more room for veganism to be a fad rather than a sincere ethical way to live. > > > > You said in one of the posts that you can see nothing unethical about eating roadkill, but still it is not vegan. Fair enough I guess, but I wonder what the value of being vegan is if just by avoiding overtly eating animal flesh, one can be vegan, when paying taxes to a government that allows the mass slaugther of animals is okay as that it is unavoidable. > > > > In that sense, nobody is vegan if paying taxes or any monies support mistreatment of animals. So if that is the case, I wonder what is doing more harm...eating roadkill, or paying taxes? > > > > There are a lot of freegans who avoid paying taxes and I am willing to consider that they are doing more to help animals by avoiding taxes but eating roadkill, then paying taxes and eating some " karma free meat " in order to honor the death of the animal so it was not killed in vain. > > > > I realize it is quite controversial to bring it all up on one hand, but on the other hand, not at all, since the concern is the well being of animals. > > > > Lhundrup > > > > , Blue Rose <bluerose156@> wrote: > > > > > > Just because one is one thing does not preclude the other. You assume that > > > if someone cannot eat road kill they can drive a meat truck. False. Being > > > vegan isn't just a food choice; it's a lifestyle choice. > > > > > > In short, we can neither eat dead animals, wear them, or use them. It's > > > about death and it's also about harming animals. > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 1:10 PM, lhundrup108 <lhundrup108@> wrote: > > > > > > > Well thanks. If the definition of vegan is more based on the abstaining > > > > from eating meat product than whether you commit cruelty to animals or not, > > > > then it is more clear that eating road kill cannot be vegan. > > > > > > > > But it also worries me a bit. Most vegans or at least most I know are > > > > vegan because they want to harm less animals. According to your definition, > > > > a person could be vegan but still get a job driving a meat truck. > > > > > > > > I guess he could even kill the animal as long as he doesn't eat it? Is > > > > that right? > > > > > > > > > > > > , " heartwerk " <jo.heartwork@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > You cannot put your own interpretation on a descriptive word. > > > > > > > > > > Vegan means someone who does not eat or use anything from animals. To > > > > then use roadkill would be like a person stating that they are Christian but > > > > then saying that they don't believe in Jesus! > > > > > > > > > > I don't see anything unethical in eating roadkill, but it cannot and does > > > > not fit into to 'vegan' ethic. > > > > > > > > > > Jo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , " lhundrup108 " <lhundrup108@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, and thanks for reply. > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, I think that being vegan means you don't harm animals. So you > > > > don't kill them and you don't buy leather or animal products to wear on your > > > > body because that implies that you support the industry. > > > > > > > > > > > > But why should it be a problem to find some dead meat on the road and > > > > eat it and why should it matter if we see a leather coat in a garbage can > > > > and wear it, or buy it in a used clothing store? > > > > > > > > > > > > So in this second scenario, we are just using what mother earth has > > > > left behind as a remnant scrap and use it for sustanance or bodily > > > > protection. Both without harming. > > > > > > > > > > > > So the question is, isn't there two types of vegans? One that lives by > > > > vegan action of not harming and one by vegan appearance, that does not or > > > > cannot be seen eating flesh or wearing it even though no harm was inflicted > > > > by oneself. Nor supporting the infliction of harm? > > > > > > > > > > > > This is my question. Not fighting words, but just some serious > > > > reflection on the meaning of vegan. > > > > > > > > > > > > I am a vegetarian by the way. I eat cheese because I can't help myself. > > > > But if I could stop, I would. > > > > > > > > > > > > , Blue Rose <bluerose156@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. Being vegan means abstaining from ALL animal products. That means > > > > no > > > > > > > leather clothing, no wool, no silk...why would dead animal flesh, > > > > however > > > > > > > way it was killed, ever be an exception? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 1:42 PM, lhundrup108 <lhundrup108@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > happy new year everybody! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can a vegan eat meat that was road kill and still be considered a > > > > vegan? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To send an email to -@! > > > > > > > > Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > AIM: A Blue Rose 156 YM: blue_rose_156 > > > > > > > http://x-bluerose-x.livejournal.com > > > > > > > http://timeladydesigns.etsy.com > > > > > > > ~ > > > > > > > Boston_Gothic > > > > > > > Boston_Mystic > > > > > > > Boston-Pagans > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > To send an email to -@! > > > > Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > AIM: A Blue Rose 156 YM: blue_rose_156 > > > http://x-bluerose-x.livejournal.com > > > http://timeladydesigns.etsy.com > > > ~ > > > Boston_Gothic > > > Boston_Mystic > > > Boston-Pagans > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 20, 2010 Good Morning sort lost on your question at this point, but let me just throw a few things out there. A vegan is a type of vegetarian. A vegan is someone who does not eat, use, or wear products made from the animal kingdom. this includes, diet, clothing, drink, and a whole range of lifestyle choices. A vegan does eat chicken, fish, eggs, milk, cheese or any of their by products (whey, albumen, isinglass, ad infinitum) A vegan does not purchase leather, nor wool, nor fur coats nor..you get the picture. there are as many reasons why someone is vegan as there are vegans. ethical and moral issues are some of the most prevalent, but there are religious, environmental, health and diet reasons as well, including others. while in the definition of any social movement there are always grey areas, the basics are just that, vegans do not eat, wear or use anything that comes from an animal. the general thought is to do the least harm in the same vein, to live in the modern world, it pretty much impossible to be 100% vegan. but, its a long journey one must make, and continue on to each person's satisifaction and ability. as for a freegan eating roadkill and saying he or she is vegan. well, someone can say anything they want, doesn't make it so. i can call myself an astronaut, doesn;t mean i am one. a vegan does not eat meat. thats what a vegan is. just because its free or already dead doesn't negate that its an animal. lets say, you said "i don't drink alcohol". pretty cut and dry statement, yes? you couldn't claim that if you go out to parties and drink, because hey, its free at a party. if you drink alcohol, you drink alcohol. cheers fraggle lhundrup108 Jan 20, 2010 12:46 PM Re: freegan Dear JO,I am sorry about the mix up. That quote was from Blue Rose. I still don't know what she meant to say.I realize that you probably completely disagree with me and that is okay, but I think it is strange that you find this angle of discussion is a strange one. It may not be that any of your friends drive a meat truck but it doesn't make the understanding of what vegan is any more complete. Definitions are arrived at by consensus understanding and not just what one group thinks.But in this case, we aren't making a definition, but trying to figure the actual intent of the definition. Someone posted that I shouldn't impose my own meaning on a word that is already clear, but I think that was a mistaken view altogether. I have already posted earlier (but it hasn't appeared while I write this, but probably will before you read this) that my personal resolution, after Bea's kind post, is that vegan is nothing more than a diet. We might have to add some words to define one's position as a vegan activist or a vegan apologist.It seems pretty clear to me that there are rampant assumptions being imposed on the phenomena called vegan. Not all vegans are the same just like not all christians are the same. In christianity, worshippers often try to impose their definition of what is a christian according to their reading of the bible. I feel now that the same thing is happening in veganism, but it is more outlandish because there is more or less