> 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 s

> 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.