5 ms·

So not vegan at all.

Incipient 10d ago
I'd say their description is fair. We don't have a word for vegan+fish. Pescetarianism includes eggs, milk, etc. So they're precisely vegan, with fish.
- colordrops 10d ago
  Except veganism is not a diet, but an ethical framework. The diet is a consequence, not the definition.
  - Moomoomoo309 10d ago
    What is the term for the vegan diet sans the ethical framework? If there isn't one, that kinda sucks.
    - colordrops 9d ago
      It does indeed exist, it's called the Plant Based Diet.
      - Moomoomoo309 9d ago
        That makes sense, thank you!
- deadbabe 10d ago
  That is absolutely wrong. There is no gray area when it comes to veganism. Just because there is no word for that diet, does not mean you can just twist the definition of vegan for your convenience. You could easily just say your a pescatarian who doesn’t eat dairy or eggs, and that would be more correct.
  - John7878781 10d ago
    Sorry for not being perfect like you. For ethical reasons, I do not consume dairy or meat (except for fish). The vegan community should be more open to other perspectives, especially when someone is actively making an effort towards reducing harm. Vegan Puritanism is totally antithetical to our collective goal of reducing animal suffering. Rather than being motivated by the prospect of claiming moral superiority, our goal should be to help the animals.
    - deadbabe 10d ago
      Killing and eating animals is not a perspective vegans will be open to. You can reduce harm, but you cannot call yourself vegan until you actually eliminate the possibility of eating animals or their products from your life. There is no reason you HAVE to eat fish.
    - BowBun 10d ago
      It's not really a moral issue, it's simply the definition of the word. Using an incorrect term to describe yourself knowing it is incorrect can be perceived as virtue-signaling or claiming your own moral superiority. For example, one could ask "why call yourself a vegan if you eat fish?". There's no policing body here, but people are rightfully calling the double-standard out here. Edit: Would also love to hear the ethics of why fish can be eaten when cows/chicken/pigs cannot. Doesn't sound ethically consistent to me at all.
      - John7878781 9d ago
        I actually prefer not to call myself a vegan IRL both because of the issue you’re describing and because veganism is (rightfully) associated with having a toxic and intolerant culture. The only reason I said “vegan except fish” in my comment is because the title of the study used the word “vegan” and because the study was talking about veganism in a purely dietary/scientific lens, not an ethical one. I think this was a pretty reasonable thing to do.
        9d ago

I'd say their description is fair. We don't have a word for vegan+fish. Pescetarianism includes eggs, milk, etc. So they're precisely vegan, with fish.

colordrops 10d ago
Except veganism is not a diet, but an ethical framework. The diet is a consequence, not the definition.
- Moomoomoo309 10d ago
  What is the term for the vegan diet sans the ethical framework? If there isn't one, that kinda sucks.
  - colordrops 9d ago
    It does indeed exist, it's called the Plant Based Diet.
    - Moomoomoo309 9d ago
      That makes sense, thank you!
deadbabe 10d ago
That is absolutely wrong. There is no gray area when it comes to veganism. Just because there is no word for that diet, does not mean you can just twist the definition of vegan for your convenience. You could easily just say your a pescatarian who doesn’t eat dairy or eggs, and that would be more correct.
- John7878781 10d ago
  Sorry for not being perfect like you. For ethical reasons, I do not consume dairy or meat (except for fish). The vegan community should be more open to other perspectives, especially when someone is actively making an effort towards reducing harm. Vegan Puritanism is totally antithetical to our collective goal of reducing animal suffering. Rather than being motivated by the prospect of claiming moral superiority, our goal should be to help the animals.
  - deadbabe 10d ago
    Killing and eating animals is not a perspective vegans will be open to. You can reduce harm, but you cannot call yourself vegan until you actually eliminate the possibility of eating animals or their products from your life. There is no reason you HAVE to eat fish.
  - BowBun 10d ago
    It's not really a moral issue, it's simply the definition of the word. Using an incorrect term to describe yourself knowing it is incorrect can be perceived as virtue-signaling or claiming your own moral superiority. For example, one could ask "why call yourself a vegan if you eat fish?". There's no policing body here, but people are rightfully calling the double-standard out here. Edit: Would also love to hear the ethics of why fish can be eaten when cows/chicken/pigs cannot. Doesn't sound ethically consistent to me at all.
    - John7878781 9d ago
      I actually prefer not to call myself a vegan IRL both because of the issue you’re describing and because veganism is (rightfully) associated with having a toxic and intolerant culture. The only reason I said “vegan except fish” in my comment is because the title of the study used the word “vegan” and because the study was talking about veganism in a purely dietary/scientific lens, not an ethical one. I think this was a pretty reasonable thing to do.
      - 9d ago