only one way to interpret a definition of a word, not many.So I really feel that you must be a vegan activist in a social sense to attach your moral views of not buying leather and so on. In fact when most vegans state their views, they say, "I don't buy leather because I don't support the slaughter of animals and that is also why I choose a vegan diet." They dont say, " I don't buy leather because I am vegan." Or sometimes they do I guess, and I think that is the problem.My whole angle was being based on the definition of a vegan that you or someone gave me about simply not eating animal products or using them.And about a freegan on a computer, there are likely many freegans that do make money but don't pay taxes and do surf the net for free in San Fran or somewhere else where the net is free in public places.I still am not convinced that if the point of veganism is to reduce harm to animals, that they are more capable of stopping animal torture than a freegan who eats roadkill. I would say that a freegan or a vegan who is involved in vegan activism probably does a whole lot and it is clear what they are doing and no assumptions need be made about what they don't do.chirag , "heartwerk" <jo.heartwork wrote:>> I think you have assigned words to me that were not mine. ("Just because one is one thing does not preclude the other." - was not from my email).> > I think this is a strange angle of discussion because I think that none of the vegans I know or converse with online would drive a meat truck, or anything else involved with the meat industry - therefore I cannot see the need for it to be discussed.> > To any vegan or vegetarian the thought of eating the flesh of an animal is sickening, so therefore a vegan/vegetarian would not eat roadkill. > > Freegans and vegans are totally different groups of people. I am sure there are groups for Freegans, unless there lifestyle (does this include not paying taxes, which presumably means they don't earn any money) precludes them from having computers etc.> > Jo> > , "lhundrup108" <lhundrup108@> wrote:> >> > > > Dear Jo, > > > > I really do appreciate your contributions to this discussion and I really hope you don't think be to be antagonistic in any way. I am just striving for some understanding.> > > > I am not sure if I follow your arguments clearly. I think some words are missing in your bit about "Just because one is one thing does not preclude the other." It doesn't seem to make grammatical sense, so I am interested to know what you meant.> > > > I never said that I assume that a vegan who doesn't eat roadkill, can drive a meat truck. I think that is your extraction. You has said, "Vegan means someone who does not eat or use anything from animals," as a definition of being vegan. I am just saying that the definition doesn't seem accurate. Maybe the definition needs to be expanded, so it doesn't include the possibility of driving a meat truck, since driving one doesn't not imply eating or using something from an animal, unless of course the seat was made of leather.> > > > I am maybe challenging the definition that you put forth because I would rather that vegan had more to do with ultimately not harming animals then including more of not eating them. Because the latter can make more room for veganism to be a fad rather than a sincere ethical way to live.> > > > You said in one of the posts that you can see nothing unethical about eating roadkill, but still it is not vegan. Fair enough I guess, but I wonder what the value of being vegan is if just by avoiding overtly eating animal flesh, one can be vegan, when paying taxes to a government that allows the mass slaugther of animals is okay as that it is unavoidable.> > > > In that sense, nobody is vegan if paying taxes or any monies support mistreatment of animals. So if that is the case, I wonder what is doing more harm...eating roadkill, or paying taxes?> > > > There are a lot of freegans who avoid paying taxes and I am willing to consider that they are doing more to help animals by avoiding taxes but eating roadkill, then paying taxes and eating some "karma free meat" in order to honor the death of the animal so it was not killed in vain.> > > > I realize it is quite controversial to bring it all up on one hand, but on the other hand, not at all, since the concern is the well being of animals.> > > > Lhundrup> > > > , Blue Rose <bluerose156@> wrote:> > >> > > Just because one is one thing does not preclude the other. You assume that> > > if someone cannot eat road kill they can drive a meat truck. False. Being> > > vegan isn't just a food choice; it's a lifestyle choice.> > > > > > In short, we can neither eat dead animals, wear them, or use them. It's> > > about death and it's also about harming animals.> > > > > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 1:10 PM, lhundrup108 <lhundrup108@> wrote:> > > > > > > Well thanks. If the definition of vegan is more based on the abstaining> > > > from eating meat product than whether you commit cruelty to animals or not,> > > > then it is more clear that eating road kill cannot be vegan.> > > >> > > > But it also worries me a bit. Most vegans or at least most I know are> > > > vegan because they want to harm less animals. According to your definition,> > > > a person could be vegan but still get a job driving a meat truck.> > > >> > > > I guess he could even kill the animal as long as he doesn't eat it? Is> > > > that right?> > > >> > > >> > > > , "heartwerk" <jo.heartwork@> wrote:> > > > >> > > > > You cannot put your own interpretation on a descriptive word.> > > > >> > > > > Vegan means someone who does not eat or use anything from animals. To> > > > then use roadkill would be like a person stating that they are Christian but> > > > then saying that they don't believe in Jesus!> > > > >> > > > > I don't see anything unethical in eating roadkill, but it cannot and does> > > > not fit into to 'vegan' ethic.> > > > >> > > > > Jo> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > , "lhundrup108" <lhundrup108@> wrote:> > > > > >> > > > > > Hi, and thanks for reply.> > > > > >> > > > > > Well, I think that being vegan means you don't harm animals. So you> > > > don't kill them and you don't buy leather or animal products to wear on your> > > > body because that implies that you support the industry.> > > > > >> > > > > > But why should it be a problem to find some dead meat on the road and> > > > eat it and why should it matter if we see a leather coat in a garbage can> > > > and wear it, or buy it in a used clothing store?> > > > > >> > > > > > So in this second scenario, we are just using what mother earth has> > > > left behind as a remnant scrap and use it for sustanance or bodily> > > > protection. Both without harming.> > > > > >> > > > > > So the question is, isn't there two types of vegans? One that lives by> > > > vegan action of not harming and one by vegan appearance, that does not or> > > > cannot be seen eating flesh or wearing it even though no harm was inflicted> > > > by oneself. Nor supporting the infliction of harm?> > > > > >> > > > > > This is my question. Not fighting words, but just some serious> > > > reflection on the meaning of vegan.> > > > > >> > > > > > I am a vegetarian by the way. I eat cheese because I can't help myself.> > > > But if I could stop, I would.> > > > > >> > > > > > , Blue Rose <bluerose156@> wrote:> > > > > > >> > > > > > > No. Being vegan means abstaining from ALL animal products. That means> > > > no> > > > > > > leather clothing, no wool, no silk...why would dead animal flesh,> > > > however> > > > > > > way it was killed, ever be an exception?> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 1:42 PM, lhundrup108 <lhundrup108@> wrote:> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > happy new year everybody!> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > can a vegan eat meat that was road kill and still be considered a> > > > vegan?> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ---> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > To send an email to -@!> > > > > > > > Groups Links> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > --> > > > > > > AIM: A Blue Rose 156 YM: blue_rose_156> > > > > > > http://x-bluerose-x.livejournal.com> > > > > > > http://timeladydesigns.etsy.com> > > > > > > ~> > > > > > > Boston_Gothic> > > > > > > Boston_Mystic> > > > > > > Boston-Pagans> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > ---> > > >> > > > To send an email to -@!> > > > Groups Links> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > > AIM: A Blue Rose 156 YM: blue_rose_156> > > http://x-bluerose-x.livejournal.com> > > http://timeladydesigns.etsy.com> > > ~> > > Boston_Gothic> > > Boston_Mystic> > > Boston-Pagans> > >> >> You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 20, 2010 Beautiful, lovely - almost prose. Thank you, fraggle, oh great one.