how about honey?

[DrNatural]

Thanks, everybody for this discussion.

 

First, let me apologize - I didn't mean to come off as judgemental. I read that, Joe, as "Say WHAT? What do you think those bees are making all that honey for?" as in the previous post where bees were working overtime because their food was being stolen, etc. And the topic here is supposed to be about honey so I am not wanting to drag this off topic. I was trying to crack a joke about a bee penitentiary.

 

I have to concede the points you make, FL, about honey not being vegan. They are definitely an animal product, and I especially got that part about "would eggs be vegan if the animals were treated humanely? Would dairy?" Obviously, you are absolutely right and no matter how I treat them, it doesn't make them vegan. Does that mean that I feel differently about my bees and the honey? Um, I'm not sure but I don't think so. I guess I am an imperfect vegan that way. I don't know exactly why but there is a difference to me between eggs (which are bad for you) and honey (which is good for you). But where we diverge, FL, is when you say "Personally, I am against the use of animals for one's own gain, and to me that's a pretty good guide for why animal products are not acceptable." See, I'd put cats, dogs, parakeets, etc in that category. There is little question in my mind that pet guardians like me use animals for their own gain. Whether you rescue dogs (as I did) to have as working dogs (I didn't once have to show them a picture of a bear or a coyote - they just did what comes naturally to them, and I let them know how pleased I was with their inborn intelligence), or as companion animals who brighten your day when they greet you, it's still about your own gain. Feeding them, caring for them when they are sick, paying for vet bills, it's not all altruistic there. I don't see anything wrong with that in a mutually beneficial relationship.

 

Joe, that raw meat thing is tough for me too, but it seems to be not only what they like, but what seems to be best for them. When Luna came to me she was an old dog nobody wanted. She was crippled up with arthritis in her hips and was on thyroid medicine. After two weeks on a raw diet she was off her meds and chasing the tennis ball again. It's so much less inflammatory than kibble. This is a honey board so it's not fair to get into the debate about whether dogs need meat or not - my vet says they do and when I try to switch her back to kibble she gets crippled up again from the inflammation. My point is that we have this relationship - we love each other and I want to do what's right for them. This is such an expensive way to feed them, but I'd feel funny compromising their health to save money.

 

And that's all I was saying. I am trying to work out this balancing act where I share my life with animals - and bees, not have this "hands-off let them be free" attitude. Same with my garden and house. Same with the wild birds I feed. Same with the bears even.

 

As far as why bees make so much honey per se, well, I figure it's their nature. They will grow and grow and grow the hive until it won't fit into the space anymore. So you build them another hive and put part of them in there and they grow a whole new colony inside there. And so it goes.

 

Sorry if I came off in any way other than expressing my caring for the other species in my life. Now back to "how about honey"......

[veggieprincess]

I think the word "Veganism" is in a transitory state that needs to change...

 

I am tired and not going to be as eloquent as I would hope to be... but, nonetheless....

 

Our planet is dying. We are in a state of peril. We need more "vegans"....... however we want to loosely define that term for ourselves.

 

I am happy if omnis click on my website and eat 3 meals per week without meat.

 

I am happy if a meat eater eats a Vegan diet, but still eats cheese occasionally....

 

I am happy if PETA offends 20 Vegans to recruit 50 omnis to try a Vegan lifestyle...

 

I am happy if someone who calls himself Vegan recruits 10 friends and family members but doesen't see a need to throw out his already paid for wool rug or leather jacket...

 

I am happy if people want to go Pescetarian in the hopes they will find a way to one day go Vegan...

 

and I am happy if someone wants to call himself "Vegan" but still consumes honey or is a humane beekeeper to earn a little extra money.

 

All I want is to be a part of a community who embraces ANYONE who wants to see change in this world and live a more compassionate lifestyle... for the sake of the animals... for the sake of health... and for me.... it's so my daughter actually has a planet to raise her kids on.... There is more at stake here for ME than if someone does or does not eat honey...

