11 ms·

The article touches on this, but veganism is not about only eating plants - it's actually an ethical decision to avoid anything that harms animals. As such, fig

The article touches on this, but veganism is not about only eating plants - it's actually an ethical decision to avoid anything that harms animals. As such, figs are definitely vegan since the wasp is living its natural lifecycle.

michaelt 7y ago
I understand what you mean, but I don't know any vegans who would eat a steak from a cow that had died of old age.
- rhn_mk1 7y ago
  Anecdata vs anecdata, but I've met people who consider themselves vegan, while eating any kind of food destined to the trash to avoid the waste. That kind of behaviour could easily be misunderstood, so none of them advertise it much.
- croisillon 7y ago
  I have yet to meet an omnivore who would do it [edit: omnivore instead of carnist]
  - jlg23 7y ago
    Visit arid Africa: eating an animal before it was /used properly/ (could be as simple as fertilizing the land here in southern Morocco) is considered wasteful.
    - croisillon 7y ago
      do they eat animals dead of old age?
      - lostlogin 7y ago
        Can something die solely because it’s old?
        benj111 7y ago
        Does my car stop working because its old? Strictly speaking no, there will be a cause of failure, in practice everything wears out, age has increased the chances of things wearing out, so after a certain point age becomes a 'good enough' reason. I suppose if you want to be pedantic, a common failure mode isn't actually 'correct'. A heart attack isn't the cause of death, its oxygen starvation, so I'm not sure more 'correct' equals more useful.
      - Arnt 7y ago
        I wouldn't know about Africa. But I know a thing or two about keeping animals at the edge of the arctic. If you butcher when the animals are old, you have quite a bit lower risk of losing the meat due to disease, because old animals fall ill more than young ones. If you butcher, you have some control over the timing, which helps with using the food. You don't have perfect control, but more than random, and you reduce the risk of having to throw anything away. So if you use the animals both live and dead, it makes sense to optimise for keeping them alive long and die while still healthy (healthy enough to eat/use, if you want to be cynic).
  - jjgreen 7y ago
    Omnivores are generally polite enough to call vegans that which you call themselves, perhaps you'd like to return the favour?
    - croisillon 7y ago
      sorry the term didn't come to my mind, I updated my comment
      - jjgreen 7y ago
        Thank you
    - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
      Were you offended by the parents use of a term for meat-eater? Your's seems like a needless correction; it didn't seem at all impolite. People choose all sorts of inaccurate terms for themselves, your reasoning doesn't seem particularly sound either.
      - jjgreen 7y ago
        Carnist, I believe, is a term used by vegans to refer to those who support ideologically that it is acceptable to use animals for food, rather than someone who eats meat. There are people who do not eat meat, for religious or cultural reasons, and those are generally referred to a vegans, in the same way there are those who eat meat for cultural reasons (my father did it, his father did it, I've never really thought about it) rather than supporting some ideology. For vegans to label meat eaters (more accurately omnivores) as carnist, their ideological/political opponents is, well, not really offensive, but it does rankle. As social psychologists say, there is no in-group cohesion without out-group hostility, but it is a shame for vegans (for which I have some sympathy) to isolate themselves in this manner, particularly if they want to change the world for the better.
- rocgf 7y ago
  Veganism is seen as a label, but it's actually not a binary trait, it's a spectrum at the very least. What I mean is that there are vegans who would never eat meat under any circumstances, ever. There are vegans who would eat eggs if they know that the chickens laying them are living healthy lives. There are vegans who would also eat meat under some circumstances, but ultimately these things matter very little in the grand scheme of things because, again, it's not black or white. Most vegans are vegans because they are compassionate and caring people. They see cows as friends, not as a steak machine. Therefore, your argument is, honestly, irrelevant. It's simply a non-starter for most vegans, the same way as you would not eat a dead dog.
- ZeroFries 7y ago
  Buddhist monks won't purchase meat for themselves, but will happily accept an omnivorous meal as a gift.
  - eeZah7Ux 7y ago
    This is a generalization. In some traditions monks buy meat. In many traditions donors are invited not to donate meat or expensive or decadent food.
cyphax 7y ago
I think maybe there are different "kinds" of vegans. As in: maybe not all vegans are vegan because of the same ideology. One vegan explained his motivations like this: he's against slavery, using animals is like a form of slavery and he's against that. Even if you treat the animal like a king; it's still not free to do its own thing. I really liked his reasoning, it seemed consistent and coming from a good place. That logic would allow him to eat figs because it's a natural process, as you're no actor in the process of the fig forming itself.