(I assume you meant that a vegan does NOT eat chicken, milk, eggs, meat, etc. below.)CynSent via BlackBerry by AT&T fraggle <EBbrewpunxWed, 20 Jan 2010 14:45:50 -0500 (EST)Re: Re: freegan Good Morningsort lost on your question at this point, but let me just throw a few things out there.A vegan is a type of vegetarian. A vegan is someone who does not eat, use, or wear products made from the animal kingdom. this includes, diet, clothing, drink, and a whole range of lifestyle choices.A vegan does eat chicken, fish, eggs, milk, cheese or any of their by products (whey, albumen, isinglass, ad infinitum)A vegan does not purchase leather, nor wool, nor fur coats nor..you get the picture.there are as many reasons why someone is vegan as there are vegans. ethical and moral issues are some of the most prevalent, but there are religious, environmental, health and diet reasons as well, including others.while in the definition of any social movement there are always grey areas, the basics are just that, vegans do not eat, wear or use anything that comes from an animal. the general thought is to do the least harmin the same vein, to live in the modern world, it pretty much impossible to be 100% vegan. but, its a long journey one must make, and continue on to each person's satisifaction and ability.as for a freegan eating roadkill and saying he or she is vegan. well, someone can say anything they want, doesn't make it so. i can call myself an astronaut, doesn;t mean i am one. a vegan does not eat meat. thats what a vegan is. just because its free or already dead doesn't negate that its an animal.lets say, you said "i don't drink alcohol". pretty cut and dry statement, yes? you couldn't claim that if you go out to parties and drink, because hey, its free at a party. if you drink alcohol, you drink alcohol.cheersfraggle lhundrup108 Jan 20, 2010 12:46 PM Re: freegan Dear JO,I am sorry about the mix up. That quote was from Blue Rose. I still don't know what she meant to say.I realize that you probably completely disagree with me and that is okay, but I think it is strange that you find this angle of discussion is a strange one. It may not be that any of your friends drive a meat truck but it doesn't make the understanding of what vegan is any more complete. Definitions are arrived at by consensus understanding and not just what one group thinks.But in this case, we aren't making a definition, but trying to figure the actual intent of the definition. Someone posted that I shouldn't impose my own meaning on a word that is already clear, but I think that was a mistaken view altogether. I have already posted earlier (but it hasn't appeared while I write this, but probably will before you read this) that my personal resolution, after Bea's kind post, is that vegan is nothing more than a diet. We might have to add some words to define one's position as a vegan activist or a vegan apologist.It seems pretty clear to me that there are rampant assumptions being imposed on the phenomena called vegan. Not all vegans are the same just like not all christians are the same. In christianity, worshippers often try to impose their definition of what is a christian according to their reading of the bible. I feel now that the same thing is happening in veganism, but it is more outlandish because there is more or less only one way to interpret a definition of a word, not many.So I really feel that you must be a vegan activist in a social sense to attach your moral views of not buying leather and so on. In fact when most vegans state their views, they say, "I don't buy leather because I don't support the slaughter of animals and that is also why I choose a vegan diet." They dont say, " I don't buy leather because I am vegan." Or sometimes they do I guess, and I think that is the problem.My whole angle was being based on the definition of a vegan that you or someone gave me about simply not eating animal products or using them.And about a freegan on a computer, there are likely many freegans that do make money but don't pay taxes and do surf the net for free in San Fran or somewhere else where the net is free in public places.I still am not convinced that if the point of veganism is to reduce harm to animals, that they are more capable of stopping animal torture than a freegan who eats roadkill. I would say that a freegan or a vegan who is involved in vegan activism probably does a whole lot and it is clear what they are doing and no assumptions need be made about what they don't do.chirag , "heartwerk" <jo.heartwork wrote:>> I think you have assigned words to me that were not mine. ("Just because one is one thing does not preclude the other." - was not from my email).> > I think this is a strange angle of discussion because I think that none of the vegans I know or converse with online would drive a meat truck, or anything else involved with the meat industry - therefore I cannot see the need for it to be discussed.> > To any vegan or vegetarian the thought of eating the flesh of an animal is sickening, so therefore a vegan/vegetarian would not eat roadkill. > > Freegans and vegans are totally different groups of people. I am sure there are groups for Freegans, unless there lifestyle (does this include not paying taxes, which presumably means they don't earn any money) precludes them from having computers etc.> > Jo> > , "lhundrup108" <lhundrup108@> wrote:> >> > > > Dear Jo, > > > > I really do appreciate your contributions to this discussion and I really hope you don't think be to be antagonistic in any way. I am just striving for some understanding.> > > > I am not sure if I follow your arguments clearly. I think some words are missing in your bit about "Just because one is one thing does not preclude the other." It doesn't seem to make grammatical sense, so I am interested to know what you meant.> > > > I never said that I assume that a vegan who doesn't eat roadkill, can drive a meat truck. I think that is your extraction. You has said, "Vegan means someone who does not eat or use anything from animals," as a definition of being vegan. I am just saying that the definition doesn't seem accurate. Maybe the definition needs to be expanded, so it doesn't include the possibility of driving a meat truck, since driving one doesn't not imply eating or using something from an animal, unless of course the seat was made of leather.> > > > I am maybe challenging the definition that you put forth because I would rather that vegan had more to do with ultimately not harming animals then including more of not eating them. Because the latter can make more room for veganism to be a fad rather than a sincere ethical way to live.> > > > You said in one of the posts that you can see nothing unethical about eating roadkill, but still it is not vegan. Fair enough I guess, but I wonder what the value of being vegan is if just by avoiding overtly eating animal flesh, one can be vegan, when paying taxes to a government that allows the mass slaugther of animals is okay as that it is unavoidable.> > > > In that sense, nobody is vegan if paying taxes or any monies support mistreatment of animals. So if that is the case, I wonder what is doing more harm...eating roadkill, or paying taxes?> > > > There are a lot of freegans who avoid paying taxes and I am willing to consider that they are doing more to help animals by avoiding taxes but eating roadkill, then paying taxes and eating some "karma free meat" in order to honor the death of the animal so it was not killed in vain.> > > > I realize it is quite controversial to bring it all up on one hand, but on the other hand, not at all, since the concern is the well being of animals.> > > > Lhundrup> > > > , Blue Rose <bluerose156@> wrote:> > >> > > Just because one is one thing does not preclude the other. You assume that> > > if someone cannot eat road kill they can drive a meat truck. False. Being> > > vegan isn't just a food choice; it's a lifestyle choice.> > > > > > In short, we can neither eat dead animals, wear them, or use them. It's> > > about death and it's also about harming animals.> > > > > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 1:10 PM, lhundrup108 <lhundrup108@> wrote:> > > > > > > Well thanks. If the definition of vegan is more based on the abstaining> > > > from eating meat product than whether you commit cruelty to animals or not,> > > > then it is more clear that eating road kill cannot be vegan.> > > >> > > > But it also worries me a bit. Most vegans or at least most I know are> > > > vegan because they want to harm less animals. According to your definition,> > > > a person could be vegan but still get a job driving a meat truck.