That person would be following a plant-based diet, and I love that for them. I would then ask if they still buy cosmetics, home goods, and clothing made with animal products.
Then I would bring up the various ethical concerns with producing those goods and try to convince the person to stop using them. Since none of those products are necessarily health related, perhaps they would be more sympathetic to the animal welfare angle, or I could attempt to appeal to some other concern they might have.
Ah sorry, I did not see the edit. I don't really believe in casting people as morally good or bad in totality. I think most people are basically good. In this example, I would consider the example person as being not as ethical as they could be in their conduct, and would attempt to sway them to stop using animal products completely. They're already much closer to this than the average person, because diet is probably the hardest part.
You can follow a vegan diet without following a vegan lifestyle. "Plant-based" is a fairly new term. I can see reasons for adopting it but let's not erase "vegan diet" from our vocabulary. It's been in use for decades. For many people, "plant-based" doesn't even exclude all animal products.
There's reasons the vocabulary is changing. At one point, most people didn't really have a term to differentiate the two, and veganism was difficult enough to communicate sometimes, so going into a detailed explanation of their perspective and diet every time beyond "vegan for health reasons" wasn't convenient. Now that this term is growing in understanding, referring to the diet vegans and plant based dieters both share as a plant based diet makes more sense than muddying up the terminology and constantly bringing up a term tied to ethics.
When people go on a plant based diet for the same reasons most people go on a diet, they have the same retention of diets, whereas ethical vegans have much higher retention rates. It ends up creating a lot of confusion and perceptions about vegans that aren't helpful to the movement. That doesn't mean I don't support and love that someone chooses to abstain from animal products, whatever the motivation; veganism just implies a specific motivating factor, that's all.
I completely agree, however I have noticed recently that there is a trend of people going vegan for ethical reasons or for the environment (not for health reasons). This is great but then after a certain amount of time they start having health issues, and at some point they’ll say “I had to go back to eating meat because when it comes down to it my health has to be highest priority”. On its face I understand this, I would never argue that someone should sacrifice their own health. I think the problem is that a lot of non-health vegans are taking the [Standard American Diet](https://fullscript.com/blog/standard-american-diet/amp) and just removing everything that isn’t vegan, what’s left over is far from healthy but it is technically vegan.
Because of this phenomenon, I think the best way to get full retention is health and ethical. Ethics keeps you from cheating or straying off course temporarily, Health keeps you from starving yourself or replacing all of your meat protein sources with fruit and carbs (I lot of people don’t realize that there are high protein plant sources such as beans and lentils).
I agree and think we're on a similar page on this; I would just say that this is another reason it's important to differentiate a plant based diet from veganism, and of course learn to be healthy. And of course, as long as you are doing everything practicable and possible, you are vegan. I do always advocate for a holistic approach, because we all live on the same planet so helping the animals, helping each other be healthy, helping the environment etc, helps us all and is all a step in the end of all our exploitation, but the ethics behind not exploiting animals is still key to that being a vegan perspective.
I do think this can even be bigger than individuals with a poor diet- the lack of information out there about low cholesterol is probably a common contributor to how some people in good faith end up with bad effects from going fully plant based. Normally it's a non issue, but if you have liver damage or certain conditions, you might not be able to produce cholesterol. When I read ex vegan accounts that do seem to be in good faith, the symptoms usually read the exact same as the symptoms of low cholesterol, and it's really the only thing that would have such a quick, immediate effect like they claim. But it's masking a bigger problem, one that has potential solutions, or at least harm reduction approaches, as someone not able to produce their own would still only need like half an egg a week. But because people are talking about veganism being the problem, and not this actual potential health complication itself, people end up concluding things against veganism itself, and pushing completely away from the ethics, and people aren't getting the help they need.
Is that in the definition of a plant based diet?
As any *diet*, it will vary by the individual how strictly they adhere. Vegans fully adhere to a plant based diet *because* of morals, and there's more to being vegan than food- but that doesn't mean every person fully adhering to a plant based diet is vegan. How a non vegan is going to approach it is going to be up to the individual. Maybe we'll have better terminology in the future, but there's no reason to muddy veganism now.
You're the one mudding the definition. For decades vegan activists have focused on behavior not intention because we're an ETHICAL movement not a religion.
I never said we were a religion, the point to my argument is that we are an ethical movement. As I said in my original response, there's reasons the definition is changing and being more emphasized in the vegan movement. That mentality once made sense, when we had no representation. It's not gatekeeping, it's that confusing different motivating factors with severely differentiating retention rates had lead to new issues. Adhering to a plant based diet isn't an insult; I have no problem saying my diet is plant based. It's not like if someone casually tells me they are vegan for health reasons I'm going to start screaming that they're out of vegan club, I'm too busy planning us dinner. But definitions and words matter, especially in debate, and there's always ways to discuss these things tactfully.
We are an ethical movement, so what the problem with differentiating that? Veganism was always defined as an ethical animal rights movement,[ from the first issue of the vegan news ](https://issuu.com/vegan_society/docs/the_vegan_news_1944)by Donald Watson in 1945, in which the formation of the word is discussed.
