Connect with vegetarian and vegan friends from all over the world.
I am curious what you true Vegetarian and Vegans feel about the latest catch phrase "Veganish"
It is said to be use by people who only eat meat on occasion. It might make sense if the word was Vegetarianish? Even still, what is the point?
I feel it is inaccurate. I also think it is disrespectful to those living the Vegan lifestyle, and fighting for the cause.
Am I being dramatic, or is "Veganish like Virginish?" NOT POSSIBLE!
My thoughts are that if we are going to speak about things in English, then we have to follow the rules of the language. "-ish" is a suffix meaning that something is like the root word it is attached to. So veganish means the person is prone to being vegan though is not fully vegan.
Essentially, veganish means they eat a lot of vegan meals but not fully. What on earth is the problem? If someone says they eat 20% protein in their diet than they are not the real deal because they don't eat protein all day long? Why on earth does being a vegan have to carry a sense of pride and membership so that it reaches a cult mentality? It is a diet that is taken for moral/ethical or environmental or nutritional/health reasons.
I think the onus is on a vegan to say that they are "full vegan" rather than just vegan. They can say vegan but then they have to tolerate the 50% vegans and sort of vegan, and veganish type of people. I am vegetarian, so when people ask me if I eat fish or chicken or eggs, I just say that I am a pure vegetarian. I don't get into fights of pride and tell people they must not use the "v" word unless they meet my expectations.
Completely agree. As a former vegetarian who ate SOME kind of animal protein at every meal, I have moved so far past that, it just does not seem logical to continue to call myself by that name. And I am primarily an ethical vegan. ALL of the foods I buy are vegan. However, I am not much opposed to enjoying vegetarian food once in a while that someone else has bought. I am not contributing to the economic demand for animal products that way.
I think it's a stupid phrase. Whether some people like it or not, there are some absolutes in life. Being a vegetarian can just be a diet choice- being a vegan is an active effort to not leech off of animals or use their products for their own benefit (as vegans do not purchase leather etc., which is not diet related). I think anyone who would play fast and loose with the terms is a coward. They don't want to commit so they say, "Oh I'm part way." Except that the definition of a vegan is one who abstains from meat and any other animal product. You are not one who abstains if you don't abstain... that's illogical. Just fact. I feel there is more concern over these people who feel the need to label themselves and align with an ethical group when they do not share in these same ethics, they just want to appear trendy, which damages the vegan movement (and vegetarian movement).
Same way you can't kill animals and turn around and say you love them. But as I am very against having our message of compassion stained with people who murder animals (as any good vegetarian would), I agree with you completely Julie :)!
People who are just beginning to be consious of how much animal product they consume are taking their first steps on a long path to veganism
That is well said :) You should feel proud to be a pescetarian, it is a very good step in the right direction. But also, you can feel good without labeling something you're not, which I commend. There are some "vegetarians" on here for instance who really shouldn't even be trying to advocate animal rights, when they do some rather disgusting things. One member boasted to me how he liked to wear animal skin, disgusting. Of course those types of people don't care about ethics or how people choose to label themselves. Many meat-eaters as well a this particular member like to rip down all efforts to veganism, because it threatens them. At least you are trying to help animals :)! You aren't just picking a diet to be convenient and then picking apart other diets. It's all in your intentions <3
No problem :)! xoxoxox Nice to meet like-minded people, great minds think alike ;)!
I am okay with you being veganish too! in fact it is brave of you to approach veganism slowly and should be commended! purists condemn those who think for themselves out of fear and insecurity for their own diet. quite often they slip back after just 5 months of being such a pure vegan and trying to be nasty and look down on others for their diet.
stay strong and gradual I say! and just be you in the end!
Am I being dramatic, or is "Veganish like Virginish?" NOT POSSIBLE!
I agree with your bottom line 100%, you state this perfectly.
Am I being dramatic, or is "Veganish like Virginish?"
this is something of comparing apples and oranges. being a virgin only means one thing. It means that you have not had sex before in your life so you lack the experience of being a non-virgin. one you have sex, you are no longer a virgin and never will be a virgin again. well that is the case of sex, but you can have a virgin drink meaning no alcohol. so the word virgin would be absolute in the case of sex but not in the case of drinks.
if anyone wants to use the term vegan in an absolute way, they have to clarify that they mean it in an ethical sense that extends the definition to activism and animal welfare. the term was not originally anything other than a diet but was extended to animal welfare. that is just a historical reality that vegans with an absolute mentality have a hard time to accept. human beings don't have the right to force their views on others even though they may try to.
bottomline...a vegan diet is only a diet whereas vegan ethics lean towards the idea of avoiding exploitation of animals, and vegan activism uses vegan ethics to justify or argue their own definitions within the community. after being involved with vegan activists for a span of 5 to 10 years, this much is clear.
its pretty normal for new vegans to have this idea of veganism being absolute. older vegans can also be this way but at least they are aware usually that other vegans in the community have other ideas and values and they have to deal with that. the vegans I know wear leather boots if they are second hand for instance because they care about the environment and are not like some of the other trust fund vegans who don't have to worry how to support themselves in a cut throat society.
bottomline of vegan ethics, is that a vegan or no person for that matter should try to cause harm to another creature. looking at how much leather they wear from second hand sources is just pretentious newbie syndrome. if we looked at the families of these people who point out the faults of others so crazily, we might find out some interesting things, like their family funds coming from completely non-vegan businesses or military or other obnoxious and immoral sources of income.