 

Robert gets it.... and that is why he stepped into this kind of thread... whereas he typically avoids anything the least bit contraversial...

 

We've reached a point where it isn't about ANYONE being more Vegan than the next... its about getting more people on board by any means possible.

 

Please... somone write a book to redefine the word Veganism. I don't eat honey, but the point is... I don't care if my neighbor DOES and has a bee farm and wants to call himself "Vegan" because he doesen't eat meat, fish, chicken or dairy. He is HELPING more than HURTING this fragile planet. The only thing that saddens me, is that I am in a community where I feel I am a minority in this belief instead of a majority... I care that much... that it actually saddens me... as much as it probably saddens the pure/better/more/elite by-the-book Vegans that people eat honey....

[FormicaLinoleum]

veggieprincess, I think you are reading into what I have said (I'm assuming it's mostly me you are reacting to as I am basically the only one who has said honey isn't vegan).

 

This thread started because someone asked why honey was excluded from the vegan version of a bar, so the discussion here is to explain why. It's because honey isn't vegan. And it's not vegan because it's an animal product. That's just a straightforward answer to the OP's question.

 

I think it's easy to get things all confused and apply too much meaning to what people are saying when these whole "what is vegan?" discussion get going. When the question is whether eating/buying/doing X is vegan, the issue is just whether it's vegan. Not whether X is a deadly sin, or is going to save the planet, or makes someone better than another.

 

I disagree that the definition of vegan needs to change. To me, the idea behind veganism is pretty clear and isn't irrelevant. A vegan is one who avoids the use of animal products as much as is possible, generally because that person is opposed to the use of animals for their products, the treating of animals as belongings, etc.

 

There is absolutely no doubt that it is good for the planet and the animals for people to cut down on their consumption of animal products and that we should encourage that. But people who cut down yet don't completely give up animal products aren't vegans.

 

I guess my point can be summed up pretty simply. When I (or someone else) says "this person is not a vegan" that does not mean "this person is bad"! Often, the reaction to people trying to define veganism is as if we are saying that. Can't we say "if you eat fish, you aren't a vegan" without being treated as if we are somehow putting that person down? Is it really such an insult to a person to say they are not a vegan?

 

Whether someone is vegan and whether they are good, helpful, considerate, etc. are completely separate issues. If I hold the opinion that someone is not a vegan, I in no way mean to make any implications about all the rest. They are unrelated. If I have a neighbour who is the sweetest person alive, gives time and money to all kinds of causes, cares about the environment, yet has hens and eats eggs, I can appreciate all the wonderful things about her but still hold the opinion that she ain't no vegan. If it seems offensive to some that I should see her as a non-vegan, if it seems that my refusing to go along with labeling her as a vegan means that I'm taking away from all the great things she does, I just have to ask why 'cause I don't get the connection. It's not like I'd go marching next door and tell her she's no vegan and she's not good enough!! But if someone were to start a thread on here asking "are eggs vegan?" I'd say "no they aren't" and would defend that, and I don't see how that would have anything at all to do with how much I value the great things my neighbour does.

 

People who see labels such as "vegan" as useless and irrelevant won't give a toss whether I or anyone else thinks they or X is vegan, because they don't attach any importance to who or what is "vegan". I, myself, find the word to be useful to convey to other people what I do and don't eat and a bit about my beliefs (when I specify that I am an ethical vegan), so I do have an opinion about its meaning, which I tend to share when such discussions come up. I think that I do so in a non-judgemental manner.

[hilary wright]

Veggie Princess . . . very eloquently expressed. I agree 100% . . . if someone is at least making an effort, I am grateful.

[Vegan Joe]

Yeah, I guess it's like Murder, there are different degrees, all can be called murders, and all play in the prison yard together. It's just that at the end of the day, some go back to the maximum security part of the prison, while others go back to the farm and work in the laundry room. lol

But I guess it a crime to question one's or others beliefs. Unless of course it religious based. lol

[veggieprincess]

veggieprincess, I think you are reading into what I have said (I'm assuming it's mostly me you are reacting to as I am basically the only one who has said honey isn't vegan).

