Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why aren't figs considered vegan?

quora.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 107 posts

Re: Why aren't figs considered vegan?

#61

Post by benj111 »

cannonedhamster wrote: post #37
oeuviz wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But neither do plants produce "naturally" food for humans. The produce it to reproduce and make the fruit delicios so animals eat it and transport the seed somewhere else to spread. Humans are very bad in spreading plants by means of eating and deposing the seed.

Plants that humans eat are literally some of the most widespread plants in the face of the Earth. Apples, tomatoes, potatoes, corn, soy, and rice are all massive successes for the plants in spreading, that doesn't even get into sugar producing plants. This started as humans eating and distributing seeds. Farming just made this process not need to involve eating. It's not just about delicious either. We eat some bitte…

Could this argument not apply to animals also?

Are chickens not the most wide spread birds? Sheep and cows the most widespread 'large' animals.

Even rats are doing as well as they are because of humans.

Yes I suppose you can reduce the meaning of life to successfully creating the next generation, that applies equally to humans and amoeba, but I would contend its too reductive.

Re: Why aren't figs considered vegan?

#62

Post by raverbashing »

croisillon wrote: post #24
Grustaf wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, producing honey is also very much part of the bee’s natural cycle, as is laying eggs for the hen and unfertilised eggs don’t suffer. Of course commercial animal husbandry causes endless suffering, but most vegans would probably object even to naturally produced honey and eggs. Just saying.

bees and hens don't produce "naturally" food for humans, they have their own use of honey and eggs [addendum to people answering "bees don't produce for bears either" or "plants don't produce food for humans either" : that's a strawman, I merely commented the term "naturally produced honey and eggs"]

Newsflash: nothing in nature "produces" food specifically for another species/groups (with some exceptions)

The plant "doesn't want" to be eaten (except for fertilization purposes) any more than any animal who can become prey.

Re: Why aren't figs considered vegan?

#63

Post by ma2rten »

coldtea wrote: post #59
ma2rten wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I highly doubt that there are millions of people who call themselves vegan without having heard of this definition. People don't just wake up one day and stop eating animal products. It's kind of like the term hacker. The general public understands it to mean one thing, but vast majority of people who apply the term to themselves understand it to mean another thing.

> I highly doubt that there are millions of people who call themselves vegan without having heard of this definition. You can doubt it, but you'd be wrong. At best they'd chanced about some historical background piece that contained the definition. But the huge majority wont tie it to some 19th century "Vegan Society" or know/remember anything about some "original definition". > It's kind of like the term hacker. The…

But the huge majority wont tie it to some 19th century "Vegan Society" or know/remember anything about some "original definition".

Do you have any evidence for that claim? All the vegans I know use this definition.

Also, the vegan society was started in the 20th century.

Re: Why aren't figs considered vegan?

#64

Post by ianai »

ma2rten wrote: post #52
coldtea wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not sure what you mean by "there are different kinds of vegans". The term vegan was coined by the vegan society. Etymology is not use. Use defines language. The "Vegan society" of mid-20th century is an insignificant part of the history of vegan ideas. It's just where the term originated in the US as a standalone term. Millions of peoples call themselves vegans, and have adopted this or that part of veganism (o…

I highly doubt that there are millions of people who call themselves vegan without having heard of this definition. People don't just wake up one day and stop eating animal products. It's kind of like the term hacker. The general public understands it to mean one thing, but vast majority of people who apply the term to themselves understand it to mean another thing.

Actually that’s pretty close to how I decided to go vegan. I came to it from many different angles and I’m sure others do as well. Only later did I realize the close relationship between non-cruelty to veganism. (Was in a pretty libertarian area)

Re: Why aren't figs considered vegan?

#65

Post by raverbashing »

cyphax wrote: post #15
bloogsy wrote: post #7

The article touches on this, but veganism is not about only eating plants - it's actually an ethical decision to avoid anything that harms animals. As such, figs are definitely vegan since the wasp is living its natural lifecycle.

