Guest guest Report post Posted January 21, 2010 Jo- It is not easy to understand tone through words, because we cannot hear voices in type, and a lot of assumptions can be made wrongly. But frankly, I don't know why you ask this question to me. I have been clear with my points and the intention of my discussion. I have responded to your points that don't seem to tally logically in my view of things. So I have come to my own conclusion of an understanding of veganism which at the start of my posts I don't think I was clear about. I hope you don't consider this chat group to be a place where certain vegans can dictate to others what veganism is. It is a discussion group to share opinions as far as I know. But now I am wondering what you are trying to gain from your comments to me. Is it that you are right and I am wrong? I just don't see things that way if you do. I believe in the protection of animals by means of diet as well as by means of political action, environental, religious, and industrial, etc. I don't confine the protection of animals to what I put in my mouth. Om tat sat , " jo.heartwork " <jo.heartwork wrote: > > 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 > > <%40> , > " 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 > > > > <%40> , > " 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 > > > > > > <%40> > , 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? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40> , " 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40> , " 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40> , Blue Rose <bluerose156@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. Being vegan means abstaining from ALL animal products. > That means > > > > > no > > > > > > > > leather clothing, no wool, no silk...why would dead animal > flesh, > > > > > however > > > > > > > > way it was killed, ever be an exception? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 1:42 PM, lhundrup108 <lhundrup108@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > happy new year everybody! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can a vegan eat meat that was road kill and still be > considered a > > > > > vegan? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To send an email to -@! > > > > > > > > > Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > AIM: A Blue Rose 156 YM: blue_rose_156 > > > > > > > > http://x-bluerose-x.livejournal.com > > > > > > > > http://timeladydesigns.etsy.com > > > > > > > > ~ > > > > > > > > Boston_Gothic > > > > > > > > Boston_Mystic > > > > > > > > Boston-Pagans > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > To send an email to -@! > > > > > Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > AIM: A Blue Rose 156 YM: blue_rose_156 > > > > http://x-bluerose-x.livejournal.com > > > > http://timeladydesigns.etsy.com > > > > ~ > > > > Boston_Gothic > > > > Boston_Mystic > > > > Boston-Pagans > > > > > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 21, 2010 I have just done a search for a good definition of " vegan. " According to the definition and the origin of the term, I don't see any reference to avoiding wearing fur, etc. I believe that is a definition that was adopted later and I think some dwellers of this forum seem to have adopted that in preference to the original definition. I think the most inclusive definition is the best one. Including people without making division. Is the point of veganism to protect animals or to make a sectarian society that condemns others for their individuality? Here are the definitions: veg & #8901;an & #8194; & #8194;/ & #712;v & #603;d & #658; & #601;n; especially Brit. & #712;vig & #601;n/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [vej-uhn; especially Brit. vee-guhn] Show IPA Use veganism in a Sentence See images of veganism Search veganism on the Web –noun a vegetarian who omits all animal products from the diet. Origin: 1940–45; veg(etari)an vegan 1944, from vegetable (n.) + -an; coined by Donald Watson to distinguish those who abstain from all animal products (eggs, cheese, etc.) from those who merely refuse to eat the animals. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 22, 2010 The definition of a vegan is: " Veganism is a way of living that seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing and any other purpose. " This is from the Vegan Society who invented the word. Jo , " lhundrup108 " <lhundrup108 wrote: > > I have just done a search for a good definition of " vegan. " According to the definition and the origin of the term, I don't see any reference to avoiding wearing fur, etc. I believe that is a definition that was adopted later and I think some dwellers of this forum seem to have adopted that in preference to the original definition. > > I think the most inclusive definition is the best one. Including people without making division. Is the point of veganism to protect animals or to make a sectarian society that condemns others for their individuality? > > Here are the definitions: > > > veg & #8901;an > & #8194; & #8194;/ & #712;v & #603;d & #658; & #601;n; especially Brit. & #712;vig & #601;n/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [vej-uhn; especially Brit. vee-guhn] Show IPA > Use veganism in a Sentence > See images of veganism > Search veganism on the Web > –noun > a vegetarian who omits all animal products from the diet. > Origin: > 1940–45; veg(etari)an > > > > vegan > 1944, from vegetable (n.) + -an; coined by Donald Watson to distinguish those who abstain from all animal products (eggs, cheese, etc.) from those who merely refuse to eat the animals. > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 22, 2010 I asked the question because I was not sure if you wanted help or a lengthy ongoing discussion. There is a definition of the word given by the inventors - the Vegan Society. The discussion could go on for decades and still not be resolved, unless maybe we all agree with you. Maybe you could just agree to differ. Jo , " lhundrup108 " <lhundrup108 wrote: > > Jo- > > It is not easy to understand tone through words, because we cannot hear voices in type, and a lot of assumptions can be made wrongly. > > But frankly, I don't know why you