 

This thread started because someone asked why honey was excluded from the vegan version of a bar, so the discussion here is to explain why. It's because honey isn't vegan. And it's not vegan because it's an animal product. That's just a straightforward answer to the OP's question.

 

I know you were Formica Linoleum... and you explained it very well. Perhaps you were more on topic with your explanation than I was with mine. You are just as passionate at having people understand the true definition of the word Veganism as I am on the other end of the spectrum... which is letting people very loosely define the word. Hope I didn't offend you, because I truly do understand where you are coming from. I just have a different viewpoint.

[veggieprincess]

and for god sakes... can we please keep this thread as friendly and respectful as it has been going? It truly makes me happy to see a thread like this where people can agree to disagree in a respectful manner around here... and I would love to see more threads like this here on VBB.

 

(now I'm knocking on some wood and crossing my fingers that I didn't jinx it)

[FormicaLinoleum]

You are just as passionate at having people understand the true definition of the word Veganism as I am on the other end of the spectrum... which is letting people very loosely define the word.

That's all fine and good until the person using the loose definition is the person who indicates on a menu that a dish is vegan!

 

Really, my defense of having a clear definition of vegetarian and vegan is just pragmatic... if it's loose, then I don't know what I am getting when I'm given something "vegan". It's not at all because I want to poke my nose into what other people are doing or want to judge them.

 

Unfortunately, in order for "vegan" to have a consistent meaning and to be a useful guideline for people preparing/labeling/making decisions about food and other products, there has to be consensus and agreement about it. Which is why a 'let everyone do as they wish' approach isn't... pragmatic.

 

If people want to simply ignore such labels and not use them, that's completely fine with me, because it doesn't fuzzy up the meaning. It's the misuse rather than the non-use of such labels that gets me a bit excited.

[DrNatural]

Man! Thank you SO MUCH for all this discussion. FL, I am learning so much about this.

To borrow an expression from you, FL, here are some random thoughts:

First, the discussion was, what about honey and there was this stuff about honey not being vegan and being really cruel.

Then, I said it's not necessarily cruel and is good for you. But I never really spoke to the heart of the issue as to whether it's vegan or not (all cruelty aside). Now, here is something I learned from this discussion - vegan is vegan and cruelty is cruelty. Just because something isn't cruel doesn't make it vegan.

Then there was more discussion (mostly from me blathering) about how you can be in balance with the environment and still have animals and bees and so on, but FL made this point that just knocks me out: there is real merit to having and agreed-upon definition of what (not who!) is and isn't vegan, and there is no judgement about it. Do you know how sick I am of having to go to Whole Foods (of all places!) and read every label all the way through to see if the veggie burgers are vegan or not, and if not, why not, and so on? What if it just said "Vegan" and we all knew what that meant? For my part, now, I would have to concede that vegan burgers can't include honey.

I will still eat the honey I get from my bees. Or from my friends who are like minded. I will still keep my chickens and dogs. Maybe I shouldn't call myself vegan if I do, but you know something, maybe another label is something I could drop for myself and maybe vegan is something I eat, not something I am. You know?

Anyway, if you're ever in Santa Fe you should come see me. You would like Big Eden (the name of my house). I will feed you food with good honey or not, and I will respect your preference.

Thanks again.

[auburnoutlook]

VP i agree that a loose definition allows for more pople to test the lifetyle and see if it works for them. and that is awesome...like making vegan not so scarry.my boyfriend said he would never be vegetarian. a year later hes vegeetarian! but says hell never give up fish...maybe a year from now that will be different too.

 

FL i agree that if a "loose" vegan owns a restaurant you might not know what youre getting. and that totally sucks. the term "vegan" when applied to food should be strict.

 

Dr. Nat you rock. i cant wait to have chickens again. they are great friends.

 

so i know this post isnt about the term vegan but as always it sorta is. so the agreeable definition is... if you dont use a product from creatures,youre vegan, but you can use products that inevitably and/or accidentally harm creatures? this has always been confusing to me. im gonna go post this question in the appropriate forum.