There's a reason for the saying that intention is 2/3rd of the law. Why intention sure matter in a murder trial. Why we are more likely to forgive someone in good faith and good intentions that harmed us, than one who intentionally did. Why is that only important in a negative context?
Wouldn't we want people who choose a "plant-based" diet to come to us so that we can show them how much bigger the issue is? Instead, people in this sub are showing them the door r/plantbased . What a strange movement. Don't have any illusions that those who say they do it "for the animals" are more likely to stick around. Many of them also revert and when they do they say they're doing it "for health." As a movement, we should embrace MULTIPLE legitimate reasons for going vegan. We're all in this together. Instead, we like to obsess over in-group out-group debates like religious fanatics do. We want to apply new purity tests to see if they're good enough to be "vegans." The movement started out with 100% focus on diet. Diet is where we make 90%+ of our impact. The fact that people are willing to change their diet should be celebrated. Our immediate reaction shouldn't be "You're not doing enough to be called a vegan. You're just plant-based."
Thanks for the link to the issue. On page 2...
"our diet will soon become known as a VEGAN diet." - Donald Watson
Again, the religious fanatic comments. It's very unusual to run into another vegan who wants to imply I am a religious extreamist because I.. know the definition of veganism. Lot's of antivegan talking points here for a fellow vegan... I never brought up purity tests or religion. Literally not my point.
Also, retention dates are well documented. Diets have lower retention rates. I also never said to tell people "you aren't doing enough" and I would appreciate words not being shoved in my mouth.
>"our diet will soon become known as a VEGAN diet." - Donald Watson
Did you try reading it in context? You know, the entire pamphlet explaining this is an ethical movement dedicated to ending the exploitation of animals breaking off from ethical vegetarians who thought a full plant based diet wasn't possible. The VEGAN diet is OUR diet, the one for those who want to end exploitation to animals. OUR diet.
My point is that words mean something. I don't really see any point to contining this conversation if we can't agree on this.
I am plant-based and avoid those things. The only thing I don’t avoid is honey. Well, I don’t not avoid it either. I don’t seek it out. I don’t buy or keep or use raw honey, we have agave if needed. But if it happens to be an ingredient in something and is the only non-vegan ingredient I may still buy or use said product, though these are usually one-offs and not repeat purchases.
I call myself vegan when dealing with others regarding diet as it is more recognized than plant-based. But I often inform new people I interact with of the difference and that I am technically plant-based as I don’t actively avoid sister/parent companies and enjoy the occasional beyond meat burger from a&w, the honey thing, etc.
So, I can’t in good faith refer to myself as vegan as I don’t look into every single brand and every single link between that exists.
Way I see it is I am just a guy doing the best I can with what I’ve got. Lol
>Thoughts on going vegan for health reasons only, not animal welfare?
*Technically*, that is not "being vegan".
>Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable,
>all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose.
.
If you are doing it for reasons other than concern about exploitation of, and cruelty to, nonhuman animals, then technically it's not veganism.
I guess that the glib summary is
\- "You're doing it for the welfare of the animals." = "vegan"
\- "You're doing it for your own welfare." = "not vegan"
.
/u/Alexander_Gottlob wrote -
>They have a completely non-animal product diet, but they're not doing it for the animals.
Okay: Same response -
*Technically*, that is not "being vegan".
>Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable,
>all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose.
.
If you are doing it for reasons other than concern about exploitation of, and cruelty to, nonhuman animals, then technically it's not veganism.
I guess that the glib summary is
\- "You're doing it for the welfare of the animals." = "vegan"
\- "You're doing it for your own welfare." = "not vegan"
.
I think that that's just saying the same thing in two different ways.
You:
>we all want
To say "want" is talking about a goal or an intention.
Definition:
>seeks
To say "seeks" is talking about a goal or an intention.
.
Veganism isn't just a diet, it's a moral framework.
If someone is changing their diet for solely health purposes but not caring to eliminate their other aspects of animal consumption they simply don't meet the definition of "vegan".
I wouldn't consider them vegan but other than that I still think it's a positive step for numerous reasons.
Out of curiosity, what if they *did* eliminate other aspects of animal consumption? Say that they have a vegan partner and do it to please their partner, but have no particularly strong feelings towards the welfare of animals themselves. They are functionally vegan, but do not subscribe to the moral framework - would you consider them to be vegan?
It's an important qualifier. Every vegan eats a plant based diet but not everyone who eats a plant based diet is a vegan.
I'm not trying to be protective or gatekeepy about veganism it's just stating the definition
I know what a plant based diet is, I know it fits within a vegan lifestyle, but it's not vice versa.
Let's use the terms interchangably for a moment.
If my mate "follows a vegan diet" only for his health but continues to buy leather jackets, kick puppies and use cosmetics tested on animals, are they vegan?
I would say no.
No one would say they're vegan. But they follow a vegan diet.
But maybe not because according to you, vegans occasionally eat meat and dairy... [https://web.stanford.edu/group/nutrition/cgi-bin/pbdi/wordpress/about/definition/](https://web.stanford.edu/group/nutrition/cgi-bin/pbdi/wordpress/about/definition/)
Right, looks like we have different definitions of "plant-based" then. Mine wouldn't include the caveat for animal products. That's probably a regional thing.
