"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Skanky wrote:
> >>>When he broke his vegan diet
> >>
> >>Diet is not vegan. Diet is food. Veganism is about animal rights.
> >
> > Veganism is defined as diet.
>
> Wrong.

As the MAIN DEFINITION, it's diet
only.

> > Only the old fashioned original meaning
>
> WTF are you prating about now, Skanky? The original meaning hasn't
changed.

You snipped what I was talking about.
The fact that the main definition in that
dictionary is a dietary only one. The
SPECIALTY DEFINITION is the one
where you are only vegan if you are
an animal rights activist as well as
the diet. Even though it may have
been the original definition, it seems
that it's become antiquated, and
put into the specialty definition section.

> > meant that it had to go hand in hand
> > with the concept of animal rights.
>
> It still does.

Not always.

> > Some people (like you) take on a
> > vegan diet for health and/or
> > aesthetic reasons.
>
> Diets aren't vegan. AR-types are. Veganism and AR go hand-in-hand. You
> do not have veganism without AR.
>
> > The older original meaning
>
> It still prevails.
>
> > http://www.websters-online-dictionar...finition/vegan
>
> From that page:

Under SPECIALTY DEFINITION:

> Motivation
> Vegans use as their primary motivation the concept of reducing
> animal suffering. Rooted in utilitarian philosophy, as expressed
> by authors such as Jeremy Bentham and Peter Singer, ethical
> veganism is the belief that humans have a moral obligation to
> avoid causing suffering to any other living creature. Animals
> are seen to have the same inherent rights as humans to a life as
> free from suffering as possible....
>
> There is no such thing as a "dietary vegan." A "total
> vegetarian" may eat a diet free of animals products for health
> reasons, such as avoiding cholesterol, and not out of compassion
> for animals. However, popular vegan author Joanne Stepaniak
> writes that the term "dietary vegan" is inappropriate because
> veganism is by definition about helping animals, and a term such
> as "total vegetarian" should be used for people who avoid eating
> animal products for health reasons but, for example, buy leather
> shoes.

Animal rights = animal rights.
Vegan = a diet of no animal
products, according to the MAIN
DEFINITION

> IOW, it's all about animal rights.
>
> > You are confused,
>
> No, dopey, you are. WTF do you think YOUR OWN SOURCE means when it says
> "There is no such thing as a 'dietary vegan'"?

That's under SPECIALTY DEFINITION.

> > On the one hand, you are (mostly) a dietary
> > vegan,
>
> Look more closely at your own source, you dope-smoking retard:
> THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "DIETARY VEGAN." A "total
> vegetarian" may eat a diet free of animals products for health
> reasons, such as avoiding cholesterol, and not out of compassion
> for animals. However, popular vegan author Joanne Stepaniak
> writes that THE TERM "DIETARY VEGAN" IS INAPPROPRIATE BECAUSE
> VEGANISM IS BY DEFINITION ABOUT HELPING ANIMALS, and a term such
> as "total vegetarian" should be used for people who avoid eating
> animal products for health reasons but, for example, buy leather
> shoes.

You don't get it, do you. There are
2 current definitions out these days.
And there's nothing wrong with that.
Just accept that some people have the
main def. and some the specialty def.
Some ARs themselves think of the
word vegan as referring to their diet.

> > and on the other, you hate
> > those who believe in animal rights.
>
> I don't hate anyone, I object to the ridiculous assertion that animals
> have, or should have, rights.

So, you don't think that there any
improvements needed in regards
to how our (humans) actions effect
them?


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/