[veggieprincess]

VP i agree that a loose definition allows for more pople to test the lifetyle and see if it works for them. and that is awesome...like making vegan not so scarry.my boyfriend said he would never be vegetarian. a year later hes vegeetarian! but says hell never give up fish...maybe a year from now that will be different too.

 

Exactly.... when it feels undoable for people, they often think they could never live by such "high standards".

 

A friend of mine said that he will "never ever go Vegan"... because of an incident that happened with his family. His brother and sister-in-law, and niece are Vegan. The neice really really wanted one of those plastic horses that your ride back and forth on a spring. The grandmother hunted for months for the perfect one for her grandaughter. She was so excited to give it to her grandaughter, and when she did, her dad said she couldn't have it. The little girl was in tears.... the mom was so angry she wouldn't speak to her son for months... and MY FRIEND... never wants to become one of "those people"...

 

Do you see how sometimes being too stringent can really hurt more than help? The brother has turned off the rest of his entire family from ever even wanting to try the lifestyle because of how "closely" they're following the lifestyle. Other Vegans might commend him for taking things to this extreme.. But the fact that he turned off his whole family (and the brother was really wanting to go Vegan before this)... This saddens me....

 

So I really do understand both sides.... but if people are just starting out, or thinking about it and they're confronted with these situations too early on or before they are ready, it can serve to hurt more than help.

[Tasha]

veggieprincess, I think you are reading into what I have said (I'm assuming it's mostly me you are reacting to as I am basically the only one who has said honey isn't vegan).

 

This thread started because someone asked why honey was excluded from the vegan version of a bar, so the discussion here is to explain why. It's because honey isn't vegan. And it's not vegan because it's an animal product. That's just a straightforward answer to the OP's question.

 

I know you were Formica Linoleum... and you explained it very well. Perhaps you were more on topic with your explanation than I was with mine. You are just as passionate at having people understand the true definition of the word Veganism as I am on the other end of the spectrum... which is letting people very loosely define the word. Hope I didn't offend you, because I truly do understand where you are coming from. I just have a different viewpoint.

 

 

Agree with Veggie Princess. She works with the media were it's so difficult to even say the word Vegan. People actually are scared of the word Vegan.

I know what it's like, I work with a Vegan product. And it's really difficult to sell something to omnivore a Vegan Product.

I say about 99% of the people would look at you like you had three heads, or laugh at you.

If it's done in the right way. You're going to make progress.

Most of us were raised eating meat and using animal by products. We all started there once.

So why judge someone because you're more vegan then them ? That's really not going to prove much.

 

Melissa thanks for changing other people's lives.

[DrNatural]

Do you notice I am blathering again? See, it gets dark very early here and there aren't alot of neighbors around so this is my way of staying connected with like-minded people.

 

But that post from VP about the plastic horse really struck a chord. See, I am a naturopathic doctor. I do integrated (read: natural) medicine all day. And I am active in alot of volunteer organizations. Mostly they are for gay and lesbian causes, but one of my favorites aside from that is this cool organization where we rescue real horses. Then, we take handicapped people out to ride and they connect with the animals and the natural environment in ways they couldn't otherwise do despite all their "therapy".

 

There are alot of reasons why it might appear that we are part of the problem rather than the solution, but I gotta say, we treat our horses very well. Sure, they are still in pens, and they have to "work", but there are some pretty sweet miracles you get to see when horse and rider connect in an important way. We have people who are very young and very old. Some have incredible physical obstacles to overcome, but we get them up there and out on the ride. Some have incredible mental obstacles and we get them out too. Can you imagine what it's like to see an autistic kid brushing a horse and talking to it?

 

Look, I have this personal issue about the "horsey set" and their elegant charity organizations. It sickens me. After all the discussion we've had here, I am beginning to understand why it's so obnoxious. And I don't mean to make more of this organization than it is. I am just a good horseman who takes people out on rides. Sometimes, I just walk beside the horse holding people up in the saddle. But it's good.