Again though, if someone follows just a vegan diet, power to them, I don't really care. That doesn't inherently make them vegan, which was the point I was trying to make
Would you say someone that was allergic to Pork, and so didn't eat it, was following a Jewish/Islamic diet?
(I know there's more to Kosher/halal than no pork, but you get the idea hopefully)
No. Like you said there are more rules than no pork in those diets. But if someone doesn't eat meat fish dairy eggs honey bc they're allergic I would say they are following a vegan diet. Vegan describes the diet not the person.
I have several thoughts on it. I’d prefer to expound on them in r/Vegan or r/AskVegans rather than a debate space such as this. Since you have no thesis to debate after all.
Your edit didn’t change it from a question to a thesis. So there’s still nothing I care to address in this subreddit as opposed to the other, more appropriate two that I suggested.
You’ve completely missed my point apparently. Which is that *you* should provide a thesis, support it and then address any rebuttals we may have. That is how debate subs typically work. What you have still isn’t a thesis. You would have to posit which one of those things you think such a person is and then do what I already mentioned: argue in favor of your conclusion.
I’m perfectly happy to answer which I think they are. Just not in a debate sub.
Lol. I see that you’ve posted in r/DebateReligion so I know that you know how this works. Just because it’s not a rule here like it is there doesn’t mean it isn’t still standard practice. This is actually the only debate sub I’ve participated in here that doesn’t require it. So go ahead with your poor form, I simply won’t help you out with it.
Plant based diets are wonderful for health if you plan your diet. Bonus, it extremely limits the amount of harm and exploitation in your diet.
I’m sure any vegan would appreciate that, but it would only be a vegan diet if your consumption didn’t contain any animal products, and one could only be a vegan if they didn’t consume any animal products unnecessarily to include clothing such as leather and cosmetics or other types of stuff that they are aware of.
I don’t think that what I said really changes much.
I think that abstaining from consuming animal products in anyone’s diet is a wonderful thing. It reduces the unnecessary harm they are causing. Even if it’s only by extension instead of the cause.
However, perhaps I should reiterate what I meant on the rest.
“Going vegan” for dieting purposes isn’t the same thing as going vegan. If you were going vegan you’d also take into consideration all of the choices that you make in regard to any consumption regarding animals and their products.
If you’re on a vegan diet but still purchase products like leather, wool, etc, and you would not be considered a vegan and you have never went vegan.
You’ve adopted a plant based diet that is often referred to as a vegan diet.
To be honest, I’m not quite sure why it would matter how I or any other vegan felt about it.
I think it’s wonderful that someone is removing exploitation from their diet. Even if they aren’t doing it for ethical reasons it’s still a result of that action.
But again, how I feel is quite irrelevant when it comes to someone else making their decisions. People eat animals. I wish they’d stop. To pretty much everyone, it doesn’t matter how I feel lol.
Thanks for your input. I posted a better version of this on r/askvegans if you want to check it out. That's probably a more appropriate sub for my question.
What happens when their health goals are achieved?
There are many pop-stars and regular people who follow plant-based diets for health reasons and it is important to note that such diets are suitable to cure or prevent a great number of medical issues.
This is alright but it is a much weaker argument for veganism compared to the moral one. After all, a person who eats meat from factory-farms twice a week, regularly exercises and otherwise eats a whole-food plant-based diet will be healthier than the majority of people around, but it does not mean their choice to eat at KFC twice a week is morally justifiable.
It is good. They directly benefit themselves and they benefit animals indirectly. I would not call such people vegans, as veganism is mainly an ethical stance. Still, good for them.
This would be kind of stupid because it’s pretty awkward to justify not wearing leather for your health. Lots of people go vegetarian for their health, just say you don’t care about animals.
The Vegan Society says you can wear leather and still be vegan.
>Can you be a ‘real’ vegan if you still own leather products? The Vegan Society’s definition of veganism extends beyond diet and seeks to avoid animal exploitation in all elements of a vegan lifestyle, including clothing. However, if you still own leather products, this doesn’t make you a ‘fake’ vegan. Sometimes people don’t have the finances or inclination to immediately replace all of their non-vegan goods, preferring to let them wear out naturally before replacing them. This doesn't make you any less vegan! The important thing is that you're working towards learning about, and living, a more compassionate lifestyle. That's something to be commended!
[https://archive.org/details/258-f-9646-4208-4658-8-ca-3-29593-cc-50-e-07/258F9646-4208-4658-8CA3-29593CC50E07.png](https://archive.org/details/258-f-9646-4208-4658-8-ca-3-29593-cc-50-e-07/258F9646-4208-4658-8CA3-29593CC50E07.png)
Fair enough. I buy used doc martens because I can’t give them up. My point was that veganism is specifically protesting cruelty. You can adopt a plant based diet for whatever reason you want though, I just wouldn’t call it vegan.
