He defined the term "veganism", which he (Donald Watson) created to differentiate himself, as follows:
"Veganism is a way of life that aims to exclude as much as possible and practicable all forms of exploitation and cruelty to animals for food, clothing or other purposes."
That means quite clearly: only out of necessity, if it is only about the survival of an individual.
And because we want cell phones, laptops, computers, jewelry, more and more clothes (luxury) than we really need (especially in the West) and can't / want to keep track of the origins (even if it's just one sweater too many) what you don't need but think is beautiful), although we don't always need it for survival.
We just don't know under what conditions the resources will be extracted.
We're increasingly destroying the foundations of living beings.
Now apart from environmental protection, climate protection, etc. - veganism per se has nothing to do with that, although it always correlates with suffering.
Nevertheless, I just wanted to make it clear that climate protection and vegan food per se have nothing to do with veganism.
The focus is clearly only on animal welfare at first, but those who do not want to exploit and use other animals will always project the word violence and suffering onto all living beings in the world in their values and make them a whole and not as in many known terms bend a little and relate this only to people.
Those who even feel sorry for completely alien species will be even more so with their conspecifics (usually).
So whoever causes animals to suffer, who does not care what he / she eats and consumes, will (usually) not be interested in the poorer people, from whom he / she has no benefit. Hence the legendary phrase "As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will also be battlefields."
Living beings do not mean beings that can't biologically feel pain because they do not have a central nervous system, but it does not mean that they should be killed for fun.
The lowest egoism is compassion for strangers, everything else is just as egoistic but is much higher on the ego scale.
My conclusion and my research as a budding vegan for years to discover the absolute vegan life,
It is impossible, for that you would have to be absolutely self-sufficient and produce everything directly on site and not get something from third parties (even if it is something small).
For me, there are no vegans in the first world of the industrialized countries who live well from the system (and sometimes want / have to) but there are people who (can) eat vegan / plant-based food, especially in the West, and remain in luxury on the side want and live it out.
I'm e.g. Only an aspiring / following "vegan" who either does not want to / can't get out of the system or has to live in complete poverty.
Vegan is more of a trend to stand out from the crowd and somehow be special.
If I really only did it for myself (or the environment), I didn't have to tell everyone about it.
Maybe you want to tell it so that animals no longer suffer? But there are enough of them.
Unfortunately only applies to very few.
Or what does stomach ache have to do with veganism?
Here on Girlfriend this is simply "hyped".
I'm e.g. One who does it from the heart only because of pity and also knows a lot of people who only tell it when asked about it. But I do believe that many of them only because of health and climate reasons or just because they are long-wave.
Is it also clear that it comes from the rich west or should the very poor people take on the task if they are struggling with their lives at the same time? Establishing the origin is the definition of the great person Donald Watson and also those who were there with heart and the definition is clear, otherwise everything would be impossible.
Not everyone can just ascribe to themselves a vegan lifestyle while having leather seats.
Who Said I'm Absolutely Vegan? I do a lot to live freely and the basics are no animal ingredients and much more, but for a vegan lifestyle it is impossible in Europe because animals suffer because of us.
I still have some mistakes but it will get better, that's what I'm working for.
At least I'm vegan and don't consume any other animal products, but because of my way of life, animals die and that bothers me and you should stand by that. We want and want more and more prosperity in Europe, but the fact that animals live out there does not matter at first and this hypocritical annoys me slowly and then some say "I do this for the animals" but support highways and buy houses.
No, then you are not doing it for the animals, you want to do something well because you acknowledge your mistakes.
I don't want to say anything about meat eaters, it's a cheek, it couldn't be worse.
"That means quite clearly: only out of necessity, if it is only about the survival of an individual."
Why do you think that?
Take a look: "… As possible * and practicable * …"
Yes as possible and practicable so that I can survive or what do you mean by that?
Is your unscrupulous life and not mine. As long as everyone wants it that way, I can't do anything and have to accept it. But it's sad, isn't it?
As far as possible and practicable
You're right Veganism is ethically, ecologically and health-wise a dead end. The dogma of veganism is based on the UNFULFILLABLE commandments. Well explained here:
Unfulfillable commandments encourage fanaticism because anyone can rightly accuse anyone of inconsistency and heresy. Whoever gives the inquisitor the loudest has won. That worked just fine in Christianity. His commandment to love Hinz and Kunz may have advanced the unkindness in the world more than the suggestion to simply respect Hinz and Kunz.
So while veganism is supposedly easy to practice, even its greatest admirer must at some point admit that it is very difficult to practice. After all, the Association for Vegan Lifestyle admits "that it is
It is impossible to live 100 percent vegan in today's world. "What it really means to live 100 percent vegan is just as little learned as the unit of measurement with which one could determine the degree of purity of the lifestyle in question.
The answer is obvious: 100 percent vegan life is one hundred percent non-existence, provided that "vegan life" means that its activity does not cause any animal suffering or death. So there can be no real vegans.
Because of this calamity, the Vegan Society understands "vegan" as a way of life which is characterized by "as far as possible and practicable to avoid all forms of exploitation and cruelty to animals for food, clothing or other purposes".
Logically speaking, this can be
do not scale to 100 percent. It is not sensible to say: "I live 100 percent as far as possible and practically feasible in such a way that I avoid any form of exploitation of animals." Hence the statement made by the Federation for Vegan Lifestyle
pure nonsense. Every way of life could be considered somehow vegan, because in the phrase "as far as possible and practicable"
there's room for a whole universe of arbitrary definitions.
If someone cooks a stew from 800 grams of water and vegetables that contains 100 grams of bacon and 100 grams of crispy sausage, he can pass his soup as an 80 percent vegan meal, provided he asserts that it was not possible for him with the best will in the world to forego the ridiculous 200 grams of animal products. Why should such a person be morally in a worse position than an animal rights activist who has two cell phones and three laptops, fills up with biofuels and jets around in world history?
https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/gesundheit-oekologie/veganer-in-berlin-warum-veganes-leben-unsinn-ist-li.13924
Most religions know food bans and taboos, which are always cunningly circumvented. The beaver was considered a fish and was allowed to be eaten during Lent. Water buffalo are not recognized as cattle in India and thus escape canonization, but not the butcher. Veganism now simply makes the ban on eating a religion itself.
The self-tearing and tearing of others, which is often found in religions, thus becomes the main purpose of moral training.
Vegaism only divides society and leads to arguments. "as long as there are vegans there will be battlefields"
"… So that I can survive…"
You are only referring to what is possible but not to what is practicable.
Yes, as far as practicable, so feasible and that means not starving yourself.
Hae, in the east there are vegan people in monasteries, so Buddhists, in the west?
Wouldn't be known to me. Even the Jains are often "only" vegetarians. Also, I hardly think such people can survive more than a few years without vitamin pills.
Why do you leave out practicable all the time and only refer to what is possible?
I do not understand.
We can't really know some of what you have written, but it shows that you are giving a lot of positive thought to people, the fate of animals and the environment. Therefore, in my opinion, it is all the more important that everyone must first find their own way to harmonize awareness with inner feelings and conscience according to their own possibilities. By the way: Most vegans very likely live in India.
A study of vegan monasteries from Asia is included in the Health Center, kp
Is your unscrupulous life and not mine.
With just as stupid sayings and your constant prejudices and prohibitions you push yourself and your alleged "beliefs" into a corner that is not only unbelievable, but also radical.
You have only one goal here - to provoke. What you can't do with your account name you try on the Veggi - rail. Unfortunately, there are particularly embarrassing gaps in knowledge.
You should basically just ignore that.