ask this question to me. I have been clear with my points and the intention of my discussion. I have responded to your points that don't seem to tally logically in my view of things. > > So I have come to my own conclusion of an understanding of veganism which at the start of my posts I don't think I was clear about. I hope you don't consider this chat group to be a place where certain vegans can dictate to others what veganism is. It is a discussion group to share opinions as far as I know. > > But now I am wondering what you are trying to gain from your comments to me. Is it that you are right and I am wrong? > > I just don't see things that way if you do. I believe in the protection of animals by means of diet as well as by means of political action, environental, religious, and industrial, etc. I don't confine the protection of animals to what I put in my mouth. > > Om tat sat > > , " jo.heartwork " <jo.heartwork@> wrote: > > > > 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 > > > > <%40> , > > " 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 > > > > > > <%40> , > > " 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 > > > > > > > > <%40> > > , 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? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40> , " 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40> , " 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40> , Blue Rose <bluerose156@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. Being vegan means abstaining from ALL animal products. > > That means > > > > > > no > > > > > > > > > leather clothing, no wool, no silk...why would dead animal > > flesh, > > > > > > however > > > > > > > > > way it was killed, ever be an exception? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 1:42 PM, lhundrup108 <lhundrup108@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > happy new year everybody! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can a vegan eat meat that was road kill and still be > > considered a > > > > > > vegan? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To send an email to -@! > > > > > > > > > > Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > AIM: A Blue Rose 156 YM: blue_rose_156 > > > > > > > > > http://x-bluerose-x.livejournal.com > > > > > > > > > http://timeladydesigns.etsy.com > > > > > > > > > ~ > > > > > > > > > Boston_Gothic > > > > > > > > > Boston_Mystic > > > > > > > > > Boston-Pagans > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > > To send an email to -@! > > > > > > Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > AIM: A Blue Rose 156 YM: blue_rose_156 > > > > > http://x-bluerose-x.livejournal.com > > > > > http://timeladydesigns.etsy.com > > > > > ~ > > > > > Boston_Gothic > > > > > Boston_Mystic > > > > > Boston-Pagans > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 22, 2010 Good work... now read up a bit about the person who coined the term.... Donald Watson. He's not hard to find, since he founded the Vegan Society, which follows his ideals (abstaining as far as is humanly possible from the use of all animal-derived materials). For their 60th anniversary, they printed the original definition that Donald Watson came up with in their magazine. I'm sure if you contact them, they'd be happy to send you a copy... BBPeter2010/1/21 lhundrup108 <lhundrup108 I have just done a search for a good definition of " vegan. "  According to the definition and the origin of the term, I don't see any reference to avoiding wearing fur, etc.  I believe that is a definition that was adopted later and I think some dwellers of this forum seem to have adopted that in preference to the original definition. I think the most inclusive definition is the best one.  Including people without making division.  Is the point of veganism to protect animals or to make a sectarian society that condemns others for their individuality? Here are the definitions: veg⋅an /ˈvɛdʒən; especially Brit. ˈvigən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [vej-uhn; especially Brit. vee-guhn] Show IPA Use veganism in a Sentence See images of veganism Search veganism on the Web –noun a vegetarian who omits all animal products from the diet. Origin: 1940–45; veg(etari)an vegan 1944, from vegetable (n.) + -an; coined by Donald Watson to distinguish those who abstain from all animal products (eggs, cheese, etc.) from those who merely refuse to eat the animals. --- To send an email to -! Groups Links <*>   / <*> Your email settings:   Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to:   /join   ( ID required) <*> To change settings via email:   -digest   -fullfeatured <*> Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 22, 2010 Dear Pete, Thanks for your commendation on my good work. I can hold my own. I will read up on the direction of his society. I still stand on my point and opinion that the definition of veganism should be limited to a diet and the activism and so forth should be labeled as so. Why do you and others insist that everyone must think only one way if they want to be vegan? Does fundamentalism attract you for some reason? I would have to wait for you to offer the right information for me to send you a similar snide response. Here is a hypothetical one. I am sure that there must be at least some vegans who follow the Rudolf Steiner education model. I am sure that they think it is great and open the mind of children. But he was a Nazi enthusiast that Hitler had to suppress because he didn't want competition. So must all vegans who are followers of Rudolf Steiner education need follow Nazi beliefs? I hope not, because nowadays, the Waldorf school system has quite appropriately divided Steiners personal views with his beneficial and scientific views towards education and development of an ecological society. Similary, I think if veganism and vegan activism were separated, with option to join or not, then I think the goal of helping animals would be reached. I request you to keep an open mind to consider it. , Peter Kebbell <metalscarab wrote: > > Good work... now read up a bit about the person who coined the term.... > Donald Watson. He's not hard to find, since he founded the Vegan Society, > which follows his