> > > >> > > > I guess he could even kill the animal as long as he doesn't eat it? Is> > > > that right?> > > >> > > >> > > > , "heartwerk" <jo.heartwork@> wrote:> > > > >> > > > > You cannot put your own interpretation on a descriptive word.> > > > >> > > > > Vegan means someone who does not eat or use anything from animals. To> > > > then use roadkill would be like a person stating that they are Christian but> > > > then saying that they don't believe in Jesus!> > > > >> > > > > I don't see anything unethical in eating roadkill, but it cannot and does> > > > not fit into to 'vegan' ethic.> > > > >> > > > > Jo> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > , "lhundrup108" <lhundrup108@> wrote:> > > > > >> > > > > > Hi, and thanks for reply.> > > > > >> > > > > > Well, I think that being vegan means you don't harm animals. So you> > > > don't kill them and you don't buy leather or animal products to wear on your> > > > body because that implies that you support the industry.> > > > > >> > > > > > But why should it be a problem to find some dead meat on the road and> > > > eat it and why should it matter if we see a leather coat in a garbage can> > > > and wear it, or buy it in a used clothing store?> > > > > >> > > > > > So in this second scenario, we are just using what mother earth has> > > > left behind as a remnant scrap and use it for sustanance or bodily> > > > protection. Both without harming.> > > > > >> > > > > > So the question is, isn't there two types of vegans? One that lives by> > > > vegan action of not harming and one by vegan appearance, that does not or> > > > cannot be seen eating flesh or wearing it even though no harm was inflicted> > > > by oneself. Nor supporting the infliction of harm?> > > > > >> > > > > > This is my question. Not fighting words, but just some serious> > > > reflection on the meaning of vegan.> > > > > >> > > > > > I am a vegetarian by the way. I eat cheese because I can't help myself.> > > > But if I could stop, I would.> > > > > >> > > > > > , Blue Rose <bluerose156@> wrote:> > > > > > >> > > > > > > No. Being vegan means abstaining from ALL animal products. That means> > > > no> > > > > > > leather clothing, no wool, no silk...why would dead animal flesh,> > > > however> > > > > > > way it was killed, ever be an exception?> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 1:42 PM, lhundrup108 <lhundrup108@> wrote:> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > happy new year everybody!> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > can a vegan eat meat that was road kill and still be considered a> > > > vegan?> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ---> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > To send an email to -@!> > > > > > > > Groups Links> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > --> > > > > > > AIM: A Blue Rose 156 YM: blue_rose_156> > > > > > > http://x-bluerose-x.livejournal.com> > > > > > > http://timeladydesigns.etsy.com> > > > > > > ~> > > > > > > Boston_Gothic> > > > > > > Boston_Mystic> > > > > > > Boston-Pagans> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > ---> > > >> > > > To send an email to -@!> > > > Groups Links> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > > AIM: A Blue Rose 156 YM: blue_rose_156> > > http://x-bluerose-x.livejournal.com> > > http://timeladydesigns.etsy.com> > > ~> > > Boston_Gothic> > > Boston_Mystic> > > Boston-Pagans> > >> >> You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 20, 2010 Fraggle, You mention that you aren't sure of my question, so I will try to clarify that. I actually first came into the chat group with a question and after hearing some answers, I started contributing my thoughts in response, and now I have kinda formed my opinion on an answer to my own question. I think you can find my last two posts addressing my conclusive thoughts. Your points about what it means to be vegan seem similar to what people have said, and I have heard in the past, but it doesn't seem to tally with the actual definition. My conclusion is that it is better not to assume that being vegan implies the lifestyle that you mention but rather just a diet. More than often, the lifestyle might follow for obvious reasons. For instance, not all people who smoke marijuana, grow long hair and say " dude, " but it often starts to happen either by association with a community of pot smokers, or just there might be reasons like the mind justs wants to be free and let things grow out, and curt and repetitive expressions are just easier when you are stoned. thanks, midian (chirag) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 20, 2010 yeah, does NOT eat like i said, nobody's perfect..and i need to proofread more often............... cyn Jan 20, 2010 3:45 PM Re: Re: freegan Beautiful, lovely - almost prose. Thank you, fraggle, oh great one.(I assume you meant that a vegan does NOT eat chicken, milk, eggs, meat, etc. below.)Cyn Sent via BlackBerry by AT & T fraggle <EBbrewpunx (AT) earthlink (DOT) net> Wed, 20 Jan 2010 14:45:50 -0500 (EST) Re: Re: freegan Good Morning sort lost on your question at this point, but let me just throw a few things out there. A vegan is a type of vegetarian. A vegan is someone who does not eat, use, or wear products made from the animal kingdom. this includes, diet, clothing, drink, and a whole range of lifestyle choices. A vegan does eat chicken, fish, eggs, milk, cheese or any of their by products (whey, albumen, isinglass, ad infinitum) A vegan does not purchase leather, nor wool, nor fur coats nor..you get the picture. there are as many reasons why someone is vegan as there are vegans. ethical and moral issues are some of the most prevalent, but there are religious, environmental, health and diet reasons as well, including others. while in the definition of any social movement there are always grey areas, the basics are just that, vegans do not eat, wear or use anything that comes from an animal. the general thought is to do the least harm in the same vein, to live in the modern world, it pretty much impossible to be 100% vegan. but, its a long journey one must make, and continue on to each person's satisifaction and ability. as for a freegan eating roadkill and saying he or she is vegan. well, someone can say anything they want, doesn't make it so. i can call myself an astronaut, doesn;t mean i am one. a vegan does not eat meat. thats what a vegan is. just because its free or already dead doesn't negate that its an animal. lets say, you said "i don't drink alcohol". pretty cut and dry statement, yes? you couldn't claim that if you go out to parties and drink, because hey, its free at a party. if you drink alcohol, you drink alcohol. cheers fraggle lhundrup108 Jan 20, 2010 12:46 PM Re: freegan Dear JO,I am sorry about the mix up. That quote was from Blue Rose. I still don't know what she meant to say.I realize that you probably completely disagree with me and that is okay, but I think it is strange that you find this angle of discussion is a strange one. It may not be that any of your friends drive a meat truck but it doesn't make the understanding of what vegan is any more complete. Definitions are arrived at by consensus understanding and not just what one group thinks.But in this case, we aren't making a definition, but trying to figure the actual intent of the definition. Someone posted that I shouldn't impose my own meaning on a word that is already clear, but I think that was a mistaken view altogether. I have already posted earlier (but it hasn't appeared while I write this, but probably will before you read this) that my personal resolution, after Bea's kind post, is that vegan is nothing more than a diet. We might have to add some words to define one's position as a vegan activist or a vegan apologist.It seems pretty clear to me that there are rampant assumptions being imposed on the phenomena called vegan. Not all vegans are the same just like not all christians are the same. In christianity, worshippers often try to impose their definition of what is a christian according to their reading of the bible. I feel now that the same thing is happening in veganism, but it is more outlandish because there is more or less only one way to interpret a definition of a word, not many.So I really feel that you must be a vegan activist in a social sense to attach your moral views of not buying leather and so on. In fact when most vegans state their views, they say, "I don't buy leather because I don't support the slaughter of animals and that is also why I choose a vegan diet." They dont say, " I don't buy leather because I am vegan." Or sometimes they do I guess, and I think that is the problem.My whole angle was being based on the definition of a vegan that you or someone gave me about simply not eating animal products or using them.And about a freegan on a computer, there are likely many freegans that do make money but don't pay taxes and do surf the net for free in San Fran or somewhere else where the net is free in public places.I still am not convinced that if the point of veganism is to reduce harm to animals, that they are more capable of stopping animal torture than a freegan who eats roadkill. I would say that a freegan or a vegan who is involved in vegan activism probably does a whole lot and it is clear what they are doing and no assumptions need be made about what they don't do.chirag , "heartwerk" <jo.heartwork wrote:>> I think you have assigned words to me that were not mine. ("Just because one is one thing does not preclude the other." - was not from my email).