this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2025
2 points (58.3% liked)
Veganism
264 readers
2 users here now
Discussions and content about veganism (a moral philosophy opposed to animal cruelty and exploitation) and its practical application.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The article clearly cites the definition it is using. Anyone who's done the most basic research would have come across the exact same word-for-word definition used in the article. Veganism is compatible with using life-saving interventions that are produced from animals, such as was the case before synthetic insulin was widely available, or COVID vaccines.
Per both the definition and the fine article, "trying to buy less animal products" is not being vegan, fully or otherwise. Not sure if you are just speaking casually, misunderstood the thesis, or are rhetorically couching it to suit your own thesis.
I'm failing to see what your actual criticism is; maybe that the headline shouldn't have used the word "vegan"? I suspect that's not the reason all these people downvoted the article without comment:
Yes, as I said the article is correct based on the definition it is using, but that's not what people associate with being vegan. The highlighted part "as far as is possible and practicable" lends itself to a much more subjective judgment on veganism which could allow someone to be vegetarian (as in, consume animal products but not flesh) while fitting the definition of vegan if they had enough mitigating factors (e.g. lots of dietary restrictions preventing them from consuming most vegan alternatives). You don't see someone drinking (cow) milk and think "that person is vegan".
The article actually covers that immediately below the definition they give. Per the article, "trying to buy less animal products" is vegan as long as they are actually buying only the animal products they can't get alternatives for (see: living in remote area).
It's a blog, it's all casual. I was trying to point out that the definition they use, regardless of where it's from, is not the definition that most people use. Basically gatekeeping, but happening with vegans and non-vegans, if you assume the provided definition is the right one. I was directly criticising the thesis. I suspect any search engine will give you at least a couple other definitions of "vegan" without the pragmatic allowance (I checked quickly with Ecosia, first result is Wikipedia... fourth? result is vegansociety).
I suspect the reason it's downvoted is mostly because veganism has a bad reputation (I'd like to think it's getting better). I won't pretend to know anything about that, at best I'm plant-based but I'm not going to call myself vegan because my motivation for that is not primarily for animal rights. People don't like having their ways challenged; not much we can do about that without larger societal changes.