ideals (abstaining as far as is humanly possible from the > use of all animal-derived materials). For their 60th anniversary, they > printed the original definition that Donald Watson came up with in their > magazine. I'm sure if you contact them, they'd be happy to send you a > copy... > > BB > Peter > > 2010/1/21 lhundrup108 <lhundrup108 > > > I have just done a search for a good definition of " vegan. " According to > > the definition and the origin of the term, I don't see any reference to > > avoiding wearing fur, etc. I believe that is a definition that was adopted > > later and I think some dwellers of this forum seem to have adopted that in > > preference to the original definition. > > > > I think the most inclusive definition is the best one. Including people > > without making division. Is the point of veganism to protect animals or to > > make a sectarian society that condemns others for their individuality? > > > > Here are the definitions: > > > > > > vegâ‹…an > > /ˈvÉ›dÊ'É™n; especially Brit. ˈvigÉ™n/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [vej-uhn; > > especially Brit. vee-guhn] Show IPA > > Use veganism in a Sentence > > See images of veganism > > Search veganism on the Web > > †" noun > > a vegetarian who omits all animal products from the diet. > > Origin: > > 1940†" 45; veg(etari)an > > > > > > > > vegan > > 1944, from vegetable (n.) + -an; coined by Donald Watson to distinguish > > those who abstain from all animal products (eggs, cheese, etc.) from those > > who merely refuse to eat the animals. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > To send an email to -! > > Groups Links > > > > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 22, 2010 Frankly Jo, I am so shocked at your post. I have already agreed to differ in at least 6 different posts saying that I just see things differently about peoples modern definitons of veganism. The Vegan Society does not print the books by Webster and Oxford (dictionaries) which I follow. I think it is you who want and others who want everyone to agree with your definiton of veganism. I don't accept that. I am wiling to agree to differ. Are you? , " heartwerk " <jo.heartwork wrote: > > I asked the question because I was not sure if you wanted help or a lengthy ongoing discussion. > > There is a definition of the word given by the inventors - the Vegan Society. > > The discussion could go on for decades and still not be resolved, unless maybe we all agree with you. Maybe you could just agree to differ. > Jo > > > , " lhundrup108 " <lhundrup108@> wrote: > > > > Jo- > > > > It is not easy to understand tone through words, because we cannot hear voices in type, and a lot of assumptions can be made wrongly. > > > > But frankly, I don't know why you ask this question to me. I have been clear with my points and the intention of my discussion. I have responded to your points that don't seem to tally logically in my view of things. > > > > So I have come to my own conclusion of an understanding of veganism which at the start of my posts I don't think I was clear about. I hope you don't consider this chat group to be a place where certain vegans can dictate to others what veganism is. It is a discussion group to share opinions as far as I know. > > > > But now I am wondering what you are trying to gain from your comments to me. Is it that you are right and I am wrong? > > > > I just don't see things that way if you do. I believe in the protection of animals by means of diet as well as by means of political action, environental, religious, and industrial, etc. I don't confine the protection of animals to what I put in my mouth. > > > > Om tat sat > > > > , " jo.heartwork " <jo.heartwork@> wrote: > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > <%40> , > > > " 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 > > > > > > > > <%40> , > > > " 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 > > > > > > > > > > <%40> > > > , 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? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40> , " 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40> , " 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40> , Blue Rose <bluerose156@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. Being vegan means abstaining from ALL animal products. > > > That means > > > > > > > no > > > > > > > > > > leather clothing, no wool, no silk...why would dead animal > > > flesh, > > > > > > > however > > > > > > > > > > way it was killed, ever be an exception? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 1:42 PM, lhundrup108 <lhundrup108@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > happy new year everybody! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can a vegan eat meat that was road kill and still be > > > considered a > > > > > > > vegan? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To send an email to -@! > > > > > > > > > > > Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > AIM: A Blue Rose 156 YM: blue_rose_156 > > > > > > > > > > http://x-bluerose-x.livejournal.com > > > > > > > > > > http://timeladydesigns.etsy.com > > > > > > > > > > ~ > > > > > > > > > > Boston_Gothic > > > > > > > > > > Boston_Mystic > > > > > > > > > > Boston-Pagans > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To send an email to -@! > > > > > > > Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > AIM: A Blue Rose 156 YM: blue_rose_156 > > > > > > http://x-bluerose-x.livejournal.com > > > > > > http://timeladydesigns.etsy.com > > > > > > ~ > > > > > > Boston_Gothic > > > > > > Boston_Mystic > > > > > > Boston-Pagans > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 22, 2010 Jo, Thanks for your astuteness, in posting yet another definition of the word. Well which one is the right one? This one or your one? This definition if correct, does not mention that you can't eat roadkill, does it? So I guess everyone on this thread who has spent a lot of energy in educating me, should just read your post. But anyway, for the sake of argument, the Prophet Mohamed, peace be upon him, in the eyes of humanity, seems to have written the doctrine of Islam. That is a doctrine of God. There are many people before and after him that