> > I think this is a strange angle of discussion because I think that none of the vegans I know or converse with online would drive a meat truck, or anything else involved with the meat industry - therefore I cannot see the need for it to be discussed.> > To any vegan or vegetarian the thought of eating the flesh of an animal is sickening, so therefore a vegan/vegetarian would not eat roadkill. > > Freegans and vegans are totally different groups of people. I am sure there are groups for Freegans, unless there lifestyle (does this include not paying taxes, which presumably means they don't earn any money) precludes them from having computers etc.> > Jo> > , "lhundrup108" <lhundrup108@> wrote:> >> > > > Dear Jo, > > > > I really do appreciate your contributions to this discussion and I really hope you don't think be to be antagonistic in any way. I am just striving for some understanding.> > > > I am not sure if I follow your arguments clearly. I think some words are missing in your bit about "Just because one is one thing does not preclude the other." It doesn't seem to make grammatical sense, so I am interested to know what you meant.> > > > I never said that I assume that a vegan who doesn't eat roadkill, can drive a meat truck. I think that is your extraction. You has said, "Vegan means someone who does not eat or use anything from animals," as a definition of being vegan. I am just saying that the definition doesn't seem accurate. Maybe the definition needs to be expanded, so it doesn't include the possibility of driving a meat truck, since driving one doesn't not imply eating or using something from an animal, unless of course the seat was made of leather.> > > > I am maybe challenging the definition that you put forth because I would rather that vegan had more to do with ultimately not harming animals then including more of not eating them. Because the latter can make more room for veganism to be a fad rather than a sincere ethical way to live.> > > > You said in one of the posts that you can see nothing unethical about eating roadkill, but still it is not vegan. Fair enough I guess, but I wonder what the value of being vegan is if just by avoiding overtly eating animal flesh, one can be vegan, when paying taxes to a government that allows the mass slaugther of animals is okay as that it is unavoidable.> > > > In that sense, nobody is vegan if paying taxes or any monies support mistreatment of animals. So if that is the case, I wonder what is doing more harm...eating roadkill, or paying taxes?> > > > There are a lot of freegans who avoid paying taxes and I am willing to consider that they are doing more to help animals by avoiding taxes but eating roadkill, then paying taxes and e ating some "karma free meat" in order to honor the death of the animal so it was not killed in vain.> > > > I realize it is quite controversial to bring it all up on one hand, but on the other hand, not at all, since the concern is the well being of animals.> > > > Lhundrup> > > > , Blue Rose <bluerose156@> wrote:> > >> > > Just because one is one thing does not preclude the other. You assume that> > > if someone cannot eat road kill they can drive a meat truck. False. Being> > > vegan isn't just a food choice; it's a lifestyle choice.> > > > > > In short, we can neither eat dead animals, wear them, or use them. It's> > > about death and it's also about harming animals.> > > > > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 1:10 PM, lhundrup108 <lhundrup108@> wrote:> > > > > > > Well thanks. If the definition of vegan is more based on the abstaining> > > > from eating meat product than whether you commit cruelty to animals or not,> > > > then it is more clear that eating road kill cannot be vegan.> > > >> > > > But it also worries me a bit. Most vegans or at least most I know are> > > > vegan because they want to harm less animals. According to your definition,> > > > a person could be vegan but still get a job driving a meat truck.> > > >> > > > I guess he could even kill the animal as long as he doesn't eat it? Is> > > > that right?> > > >> > > >> > > > , "heartwerk" <jo.heartwork@> wrote:> > > > >> > > > > You cannot put your own interpretation on a descriptive word.> > > > >> > > > > Vegan means someone who does not eat or use anything from animals. To> > > > then use roadkill would be like a person stating that they are Christian but> > > > then saying that they don't believe in Jesus!> > > > >> > > > > I don't see anything unethical in eating roadkill, but it cannot and does> > > > not fit into to 'vegan' ethic.> > > > >> > > > > Jo> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > , "lhundrup108" <lhundrup108@> wrote:> > > > > >> > > > > > Hi, and thanks for reply.> > > > > >> > > > > > Well, I think that being vegan means you don't harm animals. So you> > > > don't kill them and you don't buy leather or animal products to wear on your> > > > body because that implies that you support the industry.> > > > > >> > > > > > But why should it be a problem to find some dead meat on the road and> > > > eat it and why should it matter if we see a leather coat in a garbage can> > > > and wear it, or buy it in a used clothing store?> > > > > >> > > > > > So in this second scenario, we are just using what mother earth has> > > > left behind as a remnant scrap and use it for sustanance or bodily> > > > protection. Both without harming.> > > > > >> > > > > > So the question is, isn't there two types of vegans? One that lives by> & g t; > > vegan action of not harming and one by vegan appearance, that does not or> > > > cannot be seen eating flesh or wearing it even though no harm was inflicted> > > > by oneself. Nor supporting the infliction of harm?> > > > > >> > > > > > This is my question. Not fighting words, but just some serious> > > > reflection on the meaning of vegan.> > > > > >> > > > > > I am a vegetarian by the way. I eat cheese because I can't help myself.> > > > But if I could stop, I would.> > > > > >> > > > > > , Blue Rose <bluerose156@> wrote:> > > > > > >> > > > > > > No. Being vegan means abstaining from ALL animal products. That means> > > > no> > > > > > > leather clothing, no wool, no silk...why would dead animal flesh,> > > > however> > > > > > > way it was killed, ever be an exception?> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 1:42 PM, lhundrup108 <lhundrup108@> wrote:> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > happy new year everybody!> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > can a vegan eat meat that was road kill and still be considered a> > > > vegan?> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ---> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > To s end an email to -@!> > > > > > > > Groups Links> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > --> > > > > > > AIM: A Blue Rose 156 YM: blue_rose_156> > > > > > > http://x-bluerose-x.livejournal.com> > > > > > > http://timeladydesigns.etsy.com> > > > > > > ~> > > > > > > Boston_Gothic> > > > > > > Boston_Mystic> > > > > > > Boston-Pagans> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > ---> > > >> > > > To send an email to -@!