5 ms·

Not quite. Veganism is a belief system, whereas fruitarianism is a diet. The latter is compatible with veganism since the diet contains no animal products, but

by grardb 6y ago

Not quite. Veganism is a belief system, whereas fruitarianism is a diet. The latter is compatible with veganism since the diet contains no animal products, but you can be a fruitarian who exploits animals in a non-dietary fashion (e.g. wearing leather, buying products tested on animals, etc.). Also, my understanding is that at least some fruitarians allow for some amount of nuts/seeds and leafy greens, but I don't know if that's universally accepted.

sneak 6y ago
I know plenty of non-ethical vegans. Vegan can also simply be a diet, as it is quite healthy, without bringing along the whole of the animal rights baggage (right or wrong).
- grardb 6y ago
  This is a definition only used by non-vegans. The word "vegan" was coined by Donald Watson in 1944, the founder of The Vegan Society. Their definition of veganism is: > A philosophy and 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; 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. The recent rise in interest in plant-based eating—while awesome—has unfortunately caused a lot of confusion about what veganism is. Many people who start following a vegan diet for health or environmental reasons* eventually become vegan, but this isn't always the case. * FWIW, my interest was sparked by environmental concerns.
  - yesenadam 6y ago
    > This is a definition only used by non-vegans. Hmm..mostly I agree with what you say in your 3 comments, (longtime vegan here, for ethical reasons) but this seems going too far. This is just a guess, which my evidence suggests is not correct, and it seems very odd presenting it as a certain fact. If someone has a vegan diet, sure I would call them vegan. What else?! (Well, I don't think I've come across someone who is vegan for non-ethical reasons, like their own health - vegetarian, yes, but not vegan.) I do avoid animal products, but I don't think of that as part of, or the same thing as, being vegan. Words don't always mean what they used to, or what some dictionary or society says. Meanings evolve and can't (mostly) be controlled. It seems the word, like many others, now has multiple meanings, and calling the use of other meanings than the one you prefer "confusion about what veganism is" seems..a political move, trying to attract/convert people to your cause[0], and not how it seems to you, a grammatical move to try to keep the Unchanging True Meaning untainted. I guess what you say makes sense if you only call people "vegan" when they use the word the same as you. Then, by definition, it's a definition only used by non-vegans. But the sentence I quoted appears to make much stronger claims, and it seems false to me. Well, I know it's false, as I'm a vegan in your sense, but use the word to mean someone with a vegan diet. [0] i.e. the cause of using the word the same way you do.
  - sneak 6y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman > No true Scotsman, or appeal to purity, is an informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect a universal generalization from counterexamples by changing the definition in an ad hoc fashion to exclude the counterexample.[1][2] Rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule: "no true Scotsman would do such a thing"; i.e., those who perform that action are not part of our group and thus criticism of that action is not criticism of the group.
    - grardb 6y ago
      Sure, but the difference here is that there is no one person who coined the term "Scotsman" with a specific definition of what a Scotsman is...
hombre_fatal 6y ago
The wiki page of veganism disambiguates between dietary vegans and ethical vegans.
- grardb 6y ago
  It does, but that page was likely written by non-vegans, who in general have a hard time seeing past the dietary aspect of veganism, since it's the biggest obstacle to becoming a vegan for most people. As I point out in another comment[1], the origins of veganism are very much rooted in animal rights. I grew up vegetarian, but I would never refer to myself as a "dietary Hindu." There's a lot more to it than just the diet! Typically, a vegan would refer to someone following a vegan diet as a "plant-based dieter" in order to distinguish between the groups. FWIW, I became a vegetarian at age seven (22 years ago) and became vegan a little over three years ago, and never in my life have I heard or seen the terms "dietary vegan" or "moral vegetarian" which are both mentioned in the Wikipedia article. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23992110 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23992110

by grardb 6y ago

sneak 6y ago

I know plenty of non-ethical vegans. Vegan can also simply be a diet, as it is quite healthy, without bringing along the whole of the animal rights baggage (right or wrong).

grardb 6y ago
This is a definition only used by non-vegans. The word "vegan" was coined by Donald Watson in 1944, the founder of The Vegan Society. Their definition of veganism is: > A philosophy and 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; 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. The recent rise in interest in plant-based eating—while awesome—has unfortunately caused a lot of confusion about what veganism is. Many people who start following a vegan diet for health or environmental reasons* eventually become vegan, but this isn't always the case. * FWIW, my interest was sparked by environmental concerns.
- yesenadam 6y ago
  > This is a definition only used by non-vegans. Hmm..mostly I agree with what you say in your 3 comments, (longtime vegan here, for ethical reasons) but this seems going too far. This is just a guess, which my evidence suggests is not correct, and it seems very odd presenting it as a certain fact. If someone has a vegan diet, sure I would call them vegan. What else?! (Well, I don't think I've come across someone who is vegan for non-ethical reasons, like their own health - vegetarian, yes, but not vegan.) I do avoid animal products, but I don't think of that as part of, or the same thing as, being vegan. Words don't always mean what they used to, or what some dictionary or society says. Meanings evolve and can't (mostly) be controlled. It seems the word, like many others, now has multiple meanings, and calling the use of other meanings than the one you prefer "confusion about what veganism is" seems..a political move, trying to attract/convert people to your cause[0], and not how it seems to you, a grammatical move to try to keep the Unchanging True Meaning untainted. I guess what you say makes sense if you only call people "vegan" when they use the word the same as you. Then, by definition, it's a definition only used by non-vegans. But the sentence I quoted appears to make much stronger claims, and it seems false to me. Well, I know it's false, as I'm a vegan in your sense, but use the word to mean someone with a vegan diet. [0] i.e. the cause of using the word the same way you do.
- sneak 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman > No true Scotsman, or appeal to purity, is an informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect a universal generalization from counterexamples by changing the definition in an ad hoc fashion to exclude the counterexample.[1][2] Rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule: "no true Scotsman would do such a thing"; i.e., those who perform that action are not part of our group and thus criticism of that action is not criticism of the group.
  - grardb 6y ago
    Sure, but the difference here is that there is no one person who coined the term "Scotsman" with a specific definition of what a Scotsman is...

hombre_fatal 6y ago

The wiki page of veganism disambiguates between dietary vegans and ethical vegans.

grardb 6y ago
It does, but that page was likely written by non-vegans, who in general have a hard time seeing past the dietary aspect of veganism, since it's the biggest obstacle to becoming a vegan for most people. As I point out in another comment[1], the origins of veganism are very much rooted in animal rights. I grew up vegetarian, but I would never refer to myself as a "dietary Hindu." There's a lot more to it than just the diet! Typically, a vegan would refer to someone following a vegan diet as a "plant-based dieter" in order to distinguish between the groups. FWIW, I became a vegetarian at age seven (22 years ago) and became vegan a little over three years ago, and never in my life have I heard or seen the terms "dietary vegan" or "moral vegetarian" which are both mentioned in the Wikipedia article. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23992110 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23992110