profess a doctrine of the same God. Judaism, Christianity, Mormonism, and others less mainstream. If you think that it is not allowed to re-reveal the truth of the creator God, then I consider that to be " fundamentalism. " So if you think that the Vegan Society has a monopoly on a word that tries to grasp a concept, then I think that is also fundamentalism. But frankly, I kind feel like your post of Vegan Society definition of Vegan just kinda puts all the arguments against my freegan post to rest. Don't you? But anyway, I like the original founder's definition which pertains to a diet. Did the founder change the definition or did the Society? Please inform me of that one. If you don't know, I will contact them myself. But I still yield to Websters Dicitonary. , " heartwerk " <jo.heartwork wrote: > > The definition of a vegan is: > > " Veganism is a way of living that seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing and any other purpose. " > > This is from the Vegan Society who invented the word. > > Jo > > > > , " lhundrup108 " <lhundrup108@> wrote: > > > > I have just done a search for a good definition of " vegan. " According to the definition and the origin of the term, I don't see any reference to avoiding wearing fur, etc. I believe that is a definition that was adopted later and I think some dwellers of this forum seem to have adopted that in preference to the original definition. > > > > I think the most inclusive definition is the best one. Including people without making division. Is the point of veganism to protect animals or to make a sectarian society that condemns others for their individuality? > > > > Here are the definitions: > > > > > > veg & #8901;an > > & #8194; & #8194;/ & #712;v & #603;d & #658; & #601;n; especially Brit. & #712;vig & #601;n/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [vej-uhn; especially Brit. vee-guhn] Show IPA > > Use veganism in a Sentence > > See images of veganism > > Search veganism on the Web > > –noun > > a vegetarian who omits all animal products from the diet. > > Origin: > > 1940–45; veg(etari)an > > > > > > > > vegan > > 1944, from vegetable (n.) + -an; coined by Donald Watson to distinguish those who abstain from all animal products (eggs, cheese, etc.) from those who merely refuse to eat the animals. > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 22, 2010 On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 9:54 AM, lhundrup108 <lhundrup108 wrote: Dear Blue Rose, I am not sure how to understand your motivation in this post especially because I don't want to assume things. I perceive that you have give me options, that I either I am here to understand you and your definition, or I am just argumentative. Is that understanding of your post correct? Or do I have more options, such as that, " I am here to discuss. I am here to learn what others have to say, but I didn't sign up to agree with everyone. " You're asking vegans what their definition of vegan is. There is a universal definition of vegan. What I'm not understanding is why this is a difficult concept for you to grasp. By the way, if you have been reading all the posts by people who probably agree with your defintion of veganism for themselves, I have read people saying that there are different types of vegans and there is no vegan pope, so it is not a hard and fast thing. Yes, it is. A vegan can neither eat, consume, nor eat animal products. That's hard and fast. My final hope for the world of veganism is that it could be a network of people who share a non-animal diet, who strive for ways to reduce harm of animals througha myriad of ways such as avoiding animal products, or jobs related to slaughter of animals. The latter is a point of discussion if I want to achieve it in my life, because the global economy is so interconnected that I am not dead sure that a vegan grocery store helps animals more than a leather shop, because it comes down to how much of the money has gone to executive government powers and what they did with that money. I am surprised that you don't have the same concern for the sake of animals. Huh? What makes you think I lack that concern? I consider veganism a state of mind more than a fashion trend. But that is just my view. I have no problem with your view or anyone elses.Personal attacks are unnecessary. I am not vegan due to a " fashion trend. " I'm vegan for health, environmental, and animal rights reasons. -- AIM: A Blue Rose 156 YM: blue_rose_156http://x-bluerose-x.livejournal.comhttp://timeladydesigns.etsy.com ~Boston_GothicBoston_MysticBoston-Pagans Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 22, 2010 Ever consider the possibility that the dictionaries are wrong?Just sayin'.On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 10:57 AM, lhundrup108 <lhundrup108 wrote: Frankly Jo, I am so shocked at your post. I have already agreed to differ in at least 6 different posts saying that I just see things differently about peoples modern definitons of veganism. The Vegan Society does not print the books by Webster and Oxford (dictionaries) which I follow. I think it is you who want and others who want everyone to agree with your definiton of veganism. I don't accept that. I am wiling to agree to differ. Are you? , " heartwerk " <jo.heartwork wrote: > > I asked the question because I was not sure if you wanted help or a lengthy ongoing discussion. > > There is a definition of the word given by the inventors - the Vegan Society. > > The discussion could go on for decades and still not be resolved, unless maybe we all agree with you. Maybe you could just agree to differ. > Jo > > > , " lhundrup108 " <lhundrup108@> wrote: > > > > Jo- > > > > It is not easy to understand tone through words, because we cannot hear voices in type, and a lot of assumptions can be made wrongly. > > > > But frankly, I don't know why you ask this question to me. I have been clear with my points and the intention of my discussion. I have responded to your points that don't seem to tally logically in my view of things. > > > > So I have come to my own conclusion of an understanding of veganism which at the start of my posts I don't think I was clear about. I hope you don't consider this chat group to be a place where certain vegans can dictate to others what veganism is. It is a discussion group to share opinions as far as I know. > > > > But now I am wondering what you are trying to gain from your comments to me. Is it that you are right and I am wrong? > > > > I just don't see things that way if you do. I believe in the protection of animals by means of diet as well as by means of political action, environental, religious, and industrial, etc. I don't confine the protection of animals to what I put in my mouth. > > > > Om tat sat > > > > , " jo.heartwork " <jo.heartwork@> wrote: > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > <%40> , > > > " 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 > > > > > > > > <%40> , > > > " 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 > > > > > > > > > > <%40> > > > , 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? