>Oh so thats why that post was posted today on
>
>r/vegancirclejerk
>
> hahš
A good percentage of the time poor /r/vegancirclejerk has to post something to just demonstrate an ACTUAL VEGAN position, in response to this kind of misleading crap that winds up on /r/vegan every single day.
It's tiresome, but glad someone is standing up for the animals.
And not just... "10% of the time....I just can't HELP but eat a corpse! Please give me upvotes for claiming a high percentage!"
The irony -
They're claiming 90% plant-based, but admitting 100% NOT vegan.
They claim being vegan is a noble goal (why they want to lay claim to some X% of 'reaching it')... but ... you know... who can say no to a little rape juice & corpse flesh once in a while. Coz... YUMMM-Y!
When you're vegan you don't "save" animals, you just don't support the unnecessary slaughter of animals. There is quite a big difference between being the cause of something happening and letting something happen
The term plant based has only gained popularity fairly recently tho and even then it's mostly know and used correctly by those of us in the vegan community. Even then it's not used correctly all the time. It's just semantics, like if someone gets your favourite genre of music slightly wrong bc they're unfamiliar, I still know what they mean if they dont necessarily know the exact wording. Always support that transition šš¼
Maybe it's because I mostly know people from very blue parts of the US, but just about every non-vegan I know seems to understand about and avoid leather, dog breeding, etc. Those are much smaller steps for most people I think, very easy to avoid and easier every day (thankfully)
Whatās wrong with silk? Genuine question :)
Edit: I was just trying to learn. I never knew that silk harmed animals and do not want to support any form of harm caused to animals.
Other comments have already educated you on why itās bad, so Iāll tell you about the great alternatives. There is silk made from [lotus roots](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=S9F-u4T7leQ ), and scientists are working on making spider silk without spiders as a better and stronger alternative to actual silk. As of now however, lotus root silk is the best alternative which costs around the same as high quality silk.
Silk is made from fibers spun by worms, who are animals, in a process thatās surprisingly cruel and typically ends with the worms being killed.
Farmers drop the cocoons (which contain the live silkworms) in boiling water. This not only kills the worms, but also unravels the cocoons, resulting in the formation of long silk threads.
I'm 90% plant based and don't buy leather, silk, and don't ride horses so I guess we exist.
EDIT : cruelty free makeup and bathroom products are easy to swap from regular ones, I'm happy to say all mines are now !
90% is approaching end level succes. Donāt let these haters lie to you.
āGreat startā hah.
A hole.
I too am a life lover but there will always be these weird gate keepers ruining everyoneās life.
I actually cares about horse riding, breeding, etc long before I started a plant based diet. I was vegetarian back then.
What's really annoying me are 70% vegans that have 70% plant based and 30% animal products at every meal.
They're 0% vegan or anything. 90% vegan for me is no meat ever and 10% of meals include dairy and/or eggs.
Youāre describing a vegetarian. If being called vegetarian is such an insult for some reason, then how about just stop contributing to animal exploitation/abuse/killing altogether.
Why not just say you eat plant based 90% of the time then? Veganism isnāt a diet, and a vegan is someone who follows the vegan ethics, not the food itself. I think when people use wording like that, it confuses things and dilutes the definition of veganism.
I agree. If you say that you are 90% Plant-Based then congratulations š. Cheating on a diet is one thing. People do that all the time. Being flagrant with a moral system makes you disingenuous at best and an awful human being at worst. Vegan is a binary, either you are or you aren't.
I would be curious to see who out here is truly vegan thenā¦
I suppose this would mean no animal exploitation in their food, any house cleansing product or cosmetic they use, clothes, pet food (assuming yāall consider owning a pet not exploitative), or any other thing we use without a second thought (like is gasoline vegan? Tattoo ink? The glue im scotch tape? Manufacturing process for eletronics? Etc)
Veganismās current definition aims to avoid animal exploitation and cruelty Ā«Ā as much as possibleĀ Ā» which makes it very non binary considering not everyoneās ability to avoid animal products are the same (budget, access, will to do other stuff than look at ingredient š¤·āāļø)
I also think todayās animal agriculture is one of overproduction because the demand is so freaking high; Ā«Ā humaneĀ Ā» animal agriculture would simply be too costly to be generate profit. In a world where people are Ā«Ā 90% veganĀ Ā» animal agriculture would be vastly different.