 

And do you want to be a good horseman too? Go vegan. Nobody - not even the best cowboys - will deny that horses smell the stink of flesh on you. They will invariably see you as a predator and your only way of working with them has to do with overpowering them. That's why you see these pictures of cowboys "breaking" a horse. Or, you can go vegan (well, vegetarian really) and that stink is off you and they will work with you as one of their own. And you know what? They WANT to work with you! You want to pop some paraplegic up on the saddle? They're much more curious than afraid. It just works better.

 

And WHAT, you are asking, does that have to do with honey???? Nothing, except that I think this thread has evolved into something more. At least it has for me and I thank all of you for that.

 

Your pal in Santa Fe,

Stefan

[Vegan Joe]

All said and done. One makes personal choices which basicly only affect oneself. At some point you are, or you aren't, a vegan. This is by your choice, so if you know that the label doesn't fit,and you are truely being honest with yourself, why would you use it to describe who you are? When you know that it is who, you are not.

[strawberryriddick]

Everyone's posted a lot of great replies. What did it for me was a link that a fellow vegan gave (I had the same question) and it said something to the effect of, "Bees work very hard to produce the honey that they do. They deserve to keep it." Honestly, that's true. Their honey is taken and usually replaced with some bullshit sugar-water concoction...if they get to stay alive, that is.

 

Especially with your roach hatred, it might be hard to think of bees as animals instead of just insects, but let one land on you and try to pet it (be gentle) and you'll notice that they are just loveable creatures.

[hilary wright]

The term "Vegan" and what it emcompasses to be Vegan has been constantly evolving over the years. When the movement first started it was mainly dietary, but soon grew to embrace animal rights. Seems now that many people have many definitions of what it means to be Vegan. I prefer to follow the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law, so I guess I'm not truly a Vegan any more. . . but I am ok with that.

Edited December 18, 2008 by hilary wright

[Richard]

I think people should stop trying to be "vegan" and instead just live in a way that they think is ethical. Don't worry about what it is called. If you're considering becoming "vegan" - think about why you're doing that. And then if there are any hurdles that you don't see the point of, do some research, and if you still don't see the point, just don't do it. It shouldn't put you off the other aspects that you think are important, whatever they might be. It becomes a silly argument when people don't see eye to eye on what is actually right and wrong in the first place, at a fundamental level. If I don't think someone is right to do something, I might say why, but beyond that if they don't agree with me, I am powerless, and my opinion of them shouldn't sway them anyway, only a logical argument that they can understand. So if I can't provide one that they can understand, then that's the end of the discussion. The focus shouldn't be on "well you're not vegan then" - because the word is irrelevant, and it isn't the goal (or shouldn't be).

 

As FL has pointed out, honey is not vegan, and the word vegan does need to maintain a strict definition for the purposes of food labels and general clarity. If you start to say that honey is vegan, and labels on food get altered in line with that, then the term becomes meaningless to me and it would be illogical and unrecognisable as a movement to discriminate in that way.

 

Regarding honey which you get from bees yourself - I am not an expert, but I think it can be done with minimal cruelty. I personally would not trust this, and I wouldn't take honey from bees, nor would I take honey from someone who assures me that they have not been cruel to the bees, I don't see how this can ever really be proven. But certainly, having your own bees - who don't even sting you when you're taking the honey - does seem to suggest that there is no great harm to the bees. But I still don't advocate it, because it is an unnecessary interference with the bees, who you cannot communicate with on a real level. Just giving the bees a home, and allowing them to live on your hand - without taking the honey - would be optimum in my opinion.

[FormicaLinoleum]

VP i agree that a loose definition allows for more pople to test the lifetyle and see if it works for them. and that is awesome...like making vegan not so scarry.my boyfriend said he would never be vegetarian. a year later hes vegeetarian! but says hell never give up fish...maybe a year from now that will be different too.

 

Exactly.... when it feels undoable for people, they often think they could never live by such "high standards".