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40> , " 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40> , " 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40> , 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- To send an email to -! Groups Links <*> / <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: /join ( ID required) <*> To change settings via email: -digest -fullfeatured <*> Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 22, 2010 Ditto. I think we've moved past discussion and debate into bickering and arguing over minutiae.On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 12:36 PM, heartwerk <jo.heartwork wrote: My question was rhetorical, as I am finding the nit-picking and accusation of fundamentalism aimed at members of the group to be rather tiresome. We may kill the bacteria on our skin. How do you feel about the bacteria and viruses that have the potential to kill us? -- AIM: A Blue Rose 156 YM: blue_rose_156http://x-bluerose-x.livejournal.com http://timeladydesigns.etsy.com~Boston_GothicBoston_Mystic Boston-Pagans Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 22, 2010 The VEgan Society founder invented the word - therefore it is the correct definition. Here you go with your accusations of fundamentalism again - presumably because I don't agree with you. Jo , " lhundrup108 " <lhundrup108 wrote: > > Jo, > > Thanks for your astuteness, in posting yet another definition of the word. Well which one is the right one? This one or your one? > This definition if correct, does not mention that you can't eat roadkill, does it? So I guess everyone on this thread who has spent a lot of energy in educating me, should just read your post. > > But anyway, for the sake of argument, the Prophet Mohamed, peace be upon him, in the eyes of humanity, seems to have written the doctrine of Islam. That is a doctrine of God. There are many people before and after him that profess a doctrine of the same God. Judaism, Christianity, Mormonism, and others less mainstream. > > If you think that it is not allowed to re-reveal the truth of the creator God, then I consider that to be " fundamentalism. " So if you think that the Vegan Society has a monopoly on a word that tries to grasp a concept, then I think that is also fundamentalism. > > But frankly, I kind feel like your post of Vegan Society definition of Vegan just kinda puts all the arguments against my freegan post to rest. Don't you? But anyway, I like the original founder's definition which pertains to a diet. > > Did the founder change the definition or did the Society? Please inform me of that one. If you don't know, I will contact them myself. But I still yield to Websters Dicitonary. > > , " heartwerk " <jo.heartwork@> wrote: > > > > The definition of a vegan is: > > > > " Veganism is a way of living that seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing and any other purpose. " > > > > This is from the Vegan Society who invented the word. > > > > Jo > > > > > > > > , " lhundrup108 " <lhundrup108@> wrote: > > > > > > I have just done a search for a good definition of " vegan. " According to the definition and the origin of the term, I don't see any reference to avoiding wearing fur, etc. I believe that is a definition that was adopted later and I think some dwellers of this forum seem to have adopted that in preference to the original definition. > > > > > > I think the most inclusive definition is the best one. Including people without making division. Is the point of veganism to protect animals or to make a sectarian society that condemns others for their individuality? > > > > > > Here are the definitions: > > > > > > > > > veg & #8901;an > > > & #8194; & #8194;/ & #712;v & #603;d & #658; & #601;n; especially Brit. & #712;vig & #601;n/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [vej-uhn; especially Brit. vee-guhn] Show IPA > > > Use veganism in a Sentence > > > See images of veganism > > > Search veganism on the Web > > > –noun > > > a vegetarian who omits all animal products from the diet. > > > Origin: > > > 1940–45; veg(etari)an > > > > > > > > > > > > vegan > > > 1944, from vegetable (n.) + -an; coined by Donald Watson to distinguish those who abstain from all animal products (eggs, cheese, etc.) from those who merely refuse to eat the animals. > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 22, 2010 but the Webster and Oxford dictionaries should follow what the Vegan Society says,don't you think? If we have agreed to differ, and you have kindly said that we may have our own opinions, why is the discussion still carrying on and not getting anywhere? Jo , " lhundrup108 " <lhundrup108 wrote: > > Frankly Jo, I am so shocked at your post. I have already agreed to differ in at least 6 different posts saying that I just see things differently about peoples modern definitons of veganism. The Vegan Society does not print the books by Webster and Oxford (dictionaries) which I follow. > > I think it is you who want and others who want everyone to agree with your definiton of veganism. I don't accept that. I am wiling to agree to differ. > > Are you? > > , " heartwerk " <jo.heartwork@> wrote: > > > > I asked the question because I was not sure if you wanted help or a lengthy ongoing discussion. > > > > There is a definition of the word given by the inventors - the Vegan Society. > > > > The