> > > > Groups Links> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > > AIM: A Blue Rose 156 YM: blue_rose_156> > > http://x-bluerose-x.livejourna l.com> > > http://timeladydesigns.etsy.com> > > ~> > > Boston_Gothic> > > Boston_Mystic> > > Boston-Pagans> > >> >> You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me! You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 20, 2010 That you say,that this is a personal journey, I agree with. I also like many of the points that you raise, because they are practial, and also they raise some points that cast doubt on some of the common definitions of veganism that have been posted of late on this thread about " freegan. " So I don't consider you a bad person for swatting a mosquito, but I don't think that it would be fair to consider you a vegan after you did that if it isn't considered vegan to eat roadkill. I think that is a clear point that vegans have to consider when they define what is vegan. And the gal that stepped on the roach did not pre-meditate about its torture on the spot and did not try to find others to mutilate, but my point is from a buddhist point of view which you may or may not agree with, but it is worth mentioning for this discussion. That is that, to kill something requires anger and also hatred. If I am justified to say that as a truth, then killing the roach and calling oneself vegan is the same as someone who calls himself christian but commits adultery. (that was a point made by someone earlier, Jo or blue rose, I can't remember) Mid Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 20, 2010 Yeah, what fraggle said. Also, the original poster sounds like a fundamentalist looking for absolutism or " one true path " -- a doomed enterprise. People are complex and have many different (often conflicted) motivations, even if they say otherwise. The only way to figure out what people really are about is to look at behavior: what do they do? Vegans don't eat animals. Or, for a positive spin, vegans celebrate life. Beyond that, people who don't eat animals fall on a spectrum: from the Jains who sweep the ground before them lest they step on an insect and don't do agriculture lest they harm a bug...to people who don't knowingly use any animal products and don't knowingly support any business that exploits animals....to people who don't wear animal products and don't support blatant animal-exploiting businesses....to people who own some clothes made from animal products and use them as long as they can...to people who gently move spiders outside but will stomp on an ant invasion...etc. And everything in between. Peter Singer, who has written many books about animal rights and ethics, has discussed the notion that there's a spectrum and that each individual decides where to draw the line. In an early book, he drew the line at " do they feel pain? " and iirc decided that allowed him to eat shellfish. And since then, his point of view has evolved further. Each person has a different rationale for doing what they do, and what they do changes as they learn and grow. It makes no sense to assume a monolithic fundamentalist party line. There's no vegan pope-equivalent who decrees what every vegan is supposed to do or be. The general question, " what do vegans do? " is kind of boring. The specific question " how does defining yourself as a vegan inform other areas of your life? " is infinitely interesting. At 2:45 PM -0500 1/20/10, fraggle wrote: Good Morning sort lost on your question at this point, but let me just throw a few things out there. A vegan is a type of vegetarian. A vegan is someone who does not eat, use, or wear products made from the animal kingdom. this includes, diet, clothing, drink, and a whole range of lifestyle choices. A vegan does eat chicken, fish, eggs, milk, cheese or any of their by products (whey, albumen, isinglass, ad infinitum) A vegan does not purchase leather, nor wool, nor fur coats nor..you get the picture. there are as many reasons why someone is vegan as there are vegans. ethical and moral issues are some of the most prevalent, but there are religious, environmental, health and diet reasons as well, including others. while in the definition of any social movement there are always grey areas, the basics are just that, vegans do not eat, wear or use anything that comes from an animal. the general thought is to do the least harm in the same vein, to live in the modern world, it pretty much impossible to be 100% vegan. but, its a long journey one must make, and continue on to each person's satisifaction and ability. as for a freegan eating roadkill and saying he or she is vegan. well, someone can say anything they want, doesn't make it so. i can call myself an astronaut, doesn;t mean i am one. a vegan does not eat meat. thats what a vegan is. just because its free or already dead doesn't negate that its an animal. lets say, you said " i don't drink alcohol " . pretty cut and dry statement, yes? you couldn't claim that if you go out to parties and drink, because hey, its free at a party. if you drink alcohol, you drink alcohol. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 20, 2010 I agree with several points you've made here. For instance, there is argument that " flexitarians " (vegetarians who eat meat occasionally), ovo-lacto vegetarians, and pescos-vegetarians (vegetarians who eat fish, sp?) confuse people as to what " real " vegetarians are. I prefer to think of food like sex psychologists think of sex: a broad and fluid continnuum of which few people are found along the edges of the extreme. Personally, I believe in 300 years or so, there won't be enough animals to support the multitudinous uses they have in our food and everyday products. [anyone read this link? http://vegweb.com/index.php?topic=15403.0 ]And, personally, I've gotten to the point where everytime I ate an egg, I felt like I was taking a life! At the same time, I feel flexitarians are doing just as much for the planet as vegans--REDUCING any environmental damage and dependence on environmentally damaging practices is helpful. Further, just as any other spiritual value system, becoming vegan is a process. ALWAYS a process! Regardless, I do agree with Jo Stepaniak-- veganism gets unintentionally watered down and confused because of broad definitions of veganism. I just don't think veganism should be imposed--while at the same time I respect the need for vegans to remain clear, concise and committed to their personal goals. , yarrow wrote: > > Yeah, what fraggle said. > > Also, the original poster sounds like a fundamentalist looking for > absolutism or " one true path " -- a doomed enterprise. People are > complex and have many different (often conflicted) motivations, even > if they say otherwise. The only way to figure out what people really > are about is to look at behavior: what do they do? > > Vegans don't eat animals. Or, for a positive spin, vegans celebrate life. > > Beyond that, people who don't eat animals fall on a spectrum: from > the Jains who sweep the ground before them lest they step on an > insect and don't do agriculture lest they harm a bug...to people who > don't knowingly use any animal products and don't knowingly support > any business that exploits animals....to people who don't wear animal > products and don't support blatant animal-exploiting businesses....to > people who own some clothes made from animal products and use them as > long as they can...to people who gently move spiders outside but will > stomp on an ant invasion...etc. And everything in between. > > Peter Singer, who has written many books about animal rights and > ethics, has discussed the notion that there's a spectrum and that > each individual decides where to draw the line. In an early book, he > drew the line at " do they feel pain? " and iirc decided that allowed > him to eat shellfish. And since then, his point of view has evolved > further. > > Each person has a different rationale for doing what they do, and > what they do changes as they learn and grow. > > It makes no sense to assume a monolithic fundamentalist party line. > There's no vegan pope-equivalent who decrees what every vegan is > supposed to do or be. > > The general question, " what do vegans do? " is kind of boring. > > The specific question " how does defining yourself as a vegan inform > other areas of your life? " is infinitely interesting. > > > > At 2:45 PM -0500 1/20/10, fraggle wrote: > Good Morning > > sort lost on your question at this point, but let me just throw a few > things out there. > > A vegan is a type of vegetarian. > > A vegan is someone who does not eat, use, or wear products made from > the animal kingdom. this includes, diet, clothing, drink, and a whole > range of lifestyle choices. > > A vegan does eat chicken, fish, eggs, milk, cheese or any of their by > products (whey, albumen, isinglass, ad infinitum) > > A vegan does not purchase leather, nor wool, nor fur coats nor..you > get the picture. > > there are as many reasons why someone is vegan as there are vegans. > ethical and moral issues are some of the most prevalent, but there > are religious, environmental, health and diet reasons as well, > including others. > > while in the definition of any social movement there are always grey > areas, the basics are just that, vegans do not eat, wear or use > anything that comes from an animal. > > the