The official agenda of this thread is to help people eat more optimally. But most of this thread is just flesh eaters denying the science.

I know what the "official" agenda of the thread is, but I clearly asked you what the "actual" agenda of the thread is. I know what it is, but I'm not sure why you just don't own up to it.

The optimal wfpb diet just so happens to be the most ethical..

Im all for allowing oeople their free will. Until a victim is involved, then i stand up for the voiceless.

Of all the useless stuff you will read on the internets this is the one thread that could instantly make you feel better

The official agenda is the actual agenda. If this thread can help even one person transition to a WFPB diet, or even just a more plant-based diet, it will have served its purpose. I became a WFPB vegan for health reasons, not for ethical reasons. I must say tho that when I went WFPB I was not aware "that animal agriculture [was by far] the leading cause of climate change" and I also wasn't aware that veganism itself could actually save our rapidly dying planet. In fact I now find it very plausible that a critical mass of the world population going plant-based may be the only way to save our planet. So yeah I do want people to go WFPB becuz I like the idea of them being healthier, feeling better, thinking clearer, having better sex, not having heart disease/diabetes/colon cancer, etc, being around for their great grand kids, being in their 80s and still active and not on 10 different medications. But I also like the idea of not destroying our planet, not torturing and murdering billions of animals, lowering the probability of future pandemics as much as possible, etc. If ANY of those topics could motivate someone to move towards a WFPB diet I am all for it.

At least you're transparent. So how long have you been WFPB? OP has for 4 years, you? In my experience, the loudest have been for the shortest. There have also been quite a few sub-optimal recipes/pics posted itt... canned black beans? Really? I guess it's a start...

0 days

I just dont eat animal products for about 4 years. Whatever cool title that makes me. I suppose im “vegan”. Being vegan is not cool by the way and it pretty much makes the average meat slobbering baffoon hate you.

But to me i was always an empath so to say that my diet changed who i was is bothersome. I always considered myself a lover of life and all things good.

I just so happened to stop eating animal and put the proverbial 1 and 1 together.

Its also bothersome that a wfpb, vegan, vegetarian or whatever you are land wouldnt care about other people. When to me the whole point of being vegan is because you care about others lives and other living things.

So to be honest that fact you dont care about other makes me think you missed the whole point of being vegan.

Im glad its healthy for you im sure the animals appreciate that at least.

To me arguing over wfpb diet being optimal isnt an argument so i had to infuse some ethics. You have people who cherry pick science vs what the actual science tells us and you have triolls that hate vegans in here. Maybe i love poker is right and maybe the thread can die. But if one person changes their ways thats good for me.

Sorry for derail.

Well, veganism is not a diet; it's an ideology. I suppose that makes neither of us vegans.

Easy there, Freddie Mercury. When did I say I don't care about people? I care about people enough to let them live their lives as they see fit without me preaching to them. I have some friends I've known for 20 years who don't know that I haven't eaten meat in almost 35 years.

I'm not sure the animals are intelligent enough to appreciate my diet, but if it makes you think the animals appreciate it, then that's good enough for me.

As for ethics, since you seem to think that's the only relevant argument to be had, why don't you become a vegan and walk the talk?

I dare say a vegan diet can be very healthy. But nothing I've seen in the thread convinces me it's healthier than a calorie controlled, varied diet, with lots of fruit and veg. If the diet is high in fibre and low in processed food, I think it tends to well in trials.

If I'm correct, that leaves the ancillary benefits as the main ones.

I have 0 days of WFPB as i ate somthing processed today.. but i am “vegan” for 4 years

Again, veganism is an ideology, not a diet. Saying you eat a vegan diet (aka, pure vegetarian) is worlds apart from saying you're a vegan. If you feel the need to put vegan in quotes to describe yourself, as you have multiple times already, then you most certainly aren't a vegan.

Titles are dumb thats why i use quotes..

I was pointing out the ideology in that my ideology was to be a compassionate person long before i stopped eating animal products

Inversely If someone isnt eating animal products but doesnt have compassion for other living things then they are devoid of the ideology

While this is a useful way to view things, I don't think it is strictly true.

For example, a child who follows a vegan diet but doesn't have the mental capacity to process ideology would not be incorrectly described as vegan.

But we don't even have to go that far. Here is what wikipedia says:

So it would seem that adhering to the diet alone is sufficient for one to self-identify as vegan.

Titles are dumb? They're words, and words are used to convey specific things.

Your beef [sic] with the word vegan is that most people think vegans are sanctimonious douchebags. Well, like George Carlin said, changing the word is not going to change what it is. Change the behavior, and the connotation will change along with it.

With that out of the way, not eating animal products is a very small part of being vegan. For example, what is the source of your DHA/EPA & D3? Do you ever use aspirin? What brand shampoo do you use? Which car do you drive? Pants? Shoes? Belts?

Those things are far more challenging than not eating animal products.

Well, a child without self-realization would then be following a vegan diet, which is a pure vegetarian diet.

As for Wiki, lmao. That is crowd-sourced nonsense. Yes, most people think by abstaining from animals in your diet makes you a vegan. Many people have lots of misconceptions of things. Self-identify... well, sure. Some people self-identify as a robot, but that doesn't make it so.

And someone who follows a vegan diet and refers to themselves "vegan" is at worst being ambiguous, but they're not wrong. This would be a natural way for native speakers of English to communicate.

Imagine the following exchange:
Server at restaurant: Do you have any dietary restrictions?
Customer: I'm vegan

There is nothing wrong with that. Even if the customer doesn't buy into the whole philosophy.


Well we can choose crowd-sourced or LOL-sourced. You're just asserting stuff here with no actual sourcing.

For example, many vegetarians define being vegetarian as not eating products that involve animal slaughter. So they're OK with milk, for example.

