Is it possible to be a true vegan (by original definition of the founder) in today's world?

Question

jen--Watson & the Vegan Society.

krister---you know tyhe one says "excludes ALL"

trautmen---sorry, this is an automatic response to receiving a violation....be back to "normal" soon.

Hey Trace :-)

swirly--If you aren't answering the question, why are you posting here?

trautmen (and fanclub)----doing something IS better than doing nothing.

Regarding animal welfare, a vegetarian is doing more than a meat eater right? But if that vegetarian doesn't follow the definition of vegetarian perfectly, you all are the first to tell them they aren't a vegetarian. Nobody says, "well they eat fish but at least they're trying so they're still a vegetarian". NOBODY says this. Because eating fish is NOT vegetarian. But, when you hold a vegan up to the same set of rules, the vegans won't have it. It's all "at least we're doing more than you are" or "who are you to tell us?".

How can you people tell someone they can't be a vegetarian if they eat fish while you are far from perfect yourselves in your vegan attempts?

Answer 1

No, by modern standards I don't think so. However, I have to go with Shelly on this one every little bit helps and I respect those who can do more then me.

I understand your point though. Are people who cannot live up to the original defination of vegans just extreme vegetarians? In a word, yes. True vegans, I do think, exist in parts of the world where modern conveniences are not such an everyday occurence.

Answer 2

Me troll- I am having such a hard time understanding what's going on here. You're obviously not a dumb guy. Often, you ask reasonable, thoughtful questions. But your obsession with this whole "true vegan" thing is baffling. You ask this same question, or some variation of it almost every day, sometimes more than once a day. We all already know the responses we're going to get from all sides.

Some will say doing something is better than nothing, others will say if you can't do it all the way, why bother, others will say they are dietary vegans, some will argue that we shouldn't use the word vegan, others will say it's an important distinction for social situations. And so on and so forth. Why do you do this every day? We know how you feel about it, you know how we feel about it, can't we just agree to disagree and move on?

Unless I am mistaken, you are a perfectly intelligent person, can't you see that this is going nowhere and that this is not what Y!A is all about? We are supposed to either be seeking knowledge or spreading it, not having the exact same argument every day.

So please, for the sake of all of the reasonable people on this forum, give this question a rest for a while.

Answer 3

Yes it is possible.

By definition:
A person is not vegetarian if they eat anything the animal had to die for. A fish is an animal. Fish is meat. A person is not vegetarian if they eat fish.

A person is not vegan if they eat animal products (including honey) or wear or use animal products in their consumables. This usually includes animal testing, unless mandated by law.

Anything a vegan does beyond that is extra. One may do more than another, but they're still both vegan by definition.

Answer 4

In the true definition. the answer is NO. unless you did all your own cooking and cooked totally from "scratch". When you eat out there are many veggie dishes that will have oils added and they are not always veggie oils. A vegetarian diet is great as long as the person makes sure they get all the nutrition their bodies need. We get lots of protein from veggies but it's hard to get any omega 3's. I prefer my veggies over meats, but I still like a little of the chicken seasoning. Animal products in the diet has been greatly linked to all major diseases. cancer, heart, kidney, diabetes, and others. (The China Study by Dr. Campbell is an eye opener) Milk, and milk products, alone is a disaster for our human bodies.

Answer 5

Yeah.

One says "encourages the use of alternatives" and the "revised" version says "as far as possible and practical".

------------------------------

It says "excludes all forms of exploitation".
All that I have to do to not contribute to the exploitation of animals is stop consuming anything that animals are bred, held in unnatural conditions or killed for, such as meat, milk, eggs, leather, wool, honey, etc.
If no one purchased or consumed these products, these animals would not benefit anyone's profits and they would become less and less. No animals are alive, dead or suffering because of the things that you point out.

If animals weren't raised for any of these things, they wouldn't continue to fertilize crops with animal waste, use animal based glues/binders in everything, etc., etc.

I go far beyond these basics and avoid things due to minute ingredients and not just the foods and ingredients that directly contribute to a demand for the domestication of animals.

Answer 6

I know this much, if every person in the UK by law had to visit a slaughterhouse at least once, then there would be more vegetarians in the country than meat eaters. I´ve been in a slaughterhouse and it is an ugly scene. Before making judgements on people, you should go see for yourself.

Answer 7

Yes why wouldn't it? There are many people who have chosen to eat a raw vegan diet they are truly vegan. Plenty others that eat cooked but totally vegan. It is difficult but not impossible. You can not rely on processed foods however.

Answer 8

Well, I think it's possible. I tried it a couple days ago, went out to lunch, scooped some pudding on my plate, and before I realized what I was doing, ate it. EW. You just have to watch yourself, that's all.

Answer 9

The founder of what, exactly? Veganism isn't a religion.

There is no founder, and no board of elders to determine who is or is not a "true vegan."

Answer 10

Hm.... let's see.... because it's far easier to abstain from eating fish than to grow and harvest your own food??

Duh.