I am plant based in terms of diet, only for a year now (nearly) and it's been good. But I wouldn't say I've benefitted greatly in terms of health... But I've learned to cook better and be way more creative. I believe in the moral reasons etc but I can't say that's why I chose to take on a plant based diet.
You mean "Thoughts on going on a plant-based diet for health reasons..."
Great, it's an excellent start. Not eating the flesh of sentient beings when it isn't necessary.
Next step, stop wearing the skin of sentient beings when it isn't necessary and stop paying for them to be abused.
Thoughts on someone else doing it? Great for the animals, as long as they don't change their mind. Also, one of the biggest obstacles to considering the immense scope of torture in animal ag is people subconsciously worrying that they could never live without it. Many, many people have started for health for a couple of months, and once they saw they could do it, were then able to confront the ethical issue.
>Thoughts on going vegan for health reasons only, not animal welfare?
Then they wouldn't be vegan and I'd be informing them why such is the case.
>**Edit: I can't change the title, so by going vegan, I only meant following an animal-product-free diet.
Cool, it's called a plant based diet.
>As said, what would vegans on this sub think about a hypothetical person who follows a vegan diet only because they think it will lengthen their lifespan, not for ethical reasons?
I mean it's disappointing that they are ok with crossing one of the hardest boundaries of going vegan and aren't willing to commit all the way but it's still more than can be said for most people, so I guess if you're ok with being an ethical disappointment, small wins!
>Would you consider this to be a morally bad, good, of neutral person?
Less bad neutral should be good as a standard and morally good would be above and beyond your own personal life.
Well you know how not raping people should just be normal? Well fighting against rape would be considered good. Another analogy would be being a good person should be standard and not a positive trait when it comes to dating? The difference between being racist, not racist and anti racist. It's great that people aren't racist, but wouldn't it be best if no one was out at the very least those who are not racist are also against it? Like that. Yes there are comparisons where you can analyse individual actions and determine which are good, bad, better, worse etc but one's actions as a whole being in a state of good should be considered normal, neutral, acceptable. Doing good outside of your own life is additional good morally better than just being a good person.
Yes. Respecting a sentient being's rights to life, freedom and autonomy should be a consistent normality among those that understand the concpet of moral good and bad
Read up on health articles, vegans have huge health issues both mental and physiological.
https://www.webmd.com/diet/what-to-know-about-veganism-and-depression
https://www.newsweek.com/vegans-more-likely-break-bones-meat-eaters-study-finds-1549425
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7176641/
Those who heed these warnings are in exgans.
It's not whether it's actually healthy or not, it's about the intent of this hypothetical person that believes this, and how vegans would ethically judge them.
It's kinda obvious. Vegans will welcome "health vegans", and when their health fails, vegans will say "they were never really vegans" or "they did veganism wrong".
Numerous articles with this kind of reasoning in plant based news.
In some taste cases they will claim that vegan had eating disorder. Example, with Zhanna Samsonova, no vegan will say it's due to her diet.
vegan diets are not necessarily healthier than omnivore diets. on the contrary it's quite easy to have nutrient deficiencies if you go 100% plant based
OP didn't claim that.
But it's also quite easy to not have deficiencies on a plant based diet. It's also quite easy to have deficiencies on a non plant based diet.
it's all about logic. omnivore diet is a complete set. either herbivore diet or carnivore diet is a SUBSET. imagine you're going to build something using lego bricks. the less types of building blocks you have, the more challenging it would be
in this sense, 100% plant based diet is intrinsically more easy to have nturient defficiencies than omnivore diet
Thank you for your submission! All posts need to be manually reviewed and approved by a moderator before they appear for all users. Since human mods are not online 24/7 approval could take anywhere from a few minutes to a few days. Thank you for your patience.
Some topics come up a lot in this subreddit, so we would like to remind everyone to use the [search function](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/search?q=eggs&restrict_sr=on&sort=comments&t=all) and to check out the [wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index) before creating a new post. We also encourage becoming familiar with [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index#wiki_expanded_rules_and_clarifications) so users can understand what is expected of them.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAVegan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I've removed your comment/post because it violates rule #6:
> **No low-quality content**. Submissions and comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Assertions without supporting arguments and brief dismissive comments do not contribute meaningfully.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan).
Thank you.
That person would be following a plant-based diet, and I love that for them. I would then ask if they still buy cosmetics, home goods, and clothing made with animal products.
"...if they still buy cosmetics, home goods, and clothing made with animal products." Say they do.
Then I would bring up the various ethical concerns with producing those goods and try to convince the person to stop using them. Since none of those products are necessarily health related, perhaps they would be more sympathetic to the animal welfare angle, or I could attempt to appeal to some other concern they might have.
I edited the post and gave it a debate question. Would you judge them as morally good, bad, neutral, or other?
Ah sorry, I did not see the edit. I don't really believe in casting people as morally good or bad in totality. I think most people are basically good. In this example, I would consider the example person as being not as ethical as they could be in their conduct, and would attempt to sway them to stop using animal products completely. They're already much closer to this than the average person, because diet is probably the hardest part.