general thought is to do the least harm > > in the same vein, to live in the modern world, it pretty much > impossible to be 100% vegan. but, its a long journey one must make, > and continue on to each person's satisifaction and ability. > > as for a freegan eating roadkill and saying he or she is vegan. well, > someone can say anything they want, doesn't make it so. i can call > myself an astronaut, doesn;t mean i am one. a vegan does not eat > meat. thats what a vegan is. just because its free or already dead > doesn't negate that its an animal. > > lets say, you said " i don't drink alcohol " . pretty cut and dry > statement, yes? you couldn't claim that if you go out to parties and > drink, because hey, its free at a party. if you drink alcohol, you > drink alcohol. > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 21, 2010 Can you explain to me exactly what you wish to gain from this discussion. Jo On Behalf Of lhundrup108 20 January 2010 17:46 Re: freegan Dear JO, I am sorry about the mix up. That quote was from Blue Rose. I still don't know what she meant to say. I realize that you probably completely disagree with me and that is okay, but I think it is strange that you find this angle of discussion is a strange one. It may not be that any of your friends drive a meat truck but it doesn't make the understanding of what vegan is any more complete. Definitions are arrived at by consensus understanding and not just what one group thinks. But in this case, we aren't making a definition, but trying to figure the actual intent of the definition. Someone posted that I shouldn't impose my own meaning on a word that is already clear, but I think that was a mistaken view altogether. I have already posted earlier (but it hasn't appeared while I write this, but probably will before you read this) that my personal resolution, after Bea's kind post, is that vegan is nothing more than a diet. We might have to add some words to define one's position as a vegan activist or a vegan apologist. It seems pretty clear to me that there are rampant assumptions being imposed on the phenomena called vegan. Not all vegans are the same just like not all christians are the same. In christianity, worshippers often try to impose their definition of what is a christian according to their reading of the bible. I feel now that the same thing is happening in veganism, but it is more outlandish because there is more or less only one way to interpret a definition of a word, not many. So I really feel that you must be a vegan activist in a social sense to attach your moral views of not buying leather and so on. In fact when most vegans state their views, they say, " I don't buy leather because I don't support the slaughter of animals and that is also why I choose a vegan diet. " They dont say, " I don't buy leather because I am vegan. " Or sometimes they do I guess, and I think that is the problem. My whole angle was being based on the definition of a vegan that you or someone gave me about simply not eating animal products or using them. And about a freegan on a computer, there are likely many freegans that do make money but don't pay taxes and do surf the net for free in San Fran or somewhere else where the net is free in public places. I still am not convinced that if the point of veganism is to reduce harm to animals, that they are more capable of stopping animal torture than a freegan who eats roadkill. I would say that a freegan or a vegan who is involved in vegan activism probably does a whole lot and it is clear what they are doing and no assumptions need be made about what they don't do. chirag , " heartwerk " <jo.heartwork wrote: > > I think you have assigned words to me that were not mine. ( " Just because one is one thing does not preclude the other. " - was not from my email). > > I think this is a strange angle of discussion because I think that none of the vegans I know or converse with online would drive a meat truck, or anything else involved with the meat industry - therefore I cannot see the need for it to be discussed. > > To any vegan or vegetarian the thought of eating the flesh of an animal is sickening, so therefore a vegan/vegetarian would not eat roadkill. > > Freegans and vegans are totally different groups of people. I am sure there are groups for Freegans, unless there lifestyle (does this include not paying taxes, which presumably means they don't earn any money) precludes them from having computers etc. > > Jo > > , " lhundrup108 " <lhundrup108@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Jo, > > > > I really do appreciate your contributions to this discussion and I really hope you don't think be to be antagonistic in any way. I am just striving for some understanding. > > > > I am not sure if I follow your arguments clearly. I think some words are missing in your bit about " Just because one is one thing does not preclude the other. " It doesn't seem to make grammatical sense, so I am interested to know what you meant. > > > > I never said that I assume that a vegan who doesn't eat roadkill, can drive a meat truck. I think that is your extraction. You has said, " Vegan means someone who does not eat or use anything from animals, " as a definition of being vegan. I am just saying that the definition doesn't seem accurate. Maybe the definition needs to be expanded, so it doesn't include the possibility of driving a meat truck, since driving one doesn't not imply eating or using something from an animal, unless of course the seat was made of leather. > > > > I am maybe challenging the definition that you put forth because I would rather that vegan had more to do with ultimately not harming animals then including more of not eating them. Because the latter can make more room for veganism to be a fad rather than a sincere ethical way to live. > > > > You said in one of the posts that you can see nothing unethical about eating roadkill, but still it is not vegan. Fair enough I guess, but I wonder what the value of being vegan is if just by avoiding overtly eating animal flesh, one can be vegan, when paying taxes to a government that allows the mass slaugther of animals is okay as that it is unavoidable. > > > > In that sense, nobody is vegan if paying taxes or any monies support mistreatment of animals. So if that is the case, I wonder what is doing more harm...eating roadkill, or paying taxes? > > > > There are a lot of freegans who avoid paying taxes and I am willing to consider that they are doing more to help animals by avoiding taxes but eating roadkill, then paying taxes and eating some " karma free meat " in order to honor the death of the animal so it was not killed in vain. > > > > I realize it is quite controversial to bring it all up on one hand, but on the other hand, not at all, since the concern is the well being of animals. > > > > Lhundrup > > > > , Blue Rose <bluerose156@> wrote: > > > > > > Just because one is one thing does not preclude the other. You assume that > > > if someone cannot eat road kill they can drive a meat truck. False. Being > > > vegan isn't just a food choice; it's a lifestyle choice. > > > > > > In short, we can neither eat dead animals, wear them, or use them. It's > > > about death and it's also about harming animals. > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 1:10 PM, lhundrup108 <lhundrup108@> wrote: > > > > > > > Well thanks. If the definition of vegan is more based on the abstaining > > > > from eating meat product than whether you commit cruelty to animals or not, > > > > then it is more clear that eating road kill cannot be vegan. > > > > > > > > But it also worries me a bit. Most vegans or at least most I know are > > > > vegan because they want to harm less animals. According to your definition, > > > > a person could be vegan but still get a job driving a meat truck. > > > > > > > > I guess he could even kill the animal as long as he doesn't eat it? Is > > > > that right? > > > > > > > > > > > > , " heartwerk " <jo.heartwork@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > You cannot put your own interpretation on a descriptive word. > > > > > > > > > > Vegan means someone who does not eat or use anything from animals. To > > > > then use roadkill would be like a person stating that they are Christian but > > > > then saying that they don't believe in Jesus! > > > > > > > > > > I don't see anything unethical in eating roadkill, but it cannot and does > > > > not fit into to 'vegan' ethic. > > > > > > > > > > Jo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , " lhundrup108 " <lhundrup108@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, and thanks for reply. > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, I think that being vegan means