- ma2rten 7y ago
  I'm not sure what you mean by "there are different kinds of vegans". The term vegan was coined by the Vegan Society. They have the following definition: "Veganism is a way of living that seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing and any other purpose."
  - proaralyst 7y ago
    But not all people who avoid more foods than a vegetarian do so because of that ideology. If those people's diets exclude all animal products it's useful to use the term vegan as most English speakers will understand what you mean. Language is defined by usage, not organisations.
    - cannonedhamster 7y ago
      I think my only really problem with this is that it creates confusion because of people using the term wrong. I've known too many people who say they are vegetarians but still eat meat frequently, or they eat fish, which is meat regardless of what Catholics claim. Vegetarians are people who eat no meat intentionally but may consume milk, eggs, and some other animal byproducts like honey so long as nothing had to directly die or suffer. Veganism is a higher level where the attempt is to remove all products and foods that are not plant based it that require some other creature too perform outside of it's natural life cycle. Pescatarians are people who are vegetarians other than the eating of fish. Raw food advocates do not cook their food. Jainism has a religious element to their food intake and behavior regarding other creatures. In any case it's either done for dietary or ethical reasons. The standard diet is to eat what's comfortable or easy with little thought to what you're eating. That's pretty much the only constant as there's numerous other non-veg diets out there that people eat for a variety of reasons religious, dietary, and personal. Me personally, I'm of the opinion that you should case about what you're eating and as long as you're comfortable with what that means regarding how it's procured, eat up
Grustaf 7y ago
Well, producing honey is also very much part of the bee’s natural cycle, as is laying eggs for the hen and unfertilised eggs don’t suffer. Of course commercial animal husbandry causes endless suffering, but most vegans would probably object even to naturally produced honey and eggs. Just saying.
- croisillon 7y ago
  bees and hens don't produce "naturally" food for humans, they have their own use of honey and eggs [addendum to people answering "bees don't produce for bears either" or "plants don't produce food for humans either" : that's a strawman, I merely commented the term "naturally produced honey and eggs"]
  - YUMad 7y ago
    Humans don't subsist on vegan diets naturally.
  - oeuviz 7y ago
    But neither do plants produce "naturally" food for humans. The produce it to reproduce and make the fruit delicios so animals eat it and transport the seed somewhere else to spread. Humans are very bad in spreading plants by means of eating and deposing the seed.
    - pygy_ 7y ago
      ... but they are vert good at speeading seeds by other means. BTW, vegetable farming, be it organic or conventional (especially conventionnel) isn’t exactly non-human animal friendly.
    - Grustaf 7y ago
      Exactly. Though it’s reasonable to make a distinction between plants and animals of course. But still, veganism isn’t as clearcut as it would first seem.
    - cannonedhamster 7y ago
chris_wot 7y ago
How does milking a cow harm an animal?
- ToolsDevler 7y ago
  Cows are manipulated to produce much much more milk than they would naturally. Also the machnines doing the work are harsh and painful. But even when it is from a farmer doing everything by hand on a really happy cow. Being vegan means in the first place avoiding everything produced by or out of animals. The rule "It must not harm any animal to be vegan" is an additional rule for products which are not made by or out of animals. Standard super market milk violates both rules. Source: A friend of mine is vegan since almost 20 years (before it was hyped).
  - ianai 7y ago
    Animals only produce milk for their young. In order for humans to take that milk humans forcibly impregnate the animal then kill its young shortly after birth - never giving it any of its mothers milk. That’s why all dairy is not vegan.
- Lio 7y ago
  I'm neither vegan nor vegetarian but in order to have a female cow produce milk regularly you need to cycle it through pregnancy. So the question is what happens to the calves? Well the females go on to be milk cows but males calves are raised just long enough to be slaughtered. If the male is particularly unlucky it will become a veal calf, which I'm sure you'll agree is not a great life. If the male cow is "lucky" it will be castrated and allowed to grow into a bullock (British terminology, known as a steer in USA). Very rarely a male calf will be raised breeding but it's a pretty small chance. So milk. In the case of egg laying hens, most male chicks will go off to be gassed as they have no commercial value. So eggs.
  - ianai 7y ago
    Gassing may be one option. Another thigh is simply grinding them alive.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

michaelt 7y ago

I understand what you mean, but I don't know any vegans who would eat a steak from a cow that had died of old age.