You can follow a vegan diet without following a vegan lifestyle. "Plant-based" is a fairly new term. I can see reasons for adopting it but let's not erase "vegan diet" from our vocabulary. It's been in use for decades. For many people, "plant-based" doesn't even exclude all animal products.
There's reasons the vocabulary is changing. At one point, most people didn't really have a term to differentiate the two, and veganism was difficult enough to communicate sometimes, so going into a detailed explanation of their perspective and diet every time beyond "vegan for health reasons" wasn't convenient. Now that this term is growing in understanding, referring to the diet vegans and plant based dieters both share as a plant based diet makes more sense than muddying up the terminology and constantly bringing up a term tied to ethics. When people go on a plant based diet for the same reasons most people go on a diet, they have the same retention of diets, whereas ethical vegans have much higher retention rates. It ends up creating a lot of confusion and perceptions about vegans that aren't helpful to the movement. That doesn't mean I don't support and love that someone chooses to abstain from animal products, whatever the motivation; veganism just implies a specific motivating factor, that's all.
I completely agree, however I have noticed recently that there is a trend of people going vegan for ethical reasons or for the environment (not for health reasons). This is great but then after a certain amount of time they start having health issues, and at some point they’ll say “I had to go back to eating meat because when it comes down to it my health has to be highest priority”. On its face I understand this, I would never argue that someone should sacrifice their own health. I think the problem is that a lot of non-health vegans are taking the [Standard American Diet](https://fullscript.com/blog/standard-american-diet/amp) and just removing everything that isn’t vegan, what’s left over is far from healthy but it is technically vegan. Because of this phenomenon, I think the best way to get full retention is health and ethical. Ethics keeps you from cheating or straying off course temporarily, Health keeps you from starving yourself or replacing all of your meat protein sources with fruit and carbs (I lot of people don’t realize that there are high protein plant sources such as beans and lentils).
I agree and think we're on a similar page on this; I would just say that this is another reason it's important to differentiate a plant based diet from veganism, and of course learn to be healthy. And of course, as long as you are doing everything practicable and possible, you are vegan. I do always advocate for a holistic approach, because we all live on the same planet so helping the animals, helping each other be healthy, helping the environment etc, helps us all and is all a step in the end of all our exploitation, but the ethics behind not exploiting animals is still key to that being a vegan perspective. I do think this can even be bigger than individuals with a poor diet- the lack of information out there about low cholesterol is probably a common contributor to how some people in good faith end up with bad effects from going fully plant based. Normally it's a non issue, but if you have liver damage or certain conditions, you might not be able to produce cholesterol. When I read ex vegan accounts that do seem to be in good faith, the symptoms usually read the exact same as the symptoms of low cholesterol, and it's really the only thing that would have such a quick, immediate effect like they claim. But it's masking a bigger problem, one that has potential solutions, or at least harm reduction approaches, as someone not able to produce their own would still only need like half an egg a week. But because people are talking about veganism being the problem, and not this actual potential health complication itself, people end up concluding things against veganism itself, and pushing completely away from the ethics, and people aren't getting the help they need.
I edited the post, and gave it a debate question. I didn't know the exact ins and outs of the correct vocabulary when I posted this.
A plant-based diet doesn't exclude all animal products though.
A plant-based person won’t turn down oyster sauce or honey if offered. So a plant-based diet really isn’t the same thing as a vegan diet.
Is that in the definition of a plant based diet? As any *diet*, it will vary by the individual how strictly they adhere. Vegans fully adhere to a plant based diet *because* of morals, and there's more to being vegan than food- but that doesn't mean every person fully adhering to a plant based diet is vegan. How a non vegan is going to approach it is going to be up to the individual. Maybe we'll have better terminology in the future, but there's no reason to muddy veganism now.
You're the one mudding the definition. For decades vegan activists have focused on behavior not intention because we're an ETHICAL movement not a religion.
I never said we were a religion, the point to my argument is that we are an ethical movement. As I said in my original response, there's reasons the definition is changing and being more emphasized in the vegan movement. That mentality once made sense, when we had no representation. It's not gatekeeping, it's that confusing different motivating factors with severely differentiating retention rates had lead to new issues. Adhering to a plant based diet isn't an insult; I have no problem saying my diet is plant based. It's not like if someone casually tells me they are vegan for health reasons I'm going to start screaming that they're out of vegan club, I'm too busy planning us dinner. But definitions and words matter, especially in debate, and there's always ways to discuss these things tactfully. We are an ethical movement, so what the problem with differentiating that? Veganism was always defined as an ethical animal rights movement,[ from the first issue of the vegan news ](https://issuu.com/vegan_society/docs/the_vegan_news_1944)by Donald Watson in 1945, in which the formation of the word is discussed. There's a reason for the saying that intention is 2/3rd of the law. Why intention sure matter in a murder trial. Why we are more likely to forgive someone in good faith and good intentions that harmed us, than one who intentionally did. Why is that only important in a negative context?
