Question about adherence?

I have a theoretical question about how strict adherence must be to the technical definition of veganism in order to be called a vegan by the population on this board. I am not a spammer; I, in fact, consider myself a vegan.

I'm sure we all agree that someone who has never consumed an animal product in his or her life and has never touched leather, silk, cosmetics tested on animals, or anything else un-vegan would be considered a "true" vegan. Consider, however, the following:

1. If someone continues to wear animal items purchased before the conversion to veganism?

2. If someone chooses not to question ingredients at a restaurant and simply avoids the obvious (e.g.: ordering pizza with no cheese but not asking of the sauce or crust are vegan)?

3. Someone who doesn't read labels at thee grocery store, but avoids the obvious (e.g.: doesn't buy cheese but doesn't check if that granola bar has whey or not)

4. Someone who allows a once-monthly vegetarian "cheat"?

5. Someone who allows a once-monthly animal flesh "cheat"?

6. Someone who allows a once-annually vegetarian "cheat"?

7. Someone who allows a once-annually animal flesh "cheat"?

8. Someone who in all other ways conforms to the standard definition of veganism, but does eat honey?

9. Someone who in all other ways conforms to the standard definition of veganism, but does eat oysters (supposedly "proven" to not be sentient)?

10. Someone who receives vaccinations or other important medications that have been tested on animals or contain animal ingredients?

8 Answers

Relevance
  • 8 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    I'm sure you would agree that many vegans have different opinions as for what qualifies as being a true vegan. I think what really matters is your motivation for being a vegan, which is hopefully to reduce animal suffering. For some vegans this is the case, but for others I've noticed it has become more of an arbitrary moral code of "NO animal products," even in cases where the animal suffering is non-existent.

    For instance, in some of your cases there is probably no additional animal harm caused by doing them:

    1) the animal item has already been purchased and will go to waste otherwise, why not use it?

    8) do the bees really suffer? I suppose that's debatable.

    9) do oysters really suffer? Also debatable.

    If you want to take the label of "vegan" to mean "consuming no animal products ever under any circumstance" then yes, these people are not vegans. But so what? I know how tempting it is to label ourselves but why does it matter so much? What's more important is how our actions affect others. What's less important is boasting around our moral achievements so that we feel moral superior to others, maintaining a pure lifestyle in order to feed our ego.

    As for the rest, I think it's great if someone puts in the effort to cut out animal products that came from suffering, but not everyone is willing or able to do so. Therefore I think being essentially vegan with few exceptions is still okay, and I would probably call such a person a vegan anyways because for all practical purposes they are. I'd rather see someone make a good effort and be vegan say 99% of the time, even if they have a once-annual vegetarian cheat, or occasionally eat a cheese-free pizza containing some meat in the sauce.

  • 8 years ago

    1. If someone continues to wear animal items purchased before the conversion to veganism?

    No, because it sends the message that its socially acceptable and advertises for the company.

    2. If someone chooses not to question ingredients at a restaurant and simply avoids the obvious (e.g.: ordering pizza with no cheese but not asking of the sauce or crust are vegan)?

    Umm... definitelynot vegan... that's called laziness and halfassing it.

    3. Someone who doesn't read labels at thee grocery store, but avoids the obvious (e.g.: doesn't buy cheese but doesn't check if that granola bar has whey or not)

    Same as #2

    4. Someone who allows a once-monthly vegetarian "cheat"?

    5. Someone who allows a once-monthly animal flesh "cheat"?

    6. Someone who allows a once-annually vegetarian "cheat"?

    7. Someone who allows a once-annually animal flesh "cheat"?

    Omg no. How can you believe in something enough to change your whole life and then be like "oh its thanksgiving, this doesn't count?" No matter what day it is or what you eat, if its animal, you did harm purposely which is not vegan.

    8. Someone who in all other ways conforms to the standard definition of veganism, but does eat honey?

    Nope. Not vegan.

    9. Someone who in all other ways conforms to the standard definition of veganism, but does eat oysters (supposedly "proven" to not be sentient)?

    Oysters are animals whether they feel or not. I also don't use sea sponges or any other loophole you can think of.

    10. Someone who receives vaccinations or other important medications that have been tested on animals or contain animal ingredients?

    Nope. Screw vacc's anyways they are stupid.... but hey only in America do we give over 70 shots of heavy metals to our children. Medicine isn't good for you.

    Source(s): Vegan
  • lo_mcg
    Lv 7
    8 years ago

    1 Vegan

    2 - 9. Not vegan

    10. Vegan. The word 'vegan' is not synonymous with the word 'martyr'. Veganism means minimising your personal contribution to animal suffering as much as is reasonable and practical. Denying yourself necessary medication, or denying your kids life-saving vaccinations, is neither reasonable nor practical - it is psychotic.

    ALL medication and ALL medical procedures have been tested on animals. Most medication contains animal by-products.

    I'm hoping that one day one of these 'true vegans don't use animal-tested medicine' types will answer the question I always ask them - what would you do if you broke your leg - badly? Can't have it reset (animal tested procedure). Can't have pain relief (animal tested medication). So... what?

    Vegans don't live in a bubble of vegan perfection, they live in the real world

    Source(s): Vegan - and I owe my life to medicine
  • ?
    Lv 6
    8 years ago

    1 - still a vegan.

    2 to 9 - not a vegan.

    10 - still a vegan, although, as has been pointed out, if a real vegan alternative is available, then that should be chosen instead,

    It really isn't a question of opinion - it's a question of the definition of 'vegan'

    EDIT: 2 to 9 - not even a vegetarian.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • J
    Lv 6
    8 years ago

    I would consider a vegan who wears leather to have a vegan diet, but I wouldn't consider them a full vegan, especially not in terms of animal welfare.

    I would not consider someone a vegan who eats dairy, eggs or meat on any occasion. Including oysters

    I would consider someone vegan who eats as a vegan but has a vaccination

    Honey... hard to say. I guess they technically would not be vegan if they eat honey.

  • 5 years ago

    Christianity — 12% Islam — 14% Nonreligion — 31% chinese folk faith — four% Buddhism — 5% other — 34% i'm thinking non-faith will be even better that what I've acknowledged there, however it's difficult to tell, you by no means recognize when this sort of "revivals" goes to come alongside and appeal to hordes of stupid people. So my estimate is most often rather conservative considering the fact that the current development, but perhaps practical as good. We will have to also consider that faith nonetheless stays powerful in establishing international locations and it is going to be an extended very long time earlier than non-faith turns into majority in those places.

  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    1. No animal commodification was funded in this case (post-veganism, that is...)- the only thing I'd worry about is if wearing the item (leather, for instance) perpetuates animal slaughter as a normalcy.

    2. Buying and consuming non-vegan products means one is not a vegan.... I dunno how that's confusing.

    3. See #2.

    4. See #2.

    5. See #2.

    6. See #2.

    7. See #2.

    8. The "standard definition" involves abstention from funding animal commodification. Bees are animals.

    9. See above. Oysters are likewise animals. Even vegetarians do not eat oysters, by definition.

    10. See #2.

  • Mir
    Lv 5
    8 years ago

    Oooo hard one. personally, I'd say:

    1-yes, but they could just sell or donate them and get something better...

    2-yes, usually. (sometimes I don't further research where that unspecified "enzyme" or glycerin or "natural flavor" comes from and just say 'oh, it must be a plant source...')

    3-no

    4-no

    5-no

    6-no

    7-no

    8-maybe, like if they humanely acquired their own honey and knew how they treated their own bees...?

    9-....no

    10-yes. but if there is a better option available and they have a choice they should get the animal friendly one.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.