Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

freegan

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

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

 

<*>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

, " 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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

> >

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

> > >

> >

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

<*>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

> > >

> >

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

> >

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

> > >

> >

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

> > >

> >

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...