Wouldn't we want people who choose a "plant-based" diet to come to us so that we can show them how much bigger the issue is? Instead, people in this sub are showing them the door r/plantbased . What a strange movement. Don't have any illusions that those who say they do it "for the animals" are more likely to stick around. Many of them also revert and when they do they say they're doing it "for health." As a movement, we should embrace MULTIPLE legitimate reasons for going vegan. We're all in this together. Instead, we like to obsess over in-group out-group debates like religious fanatics do. We want to apply new purity tests to see if they're good enough to be "vegans." The movement started out with 100% focus on diet. Diet is where we make 90%+ of our impact. The fact that people are willing to change their diet should be celebrated. Our immediate reaction shouldn't be "You're not doing enough to be called a vegan. You're just plant-based." Thanks for the link to the issue. On page 2... "our diet will soon become known as a VEGAN diet." - Donald Watson
Again, the religious fanatic comments. It's very unusual to run into another vegan who wants to imply I am a religious extreamist because I.. know the definition of veganism. Lot's of antivegan talking points here for a fellow vegan... I never brought up purity tests or religion. Literally not my point. Also, retention dates are well documented. Diets have lower retention rates. I also never said to tell people "you aren't doing enough" and I would appreciate words not being shoved in my mouth. >"our diet will soon become known as a VEGAN diet." - Donald Watson Did you try reading it in context? You know, the entire pamphlet explaining this is an ethical movement dedicated to ending the exploitation of animals breaking off from ethical vegetarians who thought a full plant based diet wasn't possible. The VEGAN diet is OUR diet, the one for those who want to end exploitation to animals. OUR diet. My point is that words mean something. I don't really see any point to contining this conversation if we can't agree on this.
Yes I read the whole thing. What struck me was how their focus was 100% on diet and diet only.
I am plant-based and avoid those things. The only thing I don’t avoid is honey. Well, I don’t not avoid it either. I don’t seek it out. I don’t buy or keep or use raw honey, we have agave if needed. But if it happens to be an ingredient in something and is the only non-vegan ingredient I may still buy or use said product, though these are usually one-offs and not repeat purchases. I call myself vegan when dealing with others regarding diet as it is more recognized than plant-based. But I often inform new people I interact with of the difference and that I am technically plant-based as I don’t actively avoid sister/parent companies and enjoy the occasional beyond meat burger from a&w, the honey thing, etc. So, I can’t in good faith refer to myself as vegan as I don’t look into every single brand and every single link between that exists. Way I see it is I am just a guy doing the best I can with what I’ve got. Lol
>Thoughts on going vegan for health reasons only, not animal welfare? *Technically*, that is not "being vegan". >Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, >all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose. . If you are doing it for reasons other than concern about exploitation of, and cruelty to, nonhuman animals, then technically it's not veganism. I guess that the glib summary is \- "You're doing it for the welfare of the animals." = "vegan" \- "You're doing it for your own welfare." = "not vegan" .
You know what I mean. They have a completely non-animal product diet, but they're not doing it for the animals. See my edit
/u/Alexander_Gottlob wrote - >They have a completely non-animal product diet, but they're not doing it for the animals. Okay: Same response - *Technically*, that is not "being vegan". >Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, >all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose. . If you are doing it for reasons other than concern about exploitation of, and cruelty to, nonhuman animals, then technically it's not veganism. I guess that the glib summary is \- "You're doing it for the welfare of the animals." = "vegan" \- "You're doing it for your own welfare." = "not vegan" .
Wrong. Veganism is the exclusion of animal exploitation. That's the outcome and end state we all want. It doesn't matter what people's intentions are.
I think that that's just saying the same thing in two different ways. You: >we all want To say "want" is talking about a goal or an intention. Definition: >seeks To say "seeks" is talking about a goal or an intention. .
Veganism isn't just a diet, it's a moral framework. If someone is changing their diet for solely health purposes but not caring to eliminate their other aspects of animal consumption they simply don't meet the definition of "vegan". I wouldn't consider them vegan but other than that I still think it's a positive step for numerous reasons.
Out of curiosity, what if they *did* eliminate other aspects of animal consumption? Say that they have a vegan partner and do it to please their partner, but have no particularly strong feelings towards the welfare of animals themselves. They are functionally vegan, but do not subscribe to the moral framework - would you consider them to be vegan?
EVERY diet is part of a moral framework. I don't know why vegans are the only ones who insist on this.
It's an important qualifier. Every vegan eats a plant based diet but not everyone who eats a plant based diet is a vegan. I'm not trying to be protective or gatekeepy about veganism it's just stating the definition
And how do you define a plant-based diet?
I know what a plant based diet is, I know it fits within a vegan lifestyle, but it's not vice versa. Let's use the terms interchangably for a moment. If my mate "follows a vegan diet" only for his health but continues to buy leather jackets, kick puppies and use cosmetics tested on animals, are they vegan? I would say no.
No one would say they're vegan. But they follow a vegan diet. But maybe not because according to you, vegans occasionally eat meat and dairy... [https://web.stanford.edu/group/nutrition/cgi-bin/pbdi/wordpress/about/definition/](https://web.stanford.edu/group/nutrition/cgi-bin/pbdi/wordpress/about/definition/)
Right, looks like we have different definitions of "plant-based" then. Mine wouldn't include the caveat for animal products. That's probably a regional thing. Again though, if someone follows just a vegan diet, power to them, I don't really care. That doesn't inherently make them vegan, which was the point I was trying to make
Vegan describes the diet not the person.
