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

21–30 of 107 posts

Re: Why aren't figs considered vegan?

#21

Post by Grustaf »

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.

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.

Re: Why aren't figs considered vegan?

#22

Post by proaralyst »

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."

But not all people who avoid more foods than a vegetarian do so because of that ideology. If those people's diets exclude all animal products it's useful to use the term vegan as most English speakers will understand what you mean.

Language is defined by usage, not organisations.

Re: Why aren't figs considered vegan?

#24

Post by croisillon »

Grustaf wrote: post #21
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.

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"]

Re: Why aren't figs considered vegan?

#25

Post by clydethefrog »

skilled wrote: post #8

Is there anything similar on Bee Pollen? What are people's thoughts on this? I have met people who are extremely opposed to it, whereas I myself can't get enough of it.

When someone disturbs a colony to take honey or pollen it places a great amount of stress on the bees. This disorients them for a period and, in that sense, their whole order has been tampered with.

We cultivate honey bees just like chickens, cows, and pigs, and like all agriculture animals, their high population is a harm to wild populations: they compete directly for nectar and pollen, transmit diseases, and push wild bees out of their native areas.

Re: Why aren't figs considered vegan?

#26

Post by dan-robertson »

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."

Presumably that there are many people who call themselves vegan despite having different opinions on what they should eat and why, and that those people do not necessarily care about or align with the cure definition from the vegan society. Indeed if I look at the vegan society on Wikipedia, it claims vegan originally meant “non-dairy vegetarian”.

Re: Why aren't figs considered vegan?

#27

Post by coldtea »

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'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 (or even just vegeterianism) without having ever heard about the Vegan Society and its founders.

The definition of the term doesn't belong, copyright style, to those that coined them, but to how it evolved in language by those that use it.

The dictionary itself captures that use, and doesn't care about how people originally defined the term in some office:

"vegan: a strict vegetarian who consumes no food (such as meat, eggs, or dairy products) that comes from animals"

Like how surrealism as a term is not defined by what Andre Breton wrote in some official documents the 20s and 30s.

Re: Why aren't figs considered vegan?

#28

Post by zapzupnz »

devoply wrote: post #20
zapzupnz wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This feels like a snarky comment that is in direct response to absolutely nothing contained within the article. Care to elaborate on your point? I don't see any link to the argument proposed by the answer highlighted by the link, but if you have one, I'd love to see it.

I read the article and found it insane that figs are not considered vegan because their natural reproductive cycle may lead to them naturally having a bug inside them... which is a natural part of that insect's life-cycle. Hence I felt the need to be critical of it.

It states that some people mightn't consider figs vegan, however it then goes on to state how non-commercial figs, by definition, do not contradict the official definition of veganism as defined by the Vegan Society, and also denotes that commercially-grown figs are completely clear of the issue anyway.

The article addressed the very thing about which you were critical with concision and clarity.

Re: Why aren't figs considered vegan?

#29

Post by oeuviz »

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"]

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.

Re: Why aren't figs considered vegan?

#30

Post by jjgreen »

croisillon wrote: post #14
michaelt wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand what you mean, but I don't know any vegans who would eat a steak from a cow that had died of old age.

I have yet to meet an omnivore who would do it [edit: omnivore instead of carnist]

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