Here's some other non-wikipedia sources on that

Vegetarian Society:
https://vegsoc.org/info-hub/definition/

European Vegetarian Union
https://www.euroveg.eu/wp-content/up...Definition.pdf

I mean you can make up and assert your own definitions if you want. But there are a lot of people who use these words differently from you. Sorry for the bad news.

Yes, if you tell a server that you're a vegan, he or she will know that you do not consume meat or dairy, and story over. If they see you sporting some Allen Edmonds, then he or she will likely just think you're just another hypocritical vegan.

For me, I just tell the server that I don't eat dairy because I never eat anything that could possibly have any hidden animal stock/marinades hidden in there.


LOL-sourced much more accurate here. My source below.

Yes, ovo-lacto vegetarian is the default definition when someone says vegetarian. This is why pure vegetarian exists - to differentiate the two.

Those are the same donk sources wiki references.

My source comes from going to the library in the 1980's, you know, before public internet access, and grabbing one of those 5000 page reference books that they do not let you check out and will only allow you to read them in one specific place in the library.

Fruitarian, breatharian, macrobiotic, ovo-lacto, pure, pescatarian, et al., were all in there. I can't help if any schmoe with internet access bastardizes it and gets enough clicks to be viewed as an actual valid source.

Call me old-fashioned, but no matter how many dictionaries the word "diss" shows up in, it's still just a bastardized slang version of the word "disrespect" to me.

Same basic logic applies here.

FYP.

Your problem is that you just don't understand how language works. You don't own it, bro. That's not how it works. If a large number of people use a word a certain way, then it eventually (and sometimes unfortunately) becomes an accepted usage (but probably not the only accepted usage).

Believe me, I understand your frustration. Some of it is complete ****. I'm mostly a purist at heart on these issues, so I get where you're coming from.

Even pure-Vegetarian is not as universal as you think. For example, here's what a group of Hindus define that as. And I assume they are relying on sources that pre-date your 1980s library run.

I'm sure they're "donks" too, but here the source for completeness.
Source:
https://hinducouncil.com.au/new/proj...getarian-diet/



There are tons of people who follow vegan diets who don't believe this. So you can't equivocate between vegan and pure vegetarian. Well, you can. But you can't really find fault with someone who doesn't for this reason.


Bolded is your problem. It is fine for vegan to mean what it think you means to you. However, if someone else has a recognized definition that is sourced (which in the case of "diss" would be a dictionary) and widely used, then they're not wrong, as much as you would wish for them to be.

Yes, I've conceded that the trolls (you) and the faux vegans (bohemianwrap) have conflated very simple definitions that the elite world of vegetarians have used forever, but I will continue to keep it real.

Hindus of Australia... nice source - I mean, nice DONK source.

Finally melkerson comes in handy around here. Applause. Power rating up. Looks to be winning the argument also, for once. Another plus.

My man loco... just need dids in here to complete the donkfest.

Are you still running downhill marathons, or have you manned up to at least flat 50 milers or 100K's yet? Oy...

This is pretty funny all together. You're claiming the "elite world of vegetarians" have been using these term "forever" and then you dismiss Hindu conceptions of vegetarianism that are found in texts from 600 BC or so (I got that from wikipedia, so I'm sure it's all fiction as far as you're concerned).

Your "forever" is only a fraction as old as the "forever" that you're dismissing. So you're essentially doing the exact thing that you're objecting to. There was an extant way of viewing vegetarianism. Then some people came along later and decided it was more useful to describe it with different terms. You liked the more contemporary usage and definitions better and you decided to use those. But when someone else likes even more contemporary usage and definitions, they're donks, even though they did the same thing you did.

Land i have no clue whats ur walls of text are saying…

My only conetention is when you said you dont care what other people do/eat…

To me that was you expressing you dont care aout other living things besides yourself. You clarified that you do care about others.

So which is it do you wabt to spreads veganism and curb the abuse of animals or you dont care what other people do?

My argument was that if you dont care about spreading veganism then you’re missing one of the key pillars of veganism ideology which is to have compassion for other living things.

You also mentioned that the vegans for the shortest amount of time were the loudest. That might be true but its way worse if youre vegan for life and keep it to yourself and never try to do more. To me its a waste. Especially if veganism / wfpb diet is optimal.

Its not like sharing gto poker strategy where you fall behind the curve by letting out your secrets.

Sorry if i offended you by calling you a non real vegan for not caring about others. But i hope you can heed my advice and not keep your knowledge all to yourself. To me its a wasted gift.

Now, now... you know "elite world of vegetarians" was tongue-in-cheek.

600 BC? We can go back to 1400 BC when Moses said God ordered everyone to be pure vegetarian and none of them even knew wtf a vegetarian or vegan was.

So, would you prefer someone say "I'm a vegan but..." or just say pure vegetarian and no need for the but?

But yes, I'll concede that everything in life was done first before a descriptor was given to any such new activity. That doesn't justify the bastardization of words, especially when it blurs it.

But let's face it: most meat eaters automatically consider someone who doesn't eat meat to be a sanctimonious douchebag, a soyboy, [insert whatever negative term], and it's just easier for these meatheads to just have one word to lump everyone together for convenience and that is why that word has morphed.

Really? Some may not agree with the things I write, but most say my use of written language is mostly succinct. You should not neglect your DHA/EPA and B12 requirements.

I already addressed this. I said that I care about people so much, that I refuse to condescend or preach to them about the foods they eat. I will do that to faux and/or junk food vegans, though.


I have never claimed to be a vegan. That's because I know the difference between veganism and pure vegetarianism, much to the chagrin of Melkerson.

I also never said I keep my experiences to myself; I just said that I do not force those experiences onto others.