discussion could go on for decades and still not be resolved, unless maybe we all agree with you. Maybe you could just agree to differ. > > Jo > > > > > > , " lhundrup108 " <lhundrup108@> wrote: > > > > > > Jo- > > > > > > It is not easy to understand tone through words, because we cannot hear voices in type, and a lot of assumptions can be made wrongly. > > > > > > But frankly, I don't know why you ask this question to me. I have been clear with my points and the intention of my discussion. I have responded to your points that don't seem to tally logically in my view of things. > > > > > > So I have come to my own conclusion of an understanding of veganism which at the start of my posts I don't think I was clear about. I hope you don't consider this chat group to be a place where certain vegans can dictate to others what veganism is. It is a discussion group to share opinions as far as I know. > > > > > > But now I am wondering what you are trying to gain from your comments to me. Is it that you are right and I am wrong? > > > > > > I just don't see things that way if you do. I believe in the protection of animals by means of diet as well as by means of political action, environental, religious, and industrial, etc. I don't confine the protection of animals to what I put in my mouth. > > > > > > Om tat sat > > > > > > , " jo.heartwork " <jo.heartwork@> wrote: > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > <%40> , > > > > " 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 > > > > > > > > > > <%40> , > > > > " 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40> > > > > , 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? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40> , " 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40> , " 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40> , Blue Rose <bluerose156@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. Being vegan means abstaining from ALL animal products. > > > > That means > > > > > > > > no > > > > > > > > > > > leather clothing, no wool, no silk...why would dead animal > > > > flesh, > > > > > > > > however > > > > > > > > > > > way it was killed, ever be an exception? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 1:42 PM, lhundrup108 <lhundrup108@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > happy new year everybody! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can a vegan eat meat that was road kill and still be > > > > considered a > > > > > > > > vegan? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To send an email to -@! > > > > > > > > > > > > Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > AIM: A Blue Rose 156 YM: blue_rose_156 > > > > > > > > > > > http://x-bluerose-x.livejournal.com > > > > > > > > > > > http://timeladydesigns.etsy.com > > > > > > > > > > > ~ > > > > > > > > > > > Boston_Gothic > > > > > > > > > > > Boston_Mystic > > > > > > > > > > > Boston-Pagans > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To send an email to -@! > > > > > > > > Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > AIM: A Blue Rose 156 YM: blue_rose_156 > > > > > > > http://x-bluerose-x.livejournal.com > > > > > > > http://timeladydesigns.etsy.com > > > > > > > ~ > > > > > > > Boston_Gothic > > > > > > > Boston_Mystic > > > > > > > Boston-Pagans > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 22, 2010 (BTW - I prefer to be called Peter!)I fear you may have something of a misunderstanding of Rudolf Steiner. Funny you should pick that particular example, though, since I work in a Steiner School!Actually, Steiner wasn't a Nazi enthusiast. He *was* racist, and that is rightly acknowledged by those who follow Anthroposophy to be a sign of the times in which he lived, and do *not* embrace that as part of the philosophy in the modern world. And I'm not quite sure how it would be possible for Hitler to suppress someone who died 8 years before he was in power... However, I'm quite unsure why you even bring this up... it really is feeling like you're just trying to cause trouble.BBPeter2010/1/22 lhundrup108 <lhundrup108 Dear Pete,   Thanks for your commendation on my good work.  I can hold my own.  I will read up on the direction of his society.   I still stand on my point and opinion that the definition of veganism should be limited to a diet and the activism and so forth should be labeled as so.  Why do you and others insist that everyone must think only one way if they want to be vegan?  Does fundamentalism attract you for some reason?   I would have to wait for you to offer the right information for me to send you a similar snide response.  Here is a hypothetical one.  I am sure that there must be at least some vegans who follow the Rudolf Steiner education model.  I am sure that they think it is great and open the mind of children.  But he was a Nazi enthusiast that Hitler had to suppress because he didn't want competition.  So must all vegans who are followers of Rudolf Steiner education need follow Nazi beliefs?  I hope not, because nowadays, the Waldorf school system has quite appropriately divided Steiners personal views with his beneficial and scientific views towards education and development of an ecological society.   Similary, I think if veganism and vegan activism were separated, with option to join or not, then I think the goal of helping animals would be reached.   I request you to keep an open mind to consider it. , Peter Kebbell <metalscarab wrote: > > Good work... now read up a bit about the person who coined the term.... > Donald Watson. He's not hard to find, since he founded the Vegan Society, > which follows his ideals (abstaining as far as is humanly possible from the > use of all animal-derived materials). For their 60th anniversary, they > printed the original definition that Donald Watson came up with in their > magazine. I'm sure if you contact them, they'd be happy to send you a > copy... > > BB > Peter > > 2010/1/21 lhundrup108 <lhundrup108 > > > I have just done a search for a good definition of " vegan. "  According to > > the definition and the origin of the term, I don't see any reference to > > avoiding wearing fur, etc.  