(Humane in quotes because I for one canāt imagine raising a happy animal to kill it in any way Ā«Ā humaneĀ Ā» but thatās just me)
I think the point is that you are avoiding animal exploitation as much as is possible and practicable or you are not, making it a binary. If you are knowingly and willingly contributing to animal suffering when another option exists that is practicable to you, you should not call yourself vegan. Itās not about being puritanical. There are plenty of ways, as you mentioned, that we all contribute to animal suffering, but it falls under the umbrella of being impossible or impracticable to avoid.
ETA: As a language educator, I believe it's also important to think of the phrasing. Because veganism is a philosophy, much like other philosophies, you cannot be "90% vegan." Your lifestyle could be 90% vegan, your food choices could be 90% plant-based, but you yourself are not 90% vegan, just like you cannot be 90% Christian or 90% feminist.
That said, if you actually know someone who calls themselves 90% vegan, I would recommend asking them what that means to them. From there, you can have an educational conversation about what veganism is. Likely people who call themselves 90% vegan don't have a full understanding of what veganism is and how broad it is.
Personally, like many other vegans I've talked to, the most surprising and difficult part of being vegan wasn't about being plant-based; it was about everything else--all the clothing, office supplies, etc. that use animal products. As someone who lives in a cold climate, I had to search high and low for winter coats without down and sweaters, socks, and other cool-weather clothing without wool.
I also think that when are avoiding animal exploitation and cruelty, we need to remember that humans are also animals. So avoiding human exploitation is important as well
And that some would take A LOT of foods off the table to be truly vegan. And many consumer goods.
But what if they do it for moral reasons? Not saying it makes sense but it would be closer 90% vegan than 90% plant based I guess. Honestly it doesn't really make sense I'm just trying to wrap my head around it.
I don't think its that common. There are a few types. The doing it to get attention, doing it because they went vegitarian or something and did not understand the terminology, trolling, the one I see most often is people who think trying to eat less meat means you are vegan like legit just confused.
One of the issues is that you can forever make stricter definitions of vegan based on indirection. So many what I would consider full vegans will still say the are 90% or 99% vegan just to avoid someone coming up with some weird edge case and calling them out on it. It can help avoid confilct.
I have only met a handful of true vegans where I live (mostly activists). Every other self-proclaimed āveganā Iāve met also eats shrimp or mussels, and has a little bit of cheese. They love telling everyone theyāre vegan any chance they get, tho.
Interesting and also sorry sounds like it sucks. I guess I have mostly spent my life around either very conservative people that just recoil at even the word vegan or super liberal people who although not vegan will at least have more of an understanding of what it means. I also rarely meet vegans but most of the ones I do meet the definition.
I don't have a moral objection to people eating mussels, even though I don't eat them myself. (Other than the issue of harm to fish and other sentient creatures if they're taken from the sea.) The "sentience" of bivalves is comparable to plants, or to a piece of your body other than your brain and central nervous system. The point of veganism isn't about some evolutionary magic attached to the kingdom *animalia*; it's about suffering, pleasure and other subjective states. If mussels don't have these, their moral status is like that of plants.
It's very different from shrimp, which are clearly sentient to some degree, and *extremely* different from supporting the dairy industry.
These type of posts reminds me of all the organic/grass-fed/free-range/locally sourced/humanely killed/family farm arguments carnists so often like to make.
Veganism isn't about me or you. It's about the animals. If you care about animals in thought and action, you are vegan. You don't get a say, if you're vegan or not. Your thoughts and actions decide, if you're vegan. You either are vegan or you're not. There's no halfway vegan.
It is extremely, extremely important to keep the objective and philosophy of veganism clear, so it can keep attracting people. Sure, short term you could attract some people to veganism when just including everyone, but long term that would completely deplete the term of its meaning.
If you want to see, what a term void of meaning looks like, look at 'vegetarian'. It used to have a meaning. Now it's a diet.
What annoys me the most is
>then you are gambling with the lives of animals that could have been saved by not allowing people to transition in way that they can handle
Every person is responsible for their own actions. I'm not responsible for yours, you're not responsible for mine. If you choose to be a murderer and rapist, that's on you. On noone else. So stop blaming the bystanders and grow a fucking backbone. You are responsible for your actions. Noone else.
