As of lately I have come across numerous people who are "proud vegans" even many who are HCRV 100% but yet feed their children animal products. To me this sounds absolutley absurd being vegan is much more than what you put into your mouth, I believe it lies in your convictions and morals.
When people tell me they still feed their children a standard american diet all I am hearing is that they either lack the proper education on the subject and don't actually believe that Vegan/HCRV is the healthiest and most natural way of eating, but also that they are vein and selfious, they care enough about themselves and their appearance to live the lifestyle but don't care enough for their children, when in reality the children deserve more than anyone to get the right start in life.
I get myself into trouble but I always say what I'm thinking and my thoughts are if you are spending your income on animal products your not a vegan. If your going and purchasing animal products and then preparing them in your kitchen, you are not a vegan. Above all If you truly believe its ok for you child to eat animal products, you are not a vegan.
I'd like to hear others thoughts on this issue?
If you yourself are a vegan feeding your child death, Id like to know why
no, they are not. period.
I consider myself to be a kid still at age 25. I dont have children, but from my childlike perspective I'm glad my parents haven't forced anything upon me and instead guided me. This goes for more than just diet.
From my short experience in this world it seems as though the more someone is contained, the more they are dying to be free. When they inevitably become free, they explode making bad choice after bad choice. If they learn to handle it early, they seem to be better off. Of course people with more freedom and control of their life can make the same wrong decisions too, but they seem more capable of choosing right over wrong.
It reminds of the goldy locks example for diet. Not looking for too little, not looking for too much, looking for the right amount. Control is the same way, needs to be the right amount of control. In my opinion, controlling everything that my child ate in every conceivable situation would fall into the too much. Maybe at a certain age it works, but that age is going to vary for everyone, and is probably way younger than we'd like to think.
One last thing I remember from being a young kid - The more my parents were against something, and I did that something, the less likely I would be to talk with them about it. If I had a kid who ate non vegan foods, I'd want him/her to talk with me about the experience. What was good about it? What was bad about it? How did it make you feel? Etc. I'd want to help them form the answers, not form the answers for them.
I appreciate your input, my intention of posting this was to start a conversation so I could understand it more and I have. I think for me its just the children aspect that gets me going, the one women who posted has older children and her husband is not vegan and that I understand, the other person who posted is afraid their child won't be tall enough , and that is the type of people I was regarding in my original post. I know sometimes I get a little hotheaded ( this is why its in the steam room and not on the regular board lol) and it doesn't do any good to question ones veganism when its simply just a word, but can you really tell me you don't find it at all ironic that I made the post about parents being vein and selfish, and uneducated, and then people post with "facts" that are easily disputed, and nonsense of worrying about their children being "outcasts" or "short" ?
your post is completely legit in or out of the steamroom. you are also completely right about the "nonsense" about "outcasts" and "shortness" ... and you can now add a couple more to that list:
"banana stickers" (which probably aren't vegan)
"non-violent communication" (which may have complicity to not being vegan somehow)
you bring the message straight and true! that's just how it should be!
I completely agree with you Prad! :)
Thank you for your support, Ive been toying with the idea of starting to post videos in regards to veganism and families, because in reality its not that hard it just "different"
in reality its not that hard it just "different"
exactly! and once people get past the 'hard' illusion, they can really move!
you know, for someone who has "been vegan for a little under a year", you demonstrate a remarkable maturity in the subject!
i think you videos are a great idea and will be a great service - not just to newbies!
looking forward to their production, melissa!
i'm sure they'll be "amazeballs!" :D
you still have a burr in your undies about the cat thing! :D
but i'm glad you always manage to keep reminding people of the guidelines - very decent of you!
if I stop feeding them meat entirely, they will stop eating and die from hepatic lipidosis. Cats are like that.
no they're not. may be you think your cats are like that.
ONE MORE THING: Nobody's really a "vegan". It's like playing 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon. Pradtf? Not picking on you
that's ok. i don't mind if you pick on me. just let me know when you are doing it.
, just using you as an example, since you heavily participate in animal rights discussions here. You know those little stickers on the bananas you buy? Those are probably made with a fat-based adhesive from the death industry.
well may be, but "probably" is a hardly something to base your argument on.
the "nobody is really a vegan" is a trite point of contention when you bring up such things. the idea of vegan is that you avoid animal products - not that you stop living. if they show up as incidentals due to the manufacturing process, you really don't have to get into a gordian knot about your ethics. if it bothers you, by all means search for alternatives - sometimes you'll find them. we certainly have. the important thing is to not support animal abusive industries.