you don't harm animals. So you > > > > don't kill them and you don't buy leather or animal products to wear on your > > > > body because that implies that you support the industry. > > > > > > > > > > > > But why should it be a problem to find some dead meat on the road and > > > > eat it and why should it matter if we see a leather coat in a garbage can > > > > and wear it, or buy it in a used clothing store? > > > > > > > > > > > > So in this second scenario, we are just using what mother earth has > > > > left behind as a remnant scrap and use it for sustanance or bodily > > > > protection. Both without harming. > > > > > > > > > > > > So the question is, isn't there two types of vegans? One that lives by > > > > vegan action of not harming and one by vegan appearance, that does not or > > > > cannot be seen eating flesh or wearing it even though no harm was inflicted > > > > by oneself. Nor supporting the infliction of harm? > > > > > > > > > > > > This is my question. Not fighting words, but just some serious > > > > reflection on the meaning of vegan. > > > > > > > > > > > > I am a vegetarian by the way. I eat cheese because I can't help myself. > > > > But if I could stop, I would. > > > > > > > > > > > > , Blue Rose <bluerose156@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. Being vegan means abstaining from ALL animal products. That means > > > > no > > > > > > > leather clothing, no wool, no silk...why would dead animal flesh, > > > > however > > > > > > > way it was killed, ever be an exception? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 1:42 PM, lhundrup108 <lhundrup108@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > happy new year everybody! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can a vegan eat meat that was road kill and still be considered a > > > > vegan? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To send an email to -@! > > > > > > > > Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > AIM: A Blue Rose 156 YM: blue_rose_156 > > > > > > > http://x-bluerose-x.livejournal.com > > > > > > > http://timeladydesigns.etsy.com > > > > > > > ~ > > > > > > > Boston_Gothic > > > > > > > Boston_Mystic > > > > > > > Boston-Pagans > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > To send an email to -@! > > > > Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > AIM: A Blue Rose 156 YM: blue_rose_156 > > > http://x-bluerose-x.livejournal.com > > > http://timeladydesigns.etsy.com > > > ~ > > > Boston_Gothic > > > Boston_Mystic > > > Boston-Pagans > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 21, 2010 katie had said this: " Hi, I'm new here and new to veganism in general. I do not associate veganism to animal rights activism although I can definitely see how a person might come to acquire both lifestyles based on their belief structure. Personally, I am not an animal rights activist - not to say that I support cruelty to animals, I do not. Also I am atheist and, therefore, have no dogma influencing my decisions in regard to this or any other topic. " and Fraggle, you mentioned that a vegan council would provide her a lawyer and that she can just relax and ask questions. Personally, not speaking for Katie, I think it is not fair what you are saying. I don't think you should be implying that another vegan has a misunderstanding and you have the answer. I guess I would have to check but when I originally signed up to the group, it was for vegans and vegetarians. I assumed that we were having a discussion, and not an indoctrination. I suppose if the groups outgoing message was clear about a hardline vegan stance that includes all forms of animal rights, then it would be okay and I maybe should not have joined. I guess I will go and check out the orignal advert and decide if I belong here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 21, 2010 Yarrow, Do you know who the original poster is, then I think you ought to address him directly, rather than talking about him or her. And is the original poster me, or someone else? I can't remember myself, but I did start asking questions about if a freegan can be considered a vegan. And thus there has been a whole lot of discussion. I am not a fundamentalist and I agree with you that there is no one way of veganism as that there is a lack of a vegan pope. But if that is the case, I don't think your definitions of veganism are fair at all, since there is no pope. A lot of the comments that have gone against my explanations or inquiries sound much like fundamentalism to me. You pose a good question, of how does veganism affect our life. I just think, as I have said in an earlier post, that veganism, and vegan activism, and animal rights which are all fave pastimes for vegans for obvious reasons, should be talked about for what they are and not " fundamentally " moshed in with a term for a diet. So I think I am the furthest thing from a fundamentalist, so I maybe you weren't talking about me afterall. I wonder who you were though? , yarrow wrote: > > Yeah, what fraggle said. > > Also, the original poster sounds like a fundamentalist looking for > absolutism or " one true path " -- a doomed enterprise. People are > complex and have many different (often conflicted) motivations, even > if they say otherwise. The only way to figure out what people really > are about is to look at behavior: what do they do? > > Vegans don't eat animals. Or, for a positive spin, vegans celebrate life. > > Beyond that, people who don't eat animals fall on a spectrum: from > the Jains who sweep the ground before them lest they step on an > insect and don't do agriculture lest they harm a bug...to people who > don't knowingly use any animal products and don't knowingly support > any business that exploits animals....to people who don't wear animal > products and don't support blatant animal-exploiting businesses....to > people who own some clothes made from animal products and use them as > long as they can...to people who gently move spiders outside but will > stomp on an ant invasion...etc. And everything in between. > > Peter Singer, who has written many books about animal rights and > ethics, has discussed the notion that there's a spectrum and that > each individual decides where to draw the line. In an early book, he > drew the line at " do they feel pain? " and iirc decided that allowed > him to eat shellfish. And since then, his point of view has evolved > further. > > Each person has a different rationale for doing what they do, and > what they do changes as they learn and grow. > > It makes no sense to assume a monolithic fundamentalist party line. > There's no vegan pope-equivalent who decrees what every vegan is > supposed to do or be. > > The general question, " what do vegans do? " is kind of boring. > > The specific question " how does defining yourself as a vegan inform > other areas of your life? " is infinitely interesting. > > > > At 2:45 PM -0500 1/20/10, fraggle wrote: > Good Morning > > sort lost on your question at this point, but let me just throw a few > things out there. > > A vegan is a type of vegetarian. > > A vegan is someone who does not eat, use, or wear products made from > the animal kingdom. this includes, diet, clothing, drink, and a whole > range of lifestyle choices. > > A vegan does eat chicken, fish, eggs, milk, cheese or any of their by > products (whey, albumen, isinglass, ad infinitum) > > A vegan does not purchase leather, nor wool, nor fur coats nor..you > get the picture. > > there are as many reasons why someone is vegan as there are vegans. > ethical and moral issues are some of the most prevalent, but there > are religious, environmental, health and diet reasons as well, > including others. > > while in the definition of any social movement there are always grey > areas, the basics are just that, vegans do not eat, wear or use > anything that comes from an animal. > > the general thought is to do the least harm > > in the same vein, to live in the modern world, it pretty much > impossible to be 100% vegan. but, its a long journey one must make, > and continue on to each person's satisifaction and ability. > > as for a freegan eating roadkill and saying he or she is vegan. well, > someone can say anything they want, doesn't make it so. i can call > myself an astronaut, doesn;t mean i am one. a vegan does not eat > meat. thats what a vegan is. just because its free or already dead > doesn't negate that its an animal. > > lets say, you said " i don't drink alcohol " . pretty cut and dry > statement, yes? you couldn't claim that if you go out to parties and > drink, because hey, its free at a party. if you drink alcohol, you > drink alcohol. > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