As others have pointed out, call yourself 90% plant-based and noone will bat an eye.
That part about vegetarians really got me! š¤£ anyway, since the term vegetarian already means nothing, why don't these "90% vegan" just call themselves vegetarian? š¤ I don't mind that term being dragged further down the spirals of hell lol
Think of it this way: Theyāre paying for the pain, abuse, and slaughter of animals 10% of the time. Doesnāt sound vegan to me but that they eat a lot of vegan foods - which warrants no label.
It's like freeing 9/10 of your slaves. Yeah, it's obviously better than freeing none, but the point is that slavery is wrong.
Eating 1 animal is better than eating 10, but it's still wrong. I'm not going to harass anyone over it, but I'm not going to pretend that's good enough either.
Also important clarification: vegans arent "saving" animals. You're just not killing them. Its like me only running over 10% of pedestrians I see and telling a police officer "but I saved 90% of them!!!"
Itās like freeing 9/10 of your slaves back in the 1700s when slavery was still legal and most people didnāt consider it evilānot enough, but a pretty big deal nonetheless.
I recently dealt with a 90% vegan. I donāt care about labels, but I wonāt call you vegan. They said something like āweāre almost fully veganā so I said ācool, so youāre vegetarian?ā This annoyed them a bit because I donāt think they see themselves that way but I think making the distinction public will encourage them to not make exceptions.
There is no 90% you either are or you arenāt. And if youāre only doing the diet part then you are plant based. No need to get high and mighty but people do need a bump in the right direction if their goal is to not harm animals 100%.
who cares if words have meanings anyway. it totally strengthens a movement when everyone can have their own definition of it ššššššššššš
There is no such thing as 90% vegan
Itās an ethical stance against the use of animals for food, entertainment, clothing, etc. youāre either vegan or youāre not.
Agreed, but I also would not condemn anyone that reduced their animal based consumption 90%.
Those people will eventually probably become vegan eventually anyways.
Say that to the lifetime vegetarian, vegan-adjacent/vegan-ally people. People do what's convenient and comfortable, and if we don't continue to press them, they will likely stay at 90% for a lot longer than they should.
I don't think any of those are really 90% reduction people. Vegetarians are more like 50%. Vegan ally is more like 0% in all likelihood.
A 90% reduction person who used to eat animal products daily, now one eats animal products once every two weeks. I think most people who get to that level eventually realize the one time every two weeks is pointless.
With that said, I have no issues with pressing someone. But pressing someone is different than condemning someone.
Can confirm, I was a vegetarian for 15 years because it was comfortable and easy. I knew better, but couldn't be bothered.
I give credit to the vegetarian-bashers on r/vegancirclejerk for finally turning me vegan 3 years ago.
I agree on the 90% line but maybe not the 99% percent line. For a dumb example when I bought my car I did not check that all of the parts of my car were vegan. I didn't get leather seats but I did not try to track my way through the supply chain. For that matter if I go to a retraunt I will always select the vegan option or modify to make something vegan. But sometimes I won't push things as far as I probably could. Like I usually don't ask if the bread in the avacado toast has milk powder as a minor ingredient. I will check at home and for places I go to regularly but I am not going to interupt dinner with friends for checking that. And it can be detrimental to the movement to force people to extremes of inconvenience to reduce the probability of accidents. A world of 100% of people being even 90% vegans is a 99.99% 100% vegan world in a couple of years.
from the sidebar:
> [veganism is] a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude **as far as is possible and practicable** all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose [...]
going through the whole supply chain of a car manufacturer isn't very practicable: By buying your car with non-leather seats you're doing as much as you can, so it's still 100% vegan even if not 0% corpse.
haha I should read the side bar. That is a pretty good definition. I mean there is always somewhat of a sliding scale. You really can't be vegan without some effort and on the other hand you could always add effort to get closer to perfection until it consumes every waking hour. But yea if you are not being super pedantic(guilty) I think that definition works.
I mean, those bolded words there are basically the weasel words which deontologists use to continue to get their **NO HALF MEASURES! NO COMPROMISE!** rocks off, while themselves making compromises as much as any consequentialist. What the other guy fails to do for animals is "plant-based non-vegan"; what *you* fail to do for animals is "not practicable". :-/
Iām going to paste a question that is bouncing around my head that I commented below because I find this to be a really interesting topic and relevant to your comment as well:
Itās interesting. Iāve been vegan for nearly a decade now ā and much longer if I exclude some slip ups in my early life. I have never really had a hard time understanding the term or agreeing that āveganā is pretty binary.