I think the answer here is not to say to people who want to 'test the lifestyle' things like "it's fine--you can keep eating cheese but still be a vegan" but rather to say things like "it's fine, you don't have to be vegan--if you give up other animal products other than cheese, that's still a great step".

 

You can be supportive of people's desires to learn more and to take productive actions like cutting down on animal products without making the word "vegan" meaningless. I don't see the point of supporting loose definitions--I mean at what point does it become too loose? If someone wants to keep eating just a little beef, do you assure them that it's totally fine for a vegan to have a little beef now and then, just to avoid putting them off the idea? Or do you acknowledge that beef is not vegan but that it's totally fine if they aren't ready to become a vegan and explore what they are ready to do?

 

I say, stand strong behind what "vegan" means. If the idea of veganism seems too hard for people or is off-putting, then just don't use the word "vegan" in the conversation at all. If people say "oh, I could never be vegan--that's far too hard!" don't say "it's really not that hard--the definition is pretty loose and you can make veganism whatever you want it to be", say something like "well, if you don't want to go vegan, you could make these changes (e.g., reduce consumption, give up some kinds of animal products) instead and that would still be really great".

 

See what I mean? I think it's entirely possible to encourage people to make changes and not scare them with the big, bad "VEGAN" idea, without having to compromise on the understanding of what veganism is.

 

Of course, I think it is also great to demonstrate that veganism actually isn't as hard and scary as many people perceive it to be. I think that being good vegan role models and letting people see vegans who are fit, healthy, happy, and non-a**hole and who enjoy eating a range of foods is a great way of doing that.

 

Here is the Vegan Society definition.

[T]he word "veganism" denotes a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude — as far as is possible and practical — all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.

 

I think that makes sense. It's a coherent philosphy that hangs together pretty well. As Richard suggested, if you start trying to change it or evolve it, it becomes less consistent and meaningful.

 

I think that at the bottom line, we all pretty much agree. We agree that we should support people in doing what they can for animals or the environment. We agree that we shouldn't be judgemental of other for "not doing enough". We agree that trying to push people into going completely "whole hog" into veganism when they aren't ready could backfire and prevent them from making changes that they otherwise might have been ready to make.

 

I simply believe that all that can be done while leaving the meaning of the word "vegan" intact and not making it fuzzy or loose.

[vivalasvegans]

I don't think the plight of animals, or the rest of our exploited world is particularly served well by vegans being overly dogmatic.

 

Strict dogma doesn't alllow us to draw our own conclusions, draw our own lines, and it takes freedom of action away from us.

 

[T]he word "veganism" denotes a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude — as far as is possible and practical — all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.

Under this definition, we ought not eat any produce that comes from farms where bees are kept to pollinate the crops. Most of the flowers that end up being the produce we eat don't get pollinated by bees living in some random hives in some random trees. Those bees are owned, propagated, and used for pollination purposes. So technically, that produce wouldn;t be vegan under the official vegan society's definition.

 

Not to mention the human rights abuses that happen regularly and horridly as a result of the exploitation of growing the food we eat. That's part of the basis of a lot of the criticisms of unconscious racism/ethnocentrism/classism of the vegan movement: that a lot of us are more concerned about a bee who is humanely treated and the philosophical debate over whether the honey it produces constitutes exploitation, than the real awful and very torturous conditions that the people who are exploited to produce our food have to go through (even on many big organic farms.)

 

I personally don't believe DN is exploiting his bees. I might or might not eat that honey depending on my current state of mind. Probably not... but I do try to get produce from sources I know and trust, like farmers markets and local gardens, sadly that's not always possible.

 

For me, it's more about a harm reduction approach, flexibility, and consciousness than dogma.

[FormicaLinoleum]

I think the "as far as is possible and practical" is important. It isn't possible to eliminate all animal products or avoid all things that could prevent harm. I think the idea is that one tries to be aware and that one elimiates what can be eliminated.

 

Do you think that the opinions I have expressed in my posts are "overly dogmatic"?