I dated a vegan girl whose father worked as a manager of Burger King. I could never figure out how she was better than someone who drank milk. I don't think she knew either but she just thought she was. It is more or less guilt turned around into fanatic pride. It's sad that it happens.
hi julie, thanks for agreeing to the actual meaning of veganish. I agree with you that there is no need for anyone to confuse the meaning of terms and no need for anyone to make a claim to be something that they are not.
but since you believe that the meaning of being vegan necessarily includes a lifestyle outside of dietary intake, I want to bring up this information about the history of the word...
The term vegan was coined in England in 1944 by Donald Watson, co-founder of the British Vegan Society, to mean "non-dairy vegetarian"; the society also opposed the consumption of eggs. In 1951, the society extended the definition ofveganism to mean "the doctrine that man should live without exploiting animals," and in 1960 H. Jay Dinshah started theAmerican Vegan Society, linking veganism to the Jain concept of ahimsa, the avoidance of violence against living things.
So if this history is right, the term was coined originally to be only dietary and later the term was coined by the same society to extend the meaning to animal rights. I think that is quite fair for a society to promote a certain definition as long as people understand the way that they use it.
Why wouldn't it be fair to say that someone with a "vegan lifestyle" is one who applies veganism to more than his or her diet rather than trying to include the lifestyle in the word "vegan," and thus excluding people who are vegan for dietary purposes alone?
Different words are used to denote what we mean by what we say, such as dietary vegan, vegan activist, etc. It seems dietary vegans are not so upset about vegans who want to promote animal rights but some vegans who do that are upset that other vegans don't do that. Isn't it much better to be specific with words rather than forcing people to accept a meaning of a word that never existed either entymologically or historically?
If I had to submit to the idea that vegan means more than it is, then I would also have to start arguments with people who think that by not eating animals alone is compassionate. My sense of the word compassion is a bit more far reaching and touches on behavior that is shown by our words and actions in every sense. In fact, I think I can make a stronger case that some vegans who choose their diet because they want to be compassionate are falling short terribly by not adopting many other things that would actually be an exercise of compassion and I could show the root meaning of the word would be in contradiction to some of their behavior.
That said, I am pretty satisfied not only not only that a veganish person is attempting some aspect of a vegan diet. If I meet a person who eats chicken but is claiming to be mostly vegetarian, then I am just happy for that and I don't feel threatened at all that he uses "my" title. I don't use vegetarianism as a shield to protect myself or to use in battle against others. Similarly, I accept that people who are vegan for the purpose of compassion, are doing so with a good idea, even if it falls short of being compassionate in all ways. I don't feel the need to congratulate or condemn the person really for their diet since I don't know what else they do to harm others. I am sure there may be vegans fighting in wars with Iraq or elsewhere and I don't think that I can salute them for killing people but saving animal lives. I can't salute also vegans who are not soldiers but have family that believe in starting wars with other nations. So this is why diet and ethics start to come apart for me.
Anyway, its my two cents because I don't see much need for people to be divided over titles. But correct me if I am wrong about the actual history of the word vegan. I am just quoting the one that I know.
Oh Fruitfly, thanks for the "root of the word Vegan" history. Seriously, I dig that shit. I agree we should respect where the term came from and what the original mean was for.
Now tell me you feel the same about the word "marriage" and it's original root definition? Just kidding, that is a BIG can of WORMS I do not want to open.
I salute and have some respect for ANYONE who has the conviction, control and dedication to commit to ANYTHING and stick to it. If I agree with it, is not relevant to me unless it's personal or inhumane. Like you said, if the cause is the Animals, Health, Eco-system or Freedom itself. I applaud them all.
Try thinking of the "titles" if you will, not as "division" but rather as "positions"
Like within a company or a Professional Organization. Working together on different levels to make it happen. A Coach title deserves to be seen as such for his accomplishments, just like a CEO or VP who worked his way to get what he wanted. They could not have gotten there with out the hard work of there teams.
So I see it in the Vegan Society. Well deserved and respected the Vegan community should be, learning and encouraging and helping each other. From the Pescitarian to Veganish Veggie-peeps unite! (I am being cheesy) form together for the greater good of our Eco-systems future. :P
ya, that is how I see it Julie. all the people with whatever title...working together. I don't see the titles as divisions but I see the titles being used to divide. that is why I favor being title specific to get the precise meaning across.
I would be interested in the root meaning of marriage. Is there an irony in it at all? Doesn't it mean like union or something? Start a thread on it...if you dare...boo ha ha ha ha!