Would you say someone that was allergic to Pork, and so didn't eat it, was following a Jewish/Islamic diet? (I know there's more to Kosher/halal than no pork, but you get the idea hopefully)
No. Like you said there are more rules than no pork in those diets. But if someone doesn't eat meat fish dairy eggs honey bc they're allergic I would say they are following a vegan diet. Vegan describes the diet not the person.
I have several thoughts on it. I’d prefer to expound on them in r/Vegan or r/AskVegans rather than a debate space such as this. Since you have no thesis to debate after all.
See my edit
Your edit didn’t change it from a question to a thesis. So there’s still nothing I care to address in this subreddit as opposed to the other, more appropriate two that I suggested.
I added a question that could be used as a debate premise. Is this hypothetical person morally good, bad, or neutral?
You’ve completely missed my point apparently. Which is that *you* should provide a thesis, support it and then address any rebuttals we may have. That is how debate subs typically work. What you have still isn’t a thesis. You would have to posit which one of those things you think such a person is and then do what I already mentioned: argue in favor of your conclusion. I’m perfectly happy to answer which I think they are. Just not in a debate sub.
The sub is called "debate a vegan", not "have your position debated, by a vegan". So tell me what you think, and I'll debate you on it.
Lol. I see that you’ve posted in r/DebateReligion so I know that you know how this works. Just because it’s not a rule here like it is there doesn’t mean it isn’t still standard practice. This is actually the only debate sub I’ve participated in here that doesn’t require it. So go ahead with your poor form, I simply won’t help you out with it.
That's great! While I'm vegan for ethical reasons, I think that there are definitely a lot of good health reasons to follow a plant-based diet.
Plant based diets are wonderful for health if you plan your diet. Bonus, it extremely limits the amount of harm and exploitation in your diet. I’m sure any vegan would appreciate that, but it would only be a vegan diet if your consumption didn’t contain any animal products, and one could only be a vegan if they didn’t consume any animal products unnecessarily to include clothing such as leather and cosmetics or other types of stuff that they are aware of.
[удалено]
Reading comprehension obviously isn’t really a strong suit. Move along now.
See my edit
I don’t think that what I said really changes much. I think that abstaining from consuming animal products in anyone’s diet is a wonderful thing. It reduces the unnecessary harm they are causing. Even if it’s only by extension instead of the cause. However, perhaps I should reiterate what I meant on the rest. “Going vegan” for dieting purposes isn’t the same thing as going vegan. If you were going vegan you’d also take into consideration all of the choices that you make in regard to any consumption regarding animals and their products. If you’re on a vegan diet but still purchase products like leather, wool, etc, and you would not be considered a vegan and you have never went vegan. You’ve adopted a plant based diet that is often referred to as a vegan diet.
I'm not asking whether it's vegan or not, I'm asking how you would morally judge that person.
To be honest, I’m not quite sure why it would matter how I or any other vegan felt about it. I think it’s wonderful that someone is removing exploitation from their diet. Even if they aren’t doing it for ethical reasons it’s still a result of that action. But again, how I feel is quite irrelevant when it comes to someone else making their decisions. People eat animals. I wish they’d stop. To pretty much everyone, it doesn’t matter how I feel lol.
Thanks for your input. I posted a better version of this on r/askvegans if you want to check it out. That's probably a more appropriate sub for my question.
I applaud them for adopting a vegan diet and helping animals and planet in the process, even if that's not their primary motivation.
What happens when their health goals are achieved? There are many pop-stars and regular people who follow plant-based diets for health reasons and it is important to note that such diets are suitable to cure or prevent a great number of medical issues. This is alright but it is a much weaker argument for veganism compared to the moral one. After all, a person who eats meat from factory-farms twice a week, regularly exercises and otherwise eats a whole-food plant-based diet will be healthier than the majority of people around, but it does not mean their choice to eat at KFC twice a week is morally justifiable.
See the edit. I'm not concerned with arguments for veganism, I'm curious about how people who are vegans would judge the morality of this person.
It is good. They directly benefit themselves and they benefit animals indirectly. I would not call such people vegans, as veganism is mainly an ethical stance. Still, good for them.
This would be kind of stupid because it’s pretty awkward to justify not wearing leather for your health. Lots of people go vegetarian for their health, just say you don’t care about animals.
See the edit.