 

No one is forcing any of us to be vegan or to consider ourselves vegan. It's completely voluntary. If it makes sense to one to consider oneself a vegan, then one should do so. If the idea of adopting a label and its associated philosophy seems too restricting and suffocating, then one don't need to consider or call oneself a vegan.

 

I do understand that there is room for diversity within veganism. Some vegans are animal rightists/abolitionists, others aren't. Some care about their impact on the environment, others don't. Some care about whether their vegan food has been cooked on the same surface as meat, others don't. Vegans can disagree with each other. That's fine. But there has to be some agreed-upon core ideas of veganism, or the term is completely meaningless.

 

It just seems that some people are saying that making the statement "X product is not vegan" is overly dogmatic and judgemental, which frankly, is just baffling to me. Some products are vegan, others are not. I don't see any room to let go of that basic idea without abandoning the term altogether.

 

I dunno, maybe people aren't even responding to my posts, but it seems like people are, because I seem to be the only person with a somewhat differing opinion in recent posts. It just seems to me that I'm saying completely reasonable things and then people are posting about how we shouldn't be dogmatic or judgemental and that we will drive people away by being crazy, hard-line, extremist vegans. Who are these judgemental, dogmatic, extremist vegans you are all talking about? Is it me? It just seems that there's a complete disconnect between what I'm posting and other people are posting seemingly in response. Are people just posting random thoughts on veganism now, or are you responding to/referring to me?

[Richard]

No, I agree with what you're saying Liz

[Tasha]

Honey isn't Vegan

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGqZaKmcRWQ

[blabbate]

I think the "as far as is possible and practical" is important. It isn't possible to eliminate all animal products or avoid all things that could prevent harm. I think the idea is that one tries to be aware and that one elimiates what can be eliminated.

I think the "possible and practical" exception is pretty vague. What's possible and practical for one person might not be for another, so you'll still have differing definitions of vegan.

 

I do understand that there is room for diversity within veganism. Some vegans are animal rightists/abolitionists, others aren't. Some care about their impact on the environment, others don't. Some care about whether their vegan food has been cooked on the same surface as meat, others don't. Vegans can disagree with each other. That's fine. But there has to be some agreed-upon core ideas of veganism, or the term is completely meaningless.

But, for example, I think it's completely possible and practical to make sure vegan food has not been cooked on the same surface as meat without being cleaned in between. I just don't think that should be a dealbreaker on the vegan label. That makes me more strict on defining what's practical, but less so as far as calling people vegan.

 

I dunno, maybe people aren't even responding to my posts, but it seems like people are, because I seem to be the only person with a somewhat differing opinion in recent posts. It just seems to me that I'm saying completely reasonable things and then people are posting about how we shouldn't be dogmatic or judgemental and that we will drive people away by being crazy, hard-line, extremist vegans. Who are these judgemental, dogmatic, extremist vegans you are all talking about? Is it me? It just seems that there's a complete disconnect between what I'm posting and other people are posting seemingly in response. Are people just posting random thoughts on veganism now, or are you responding to/referring to me?

This is my first response in this thread, but I don't think you're being judgmental. Dogmatic, sure, but that's not inherently bad. You have strong opinions on this, but you're not being rude about it. I think some folks are branching out from your posts into the realm of vegans who truly are judgmental, of which there are plenty, even though you don't represent them.

[FormicaLinoleum]

OK, so I am dogmatic, but am I any more dogmatic than anyone else posting on this thread is?

 

Let's say someone came to this forum and started a thread asking if cow's milk is vegan. How many people would say 'sure it is' or 'it depends--if you think it's vegan, then it is'? Or how many people would simply say that cow's milk is not vegan?

 

Is it any more dogmatic to say 'honey is not vegan' than it is to say 'cow milk is not vegan'? If so, why?

[auburnoutlook]

honey isnt vegan as in it shouldnt be included in vegan dishes. real simple. i think wearing wool from your companion sheep or from a sheep you know is well loved IS vegan. it does not harm the animals and you are not digesting the product. keep knitting Dr. Natural.