I believe that is a definition that was adopted > > later and I think some dwellers of this forum seem to have adopted that in > > preference to the original definition. > > > > I think the most inclusive definition is the best one.  Including people > > without making division.  Is the point of veganism to protect animals or to > > make a sectarian society that condemns others for their individuality? > > > > Here are the definitions: > > > > > > vegâ‹…an > > /ˈvÉ›dÊ'É™n; especially Brit. ˈvigÉ™n/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [vej-uhn; > > especially Brit. vee-guhn] Show IPA > > Use veganism in a Sentence > > See images of veganism > > Search veganism on the Web > > †" noun > > a vegetarian who omits all animal products from the diet. > > Origin: > > 1940†" 45; veg(etari)an > > > > > > > > vegan > > 1944, from vegetable (n.) + -an; coined by Donald Watson to distinguish > > those who abstain from all animal products (eggs, cheese, etc.) from those > > who merely refuse to eat the animals. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > To send an email to -! > > Groups Links > > > > > > > > > --- To send an email to -! Groups Links <*>   / <*> Your email settings:   Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to:   /join   ( ID required) <*> To change settings via email:   -digest   -fullfeatured <*> Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 22, 2010 *Putting on moderators hat*OK folks, having read all the posts on this thread, I have to agree with (I think) Blue Rose's statement that we have moved beyond discussion and debate into bickering.It seems that the points being made are simply going round in circles, and that offensive name-calling is becoming the prime mode of communication. Under the circumstances I am calling an immediate end to this thread. Let's move on and, as fraggle would put it, play nice!BBPeter Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 22, 2010 We have been vegan in our household for many, many years and are raising our daughter as a vegan. We had never hear the word freegan before and we googled it to learn that freegans are dumpster divers who may occasionally eat roadkill. I had to read the Wikipedia description a few times because we seriously thought that it was a joke. In our experience with roadkill, we always feel a sadness for the animal whose life is gone due to a terrifying and painful hit by a car/truck. We have moved animals out of the road so that they may not continue to be run over. It is incredibly sad. But our feelings are entirely for the animals loss of life and absolutely NOT about our dinner plans. I have never in my life heard of someone picking up the dead animal and taking it home to skin, dismember, chop -up and then eat this animal victim of a road accident. It seems bizarre that this could actually occur. But even more bizarre is to learn that people who call themselves vegans participate in this activity. Vegans do not eat animals or any body fluid, excretion that comes out of them or of them such as leather, fur, etc. We love animals and the thought of eating one will never happen, no matter what fantasy scenario is described in relation to life-or-death hunger. The animal laying dead on the road, after being hit, is not "meat going to waste". It is the body of a once living being who deserves to be treated in the manner that we would treat fellow human beings. It is interesting that freegans understand the serious implications with consumerism and it would be nice to see freegans creating separate societies outside of this broken society, rather than diving in the dumpsters and scooping up the animal corpses of this broken society. The freegan ideology has much potential, but it would involve a true separation from society. It seems ridiculous to hate the business world and yet still be a part of it by visiting the dumpsters of these supermarkets who represent the mega-business that is at the center of a freegans (as well as many people's) disdain. "Ilhoundrup": it is disturbing that you have joined this chat to challenge vegans as if they are hypocrites or haven't fully grasped all possibilities of being a vegan (such as eating roadkill). It is incredibly difficult to live in a world that is all about killing animals and vegans know this very well. You claim to not eat animals and so it makes it all the more unbelievable when someone like you challenges what is already difficult for a vegan. Vegans will not start eating roadkill, it just won't happen. A vegan will not pull over and put a dead animal in their car to take it home, skin it, dismember it and then eat it. Vegans care about animals. Vegans care that an animal has been killed by a car, much the same way that they care that an animal has been killed by a slaughter house. An animal that has been hit by a car lost his or her life prematurely much the same as an animal in a factory farm will lose his or her life prematurely. It is all vicious death and therefore is not supported by a vegan. How a freegan has reasoned that eating roadkill is ok while still maintaining the vegan identity is beyond understanding. Veganlyn --- On Fri, 1/22/10, lhundrup108 <lhundrup108 wrote: lhundrup108 <lhundrup108 Re: freegan Date: Friday, January 22, 2010, 8:07 AM Jo, Thanks for your astuteness, in posting yet another definition of the word. Well which one is the right one? This one or your one? This definition if correct, does not mention that you can't eat roadkill, does it? So I guess everyone on this thread who has spent a lot of energy in educating me, should just read your post.But anyway, for the sake of argument, the Prophet Mohamed, peace be upon him, in the eyes of humanity, seems to have written the doctrine of Islam. That is a doctrine of God. There are many people before and after him that profess a doctrine of the same God. Judaism, Christianity, Mormonism, and others less mainstream.If you think that it is not allowed to re-reveal the truth of the creator God, then I consider that to be "fundamentalism. " So if you think that the Vegan Society has a monopoly on a word that tries to grasp a concept, then I think that is also fundamentalism.But frankly, I kind feel like your post of Vegan Society definition of Vegan just kinda puts all the arguments against my freegan post to rest. Don't you? But anyway, I like the original founder's definition which pertains to a diet. Did the founder change the definition or did the Society? Please inform me of that one. If you don't know, I will contact them myself. But I still yield to Websters Dicitonary.