I am just classifying-declassifying people which is a violent form of communication.
no it's not. it's an accurately done exercise and completely legitimate.
there's nothing particularly noble about NVC either. as bruce cockburn wrote:
"you have to kick at the darkness till it bleeds daylight"
just behave yourself, stick to the guidelines on 30bad and post in a civil (but accurate) manner to each other. that's all you need to do.
btw, peter, it is not wise for you to start classifying posts here as violent or non-violent, since by your own statement, you are engaging in "a violent form of communication". fortunately, since you have read what i've written above, you have no need to worry as much now. ;)
In regards to the "nobody's vegan" idea, I'll attempt to demonstrate why it is flawed in its essence.
The "nobody's vegan" idea stems from the delusion that there is ever an absolute manifestation of anything within a universe constructed on a foundation of relativity combined with the delusion that it is those absolute's we are talking about when we identify something with a label. No absolute ideal is ever fully, 100%, completely manifest. All manifstation is a construction of degrees, of spectrum. Just as there is no absolute light, nor absolute dark, so too is there no absolute manifestation of anything within an essentially duality-based existence, and when we use the term 'light' we do not mean absolute light, but instead we mean some level of light beyond a minimum marker on the spectrum of light to dark.
If we liken veganism to light and non-veganism to dark, we can see that while there is no absolute light or dark, there is a very apparent and obvious difference between light and dark, which we can easily identify. There are also degrees of light and degrees of dark. Let those degrees, in the analogy, equal the degrees of practice of veganism or non-veganism. Then we see the uselessness in saying that because absolute light does not exist, noon-day light is no different or brighter than dawn light.
So, the very definition of "being vegan" is something that occurs within relativity - it is both an ideal and a minimum requirement, defined as anything past a certain point on the spectrum of exploitation to non-exploitation (just as we label 'light' as anything past a certain point on the spectrum of dark to light). The minimum requirement to be vegan is to no longer directly, actively, knowingly participating in the exploitation and imposed-suffering of sentient beings. Let this=X and let Y=disregard for any exploitation of sentient beings. Between these we have a spectrum (represented by vegetarianism in terms of dietary considerations, by animal welfare in terms of being's rights, etc.). But as we see, there is no final or maximum marker or final attainment of being vegan and the definition of vegan is not to be found at that imaginary absolute.
So, being Vegan means to be living at or beyond that minimum requirement and to be ever striving to reach an ideal that is essentially unreachable, but always increasingly approachable. This idea is at the core of non-violence, veganism and AR, and, imho, at the core of a life well lived. We identify the ideals we wish to live, and then we spend our lives approaching but never fully reaching those ideals (and thus humanity as a whole can follow the same progress). Along the journey we pass definite markers (the "knots on an endless string" of eastern traditions). And this is also, imho, the greatest gift of life - infinite perfectibility.
Thus, your notion that "nobody's vegan" is based on an incorrect notion of the existence of absolutes within manifestation and/or a mistaken notion of what is meant by the marker 'vegan'. The only way the statement could be true is to say that "Nobody has reached the ideal represented by the term vegan". And that is true, as it is true for every ideal within manifestation. But many are living beyond that minimum marker - many have passed that particular knot on the string.
It is said that life is about the journey not the destination, but few really question why this is. The answer is because there is no destination. Veganism is such a journey.
When we begin using ideas like "nobody's a vegan" it is often (perhaps always) an indicator that we are doing something that goes against our conscience. In order to cope with acting against our inner voice, or to cope with feeling stuck due to not yet seeing the solution to our dilemma, we often take up ideas like "nobody's a vegan" - it's like a relief valve of sorts. But taking up the idea certainly doesn't lend it any credibility.
Peter, in terms of the cats: there is a solution you're not yet seeing. Look closer. Don't give up on finding a better way through the situation.
the ideas in your post are very beautiful and expressed with the typical precision of an engineer!
the minimum marker is a excellent concept which addresses the inappropriate insertion of imagined absolutes and should help avoid perplexing 'brain frying sessions' for some people.
and the idea of there being no destination is also a gem!
in fact, it is a workable standard of perfection: constant improvement demands there be no end! it is intrinsic to evolution itself!
over the years, i've seen many excellent responses to the "nobody's vegan" attack, but yours is one of the finest both for its conception and clarity!
the ideas in your post are very beautiful and expressed with the typical precision of an engineer!
Haha... so my engineering background is still that apparent, is it? ;)
in fact, it is a workable definition of perfection - constant improvement demands there be no end! it is an intrinsic to evolution itself!
Exactly! And what a realization this is in life! It can change our whole approach for the better :)
We identify the ideals we wish to live, and then we spend our lives approaching but never fully reaching those ideals
true ideals are like the stars.
we may never reach them, but we chart our course by them.