rhn_mk1 7y ago
Anecdata vs anecdata, but I've met people who consider themselves vegan, while eating any kind of food destined to the trash to avoid the waste. That kind of behaviour could easily be misunderstood, so none of them advertise it much.
croisillon 7y ago
I have yet to meet an omnivore who would do it [edit: omnivore instead of carnist]
- jlg23 7y ago
  Visit arid Africa: eating an animal before it was /used properly/ (could be as simple as fertilizing the land here in southern Morocco) is considered wasteful.
  - croisillon 7y ago
    do they eat animals dead of old age?
    - lostlogin 7y ago
      Can something die solely because it’s old?
      - benj111 7y ago
        Does my car stop working because its old? Strictly speaking no, there will be a cause of failure, in practice everything wears out, age has increased the chances of things wearing out, so after a certain point age becomes a 'good enough' reason. I suppose if you want to be pedantic, a common failure mode isn't actually 'correct'. A heart attack isn't the cause of death, its oxygen starvation, so I'm not sure more 'correct' equals more useful.
    - Arnt 7y ago
      I wouldn't know about Africa. But I know a thing or two about keeping animals at the edge of the arctic. If you butcher when the animals are old, you have quite a bit lower risk of losing the meat due to disease, because old animals fall ill more than young ones. If you butcher, you have some control over the timing, which helps with using the food. You don't have perfect control, but more than random, and you reduce the risk of having to throw anything away. So if you use the animals both live and dead, it makes sense to optimise for keeping them alive long and die while still healthy (healthy enough to eat/use, if you want to be cynic).
- jjgreen 7y ago
  Omnivores are generally polite enough to call vegans that which you call themselves, perhaps you'd like to return the favour?
  - croisillon 7y ago
    sorry the term didn't come to my mind, I updated my comment
    - jjgreen 7y ago
      Thank you
  - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
    Were you offended by the parents use of a term for meat-eater? Your's seems like a needless correction; it didn't seem at all impolite. People choose all sorts of inaccurate terms for themselves, your reasoning doesn't seem particularly sound either.
    - jjgreen 7y ago
      Carnist, I believe, is a term used by vegans to refer to those who support ideologically that it is acceptable to use animals for food, rather than someone who eats meat. There are people who do not eat meat, for religious or cultural reasons, and those are generally referred to a vegans, in the same way there are those who eat meat for cultural reasons (my father did it, his father did it, I've never really thought about it) rather than supporting some ideology. For vegans to label meat eaters (more accurately omnivores) as carnist, their ideological/political opponents is, well, not really offensive, but it does rankle. As social psychologists say, there is no in-group cohesion without out-group hostility, but it is a shame for vegans (for which I have some sympathy) to isolate themselves in this manner, particularly if they want to change the world for the better.
rocgf 7y ago
Veganism is seen as a label, but it's actually not a binary trait, it's a spectrum at the very least. What I mean is that there are vegans who would never eat meat under any circumstances, ever. There are vegans who would eat eggs if they know that the chickens laying them are living healthy lives. There are vegans who would also eat meat under some circumstances, but ultimately these things matter very little in the grand scheme of things because, again, it's not black or white. Most vegans are vegans because they are compassionate and caring people. They see cows as friends, not as a steak machine. Therefore, your argument is, honestly, irrelevant. It's simply a non-starter for most vegans, the same way as you would not eat a dead dog.
ZeroFries 7y ago
Buddhist monks won't purchase meat for themselves, but will happily accept an omnivorous meal as a gift.
- eeZah7Ux 7y ago
  This is a generalization. In some traditions monks buy meat. In many traditions donors are invited not to donate meat or expensive or decadent food.

cyphax 7y ago

I think maybe there are different "kinds" of vegans. As in: maybe not all vegans are vegan because of the same ideology. One vegan explained his motivations like this: he's against slavery, using animals is like a form of slavery and he's against that. Even if you treat the animal like a king; it's still not free to do its own thing. I really liked his reasoning, it seemed consistent and coming from a good place. That logic would allow him to eat figs because it's a natural process, as you're no actor in the process of the fig forming itself.