@gro ups.com, "heartwerk" <jo.heartwork@ ...> wrote:>> The definition of a vegan is:> > "Veganism is a way of living that seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing and any other purpose."> > This is from the Vegan Society who invented the word.> > Jo> > > > @gro ups.com, "lhundrup108" <lhundrup108@ > wrote:> >> > I have just done a search for a good definition of "vegan." According to the definition and the origin of the term, I don't see any reference to avoiding wearing fur, etc. I believe that is a definition that was adopted later and I think some dwellers of this forum seem to have adopted that in preference to the original definition.> > > > I think the most inclusive definition is the best one. Including people without making division. Is the point of veganism to protect animals or to make a sectarian society that condemns others for their individuality? > > > > Here are the definitions:> > > > > > veg & #8901;an> > & #8194; & #8194; / & #712;v & #603;d & #658; & #601;n; especially Brit. & #712;vig & #601; n/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [vej-uhn; especially Brit. vee-guhn] Show IPA> > Use veganism in a Sentence> > See images of veganism> > Search veganism on the Web> > –noun> > a vegetarian who omits all animal products from the diet.> > Origin:> > 1940–45; veg(etari)an> > > > > > > > vegan > > 1944, from vegetable (n.) + -an; coined by Donald Watson to distinguish those who abstain from all animal products (eggs, cheese, etc.) from those who merely refuse to eat the animals.> >> Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 22, 2010 ummm i was making a joke. humor. sorry you misunderstood lhundrup108 Jan 21, 2010 1:34 PM Re: freegan 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. You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 22, 2010 sorry peter, didn't see this like i said, crazy busy in other news, (which goes along with the crazy busy)..our shop officially opens Feb 5th!!!! took us long enough! huzzah fer us cheers fraggle Peter Kebbell Jan 22, 2010 1:12 PM Re: Re: freegan *Putting on moderators hat*OK folks, having read all the posts on this thread, I have to agree with (I think) Blue Rose's statement that we have moved beyond discussion and debate into bickering.It seems that the points being made are simply going round in circles, and that offensive name-calling is becoming the prime mode of communication.Under the circumstances I am calling an immediate end to this thread. Let's move on and, as fraggle would put it, play nice!BBPeter You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 22, 2010 Hi FraggleNo problem - with the number of e-mails 'twould be easy to miss!!So, what're you selling? I'm taking a wild stab at either something vegan related, or punk music :-)BBPeter 2010/1/22 fraggle <EBbrewpunx sorry peter, didn't see this like i said, crazy busy in other news, (which goes along with the crazy busy)..our shop officially opens Feb 5th!!!! took us long enough! huzzah fer us cheers fraggle Peter Kebbell Jan 22, 2010 1:12 PM Re: Re: freegan *Putting on moderators hat*OK folks, having read all the posts on this thread, I have to agree with (I think) Blue Rose's statement that we have moved beyond discussion and debate into bickering.It seems that the points being made are simply going round in circles, and that offensive name-calling is becoming the prime mode of communication. Under the circumstances I am calling an immediate end to this thread. Let's move on and, as fraggle would put it, play nice!BBPeter You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 22, 2010 ya missed..i'll give you an EASY third shot tho...should be pretty obvious if its not vegan er punk cheers fraggle Peter Kebbell Jan 22, 2010 4:48 PM Re: Re: freegan Hi FraggleNo problem - with the number of e-mails 'twould be easy to miss!!So, what're you selling? I'm taking a wild stab at either something vegan related, or punk music :-)BBPeter 2010/1/22 fraggle <EBbrewpunx (AT) earthlink (DOT) net> sorry peter, didn't see this like i said, crazy busy in other news, (which goes along with the crazy busy)..our shop officially opens Feb 5th!!!! took us long enough! huzzah fer us cheers fraggle Peter Kebbell Jan 22, 2010 1:12 PM Re: Re: freegan *Putting on moderators hat*OK folks, having read all the posts on this thread, I have to agree with (I think) Blue Rose's statement that we have moved beyond discussion and debate into bickering.It seems that the points being made are simply going round in circles, and that offensive name-calling is becoming the prime mode of communication.Under the circumstances I am calling an immediate end to this thread. Let's move on and, as fraggle would put it, play nice!BBPeter You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me! You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 22, 2010 That’s exciting Fraggle – well done, and good luck. BB Jo On Behalf Of fraggle 22 January 2010 21:09 Re: Re: freegan sorry peter, didn't see this like i said, crazy busy in other news, (which goes along with the crazy busy)..our shop officially opens Feb 5th!!!! took us long enough! huzzah fer us cheers fraggle Peter Kebbell Jan 22, 2010 1:12 PM Re: Re: freegan *Putting on moderators hat* OK folks, having read all the posts on this thread, I have to agree with (I think) Blue Rose's statement that we have moved beyond discussion and debate into bickering. It seems that the points being made are simply going round in circles, and that offensive name-calling is becoming the prime mode of communication. Under the circumstances I am calling an immediate end to this thread. Let's move on and, as fraggle would put it, play nice! BB Peter You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 22, 2010 beer! At 4:55 PM -0500 1/22/10, fraggle wrote: ya missed..i'll give you an EASY third shot tho...should be pretty obvious if its not vegan er punk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