I think maybe there are different "kinds" of vegans. As in: maybe not all vegans are vegan because of the same ideology. One vegan explained his motivations like this: he's against slavery, using animals is like a form of slavery and he's against that. Even if you treat the animal like a king; it's still not free to do its own thing. I really liked his reasoning, it seemed consistent and coming from a good place. Tha…

"Even if you treat the animal like a king; it's still not free to do its own thing"

This person should get out of their gentrified neighborhood flat and go see what "do its own thing" mean in the wild. (There's also a good subreddit for it as well)

It is not pretty, it is not idyllic

Re: Why aren't figs considered vegan?

#66

Post by jjgreen »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #53
jjgreen wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Omnivores are generally polite enough to call vegans that which you call themselves, perhaps you'd like to return the favour?

Were you offended by the parents use of a term for meat-eater? Your's seems like a needless correction; it didn't seem at all impolite. People choose all sorts of inaccurate terms for themselves, your reasoning doesn't seem particularly sound either.

Carnist, I believe, is a term used by vegans to refer to those who support ideologically that it is acceptable to use animals for food, rather than someone who eats meat. There are people who do not eat meat, for religious or cultural reasons, and those are generally referred to a vegans, in the same way there are those who eat meat for cultural reasons (my father did it, his father did it, I've never really thought about it) rather than supporting some ideology. For vegans to label meat eaters (more accurately omnivores) as carnist, their ideological/political opponents is, well, not really offensive, but it does rankle.

As social psychologists say, there is no in-group cohesion without out-group hostility, but it is a shame for vegans (for which I have some sympathy) to isolate themselves in this manner, particularly if they want to change the world for the better.

Re: Why aren't figs considered vegan?

#67

Post by ianai »

Arnt wrote: post #35
ma2rten wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what you mean by "there are different kinds of vegans". The term vegan was coined by the Vegan Society. They have the following definition: "Veganism is a way of living that seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing and any other purpose."

Once you release a word into the wild, weird world of a living language, it's going to mean what people want. Including people who've never heard of the "vegan society" (which I presume is a registered society, in which country? NZ?). The word vegan was explained to me, decades ago, by an swissair employee: "VGML is vegan, which is vegetarian, but also without eggs and other animal foods that leave the animal alive,…

I’ve never heard that definition of vegan. Too funny. It’s almost a linguistic attack on veganism to define it as bland.

Re: Why aren't figs considered vegan?

#68

Post by Fnoord »

raverbashing wrote: post #62
croisillon wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

bees and hens don't produce "naturally" food for humans, they have their own use of honey and eggs [addendum to people answering "bees don't produce for bears either" or "plants don't produce food for humans either" : that's a strawman, I merely commented the term "naturally produced honey and eggs"]

Newsflash: nothing in nature "produces" food specifically for another species/groups (with some exceptions) The plant "doesn't want" to be eaten (except for fertilization purposes) any more than any animal who can become prey.

Agreed, but it still possible to have low impact on the pain of other organisms. Plants do not have a CNS like mammals do.

Re: Why aren't figs considered vegan?

#69

Post by benj111 »

ma2rten wrote: post #18
cyphax wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think maybe there are different "kinds" of vegans. As in: maybe not all vegans are vegan because of the same ideology. One vegan explained his motivations like this: he's against slavery, using animals is like a form of slavery and he's against that. Even if you treat the animal like a king; it's still not free to do its own thing. I really liked his reasoning, it seemed consistent and coming from a good place. Tha…

I'm not sure what you mean by "there are different kinds of vegans". The term vegan was coined by the Vegan Society. They have the following definition: "Veganism is a way of living that seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing and any other purpose."

I may not eat meat, or byproducts for environmental reasons. That has nothing to do with animal cruelty. I'm still a vegan though.

Plus vegans draw the line at different things. Some evidently wont eat figs, some potentially may eat meat if the animal had died naturally.

Re: Why aren't figs considered vegan?

#70

Post by ianai »

ToolsDevler wrote: post #42
chris_wot wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does milking a cow harm an animal?

Cows are manipulated to produce much much more milk than they would naturally. Also the machnines doing the work are harsh and painful. But even when it is from a farmer doing everything by hand on a really happy cow. Being vegan means in the first place avoiding everything produced by or out of animals. The rule "It must not harm any animal to be vegan" is an additional rule for products which are not made by or out…

Animals only produce milk for their young. In order for humans to take that milk humans forcibly impregnate the animal then kill its young shortly after birth - never giving it any of its mothers milk. That’s why all dairy is not vegan.
Post reply on HN