ma2rten 7y ago
I'm not sure what you mean by "there are different kinds of vegans". The term vegan was coined by the Vegan Society. They have the following definition: "Veganism is a way of living that seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing and any other purpose."
- proaralyst 7y ago
  But not all people who avoid more foods than a vegetarian do so because of that ideology. If those people's diets exclude all animal products it's useful to use the term vegan as most English speakers will understand what you mean. Language is defined by usage, not organisations.
  - cannonedhamster 7y ago
    I think my only really problem with this is that it creates confusion because of people using the term wrong. I've known too many people who say they are vegetarians but still eat meat frequently, or they eat fish, which is meat regardless of what Catholics claim. Vegetarians are people who eat no meat intentionally but may consume milk, eggs, and some other animal byproducts like honey so long as nothing had to directly die or suffer. Veganism is a higher level where the attempt is to remove all products and foods that are not plant based it that require some other creature too perform outside of it's natural life cycle. Pescatarians are people who are vegetarians other than the eating of fish. Raw food advocates do not cook their food. Jainism has a religious element to their food intake and behavior regarding other creatures. In any case it's either done for dietary or ethical reasons. The standard diet is to eat what's comfortable or easy with little thought to what you're eating. That's pretty much the only constant as there's numerous other non-veg diets out there that people eat for a variety of reasons religious, dietary, and personal. Me personally, I'm of the opinion that you should case about what you're eating and as long as you're comfortable with what that means regarding how it's procured, eat up

Grustaf 7y ago

Well, producing honey is also very much part of the bee’s natural cycle, as is laying eggs for the hen and unfertilised eggs don’t suffer. Of course commercial animal husbandry causes endless suffering, but most vegans would probably object even to naturally produced honey and eggs. Just saying.

croisillon 7y ago
bees and hens don't produce "naturally" food for humans, they have their own use of honey and eggs [addendum to people answering "bees don't produce for bears either" or "plants don't produce food for humans either" : that's a strawman, I merely commented the term "naturally produced honey and eggs"]
- YUMad 7y ago
  Humans don't subsist on vegan diets naturally.
- oeuviz 7y ago
  But neither do plants produce "naturally" food for humans. The produce it to reproduce and make the fruit delicios so animals eat it and transport the seed somewhere else to spread. Humans are very bad in spreading plants by means of eating and deposing the seed.
  - pygy_ 7y ago
    ... but they are vert good at speeading seeds by other means. BTW, vegetable farming, be it organic or conventional (especially conventionnel) isn’t exactly non-human animal friendly.
  - Grustaf 7y ago
    Exactly. Though it’s reasonable to make a distinction between plants and animals of course. But still, veganism isn’t as clearcut as it would first seem.
  - cannonedhamster 7y ago

chris_wot 7y ago

How does milking a cow harm an animal?

ToolsDevler 7y ago
Cows are manipulated to produce much much more milk than they would naturally. Also the machnines doing the work are harsh and painful. But even when it is from a farmer doing everything by hand on a really happy cow. Being vegan means in the first place avoiding everything produced by or out of animals. The rule "It must not harm any animal to be vegan" is an additional rule for products which are not made by or out of animals. Standard super market milk violates both rules. Source: A friend of mine is vegan since almost 20 years (before it was hyped).
- ianai 7y ago
  Animals only produce milk for their young. In order for humans to take that milk humans forcibly impregnate the animal then kill its young shortly after birth - never giving it any of its mothers milk. That’s why all dairy is not vegan.
Lio 7y ago
I'm neither vegan nor vegetarian but in order to have a female cow produce milk regularly you need to cycle it through pregnancy. So the question is what happens to the calves? Well the females go on to be milk cows but males calves are raised just long enough to be slaughtered. If the male is particularly unlucky it will become a veal calf, which I'm sure you'll agree is not a great life. If the male cow is "lucky" it will be castrated and allowed to grow into a bullock (British terminology, known as a steer in USA). Very rarely a male calf will be raised breeding but it's a pretty small chance. So milk. In the case of egg laying hens, most male chicks will go off to be gassed as they have no commercial value. So eggs.
- ianai 7y ago
  Gassing may be one option. Another thigh is simply grinding them alive.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]