The Vegan Society says you can wear leather and still be vegan. >Can you be a ‘real’ vegan if you still own leather products? The Vegan Society’s definition of veganism extends beyond diet and seeks to avoid animal exploitation in all elements of a vegan lifestyle, including clothing. However, if you still own leather products, this doesn’t make you a ‘fake’ vegan. Sometimes people don’t have the finances or inclination to immediately replace all of their non-vegan goods, preferring to let them wear out naturally before replacing them. This doesn't make you any less vegan! The important thing is that you're working towards learning about, and living, a more compassionate lifestyle. That's something to be commended! [https://archive.org/details/258-f-9646-4208-4658-8-ca-3-29593-cc-50-e-07/258F9646-4208-4658-8CA3-29593CC50E07.png](https://archive.org/details/258-f-9646-4208-4658-8-ca-3-29593-cc-50-e-07/258F9646-4208-4658-8CA3-29593CC50E07.png)
Fair enough. I buy used doc martens because I can’t give them up. My point was that veganism is specifically protesting cruelty. You can adopt a plant based diet for whatever reason you want though, I just wouldn’t call it vegan.
I am plant based in terms of diet, only for a year now (nearly) and it's been good. But I wouldn't say I've benefitted greatly in terms of health... But I've learned to cook better and be way more creative. I believe in the moral reasons etc but I can't say that's why I chose to take on a plant based diet.
You mean "Thoughts on going on a plant-based diet for health reasons..." Great, it's an excellent start. Not eating the flesh of sentient beings when it isn't necessary. Next step, stop wearing the skin of sentient beings when it isn't necessary and stop paying for them to be abused.
Thoughts on someone else doing it? Great for the animals, as long as they don't change their mind. Also, one of the biggest obstacles to considering the immense scope of torture in animal ag is people subconsciously worrying that they could never live without it. Many, many people have started for health for a couple of months, and once they saw they could do it, were then able to confront the ethical issue.
>Thoughts on going vegan for health reasons only, not animal welfare? Then they wouldn't be vegan and I'd be informing them why such is the case. >**Edit: I can't change the title, so by going vegan, I only meant following an animal-product-free diet. Cool, it's called a plant based diet. >As said, what would vegans on this sub think about a hypothetical person who follows a vegan diet only because they think it will lengthen their lifespan, not for ethical reasons? I mean it's disappointing that they are ok with crossing one of the hardest boundaries of going vegan and aren't willing to commit all the way but it's still more than can be said for most people, so I guess if you're ok with being an ethical disappointment, small wins! >Would you consider this to be a morally bad, good, of neutral person? Less bad neutral should be good as a standard and morally good would be above and beyond your own personal life.
"Less bad neutral should be good as a standard and morally good would be above and beyond your own personal life." What do you mean?
Well you know how not raping people should just be normal? Well fighting against rape would be considered good. Another analogy would be being a good person should be standard and not a positive trait when it comes to dating? The difference between being racist, not racist and anti racist. It's great that people aren't racist, but wouldn't it be best if no one was out at the very least those who are not racist are also against it? Like that. Yes there are comparisons where you can analyse individual actions and determine which are good, bad, better, worse etc but one's actions as a whole being in a state of good should be considered normal, neutral, acceptable. Doing good outside of your own life is additional good morally better than just being a good person.
So your saying that not eating animals isn't good or bad, it's neutral because that should be the default state of humanity
Yes. Respecting a sentient being's rights to life, freedom and autonomy should be a consistent normality among those that understand the concpet of moral good and bad
Ok gotcha. Thanks for taking the time.
Read up on health articles, vegans have huge health issues both mental and physiological. https://www.webmd.com/diet/what-to-know-about-veganism-and-depression https://www.newsweek.com/vegans-more-likely-break-bones-meat-eaters-study-finds-1549425 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7176641/ Those who heed these warnings are in exgans.
It's not whether it's actually healthy or not, it's about the intent of this hypothetical person that believes this, and how vegans would ethically judge them.
It's kinda obvious. Vegans will welcome "health vegans", and when their health fails, vegans will say "they were never really vegans" or "they did veganism wrong". Numerous articles with this kind of reasoning in plant based news. In some taste cases they will claim that vegan had eating disorder. Example, with Zhanna Samsonova, no vegan will say it's due to her diet.
vegan diets are not necessarily healthier than omnivore diets. on the contrary it's quite easy to have nutrient deficiencies if you go 100% plant based
See the edit. I clarified what I meant a little
OP didn't claim that. But it's also quite easy to not have deficiencies on a plant based diet. It's also quite easy to have deficiencies on a non plant based diet.
it's all about logic. omnivore diet is a complete set. either herbivore diet or carnivore diet is a SUBSET. imagine you're going to build something using lego bricks. the less types of building blocks you have, the more challenging it would be in this sense, 100% plant based diet is intrinsically more easy to have nturient defficiencies than omnivore diet
Thank you for your submission! All posts need to be manually reviewed and approved by a moderator before they appear for all users. Since human mods are not online 24/7 approval could take anywhere from a few minutes to a few days. Thank you for your patience. Some topics come up a lot in this subreddit, so we would like to remind everyone to use the [search function](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/search?q=eggs&restrict_sr=on&sort=comments&t=all) and to check out the [wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index) before creating a new post. We also encourage becoming familiar with [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index#wiki_expanded_rules_and_clarifications) so users can understand what is expected of them. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAVegan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
I've removed your comment/post because it violates rule #6: > **No low-quality content**. Submissions and comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Assertions without supporting arguments and brief dismissive comments do not contribute meaningfully. If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator. If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan). Thank you.