this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2023
511 points (94.3% liked)
Asklemmy
42525 readers
1489 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I accept that a vegan diet can be healthy for many people, however, it may not work for everyone due to individual variations in nutrient absorption and metabolism.
In a hundred years, I think our species will be ashamed of a great many things.
What nutrient absorption and metabolism differences can meat help that other vegetable sources can't? I'm not even vegan and that sounds completely made up
Technically, veganism requires only what is possible and practicable. If you genuinely needed to eat a hundred grams of chicken each week for unavoidable health reasons, you'd still be vegan, if you abstained from any other animal consumption.
It also doesn't have to work for everyone, just for most people. If you 20% of people were vegan, we'd end up with a snowball effect that made the world a better place.
The mental gymnastics here are fascinating. It's as if you thought "Veganism has good effects. Therefore, Veganism is good. Therefore, not-Veganism is bad. But people will be offended if we tell them that their well-intentioned-but-restricted choices are bad. So we should expand the definition of Veganism so that anything which is good, is Veganism."
Congratulations! You made it a religion!
Or maybe you're just misunderstanding what veganism is abiut in the first place.
Some people (mostly non-vegans) seem to believe it's about blindly and thoughtlessly abstaining from animals products. That's how veganism might look like from the outside but it's not actually what it's about at it's core. That would be to avoid all unnecessary suffering. Vegans are for example aware that the farming of plants does indeed cause animal deaths. But we can't avoid those without starving. So it's not unnecessary. And still vegan.
Within the same logic if someone, for whatever reason, would need meat to survive he could consume it still within the same ethical framework. And theoretically that could be vegan. The thing is: For 99.9% of people it's BS that they need meat. So obviously in the vast majority of cases it wouldn't be vegan, just a hypocrite lying to themselves.
The Vegan Society says that "In dietary terms (Veganism) denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."
Vegan.com says "The word vegan was originally defined as a diet free of meat, dairy products, and eggs. The term now also refers to any item, from shoes to shampoo, made without animal products."
Both pages, and the Wikipedia article, do mention the ethical considerations, but all make it clear that that is distinct from dietary Veganism.
It's all very well to say that there is a deeper philosophy and decision-making framework driving one's choices than simply "meat bad" - and that's a noble motivation! - but you appear to be in the minority in your claim that a vegan diet can still include animal products. Maybe vegan-inspired, maybe "ethically aligned with Veganism", but not "a vegan diet".
EDIT: to be clear - from everything I can tell, Veganism is a sensible, moral, responsible, ethical, frugal choice; most people could derive great benefits both to their health and their wallet from drastically reducing or entirely cutting out meat and animal products, as well as benefitting the world in general. It's a noble choice, it's one I fully support, and I've seriously cut down my own meat intake over the last couple years and have great admiration for people who cut it out entirely. I'm not arguing with you because I love meat or hate Veganism - I'm arguing with you because, by being a dipshit about definitions, you are undermining a worthwhile cause and making it look ridiculous to people sitting on the fence.
Did you seriously look at the FAQ of the vegan society, picked something that confirmed your preestablished opinion, and ignored the sentence right before it?
Here, let me show the whole quote:
You just have a very superficial view of veganism. Just ask yourself this: Why abstain from animals products? What is the intention of a vegan lifestyle? You've claimed that a nuanced application would have "made a religion", but the opposite is true. It would be a religion if we'd blindly apply a rule of conduct without any considerations. Which we don't, as you will see all over the vegan society's website. Just check what they write about animal products in medication. They are absolutely clear how a vegan lifestyle should work: "As far as is possible and practicable." An important principle that practically every single vegan out there knows and lives by.
Veganism is a religion. Just like CrossFit, the NRA, and Amway.
Yeah, I know someone who tried to go vegan (or vegetarian? I forget which but I lean more towards the former), but had to stop because of health issues.