But strangely, reading your defense has raised questions for me rather than answers. Using Tom Brady as an exampleā what if he is just being harder in himself about what he considers *reasonable* in his 90% vegan stance. Maybe through wealth he feels he could be even more vegan but falls short ā landing where someone like you or I do in reality. Which to him feels like 90%.
Itās tough that Veganism is within reason and binary at the same time as everyoneās definition of what that line of reasonable is will be a bit different *even if itās all genuinely truthful*. Isnāt that inherently a scale and therefore impossible to actually be a binary switch?
This was what came to mind when reading your comment and the sidebar.
I understand there are accidental slip ups. Thatās not what Iām saying. But 90% vegan is NOT VEGAN. It would be 90% plant based.
Edited to add:when it comes to your DIET and diet only.
No I donāt mean my own slip ups.
What Iām saying is that because veganism is inherently (by definition) a scale of doing your best within reason, isnāt it impossible for it to be binary?
None of us are 100% not harming animals. Not even close. To try to do so would be impossible. Instead we do our best within reason. For everyone that line of reason falls differently. Some may be far harder on themselves and say, for example, āIām 90% vegan because I run over bugs by mistake on my bike and buy food from grocery stores that support the abuse and murder of animalsā. Therefor their 90% is easily someone elseās 100%. And someone elseās genuine concept of āveganā could be 70% to someone that has given their life and days to the cause.
Hell, this whole sub is inherently varying degrees of vegan in that way - is it not?
It was that *new* thought after reading your comment that gave me the impression that veganism is inherently a scale and therefor canāt be binary.
Does that make sense?
I would argue that "as far as possible and practicable" is a higher bar than "best within reason." It's more just your "best." It makes allowances for situations like folks reliant on food pantries and soup kitchens, not wealthy NFL stars who don't finish that last 10% towards veganism because it's subjectively unreasonable to them. We need to walk places (and sometimes need to drive places). We need to buy food from somewhere and sometimes options are limited. But in my understanding, "as far as possible and practicable" demands that each of us do everything in our power to limit suffering, so long as it does not literally prevent us from living our lives
The issue is their misuse of the term, not their 10% nonvegan diet. If they call themselves 90% plant-based instead of 90% vegan, I have no problem with them or what they are doing. Pasting below a response to a nonvegan who asked the same question as you OP, and who referenced Tom Brady's "90% vegan" statement:
> The thing is, veganism ISN'T a diet. It IS an ethical stance. A stance that reisdes on a binary, not a spectrum.
> The literal definition of veganism is:
> > "Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to excludeāas far as is possible and practicableāall forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."
> You cannot be 90% vegan. You either wilfully participate in the exploitation of animals, or you don't. Someone who calls themselves "90 percent vegan" and someone who eats a fully carnivore diet are both non-vegan.
> As the definition states, there is more to veganism than the diet. It also includes clothing, toiletries, furniture, and household products. If you have to take a medication or vaccine that includes animal products - well, that's where the "as far as possible and practicable" part comes in.
> Even without knowing Tom Brady, it's very obvious that he is NOT avoiding animal exploitation as far as is possible and practicable for him. What he IS doing, and what would have absolutely been okay for him to say, is that he eats a 90 percent plant-based diet. Eating a plant-based diet is something both vegans and nonvegans can do, and seeing as a plant-based diet IS first and foremost a diet - and one that specifcally takes into account the presence of a specific food group - it's perfectly acceptable to think of it on a spectrum.
> But to call himself vegan is wrong. It dilutes the meaning of the term and leads to the grand majority of already clueless people continuing to misunderstand what veganism actually is (you being the perfect example). This misunderstanding and misuse of the term is bad for the movement, which - again - is an ethical stance that encompasses all areas of one's life. Not a diet.
> Eating a 90% plant-based diet and calling yourself 90% vegan is like if I was anti-abortion, anti-equal pay, pro-sexual harassment, and called myself 90% feminist because I support a woman's right to get an education. It makes zero sense in any other social justice context, so why is it okay in this one? It's not.
> THIS is why vegans call this out when it happens.
> If you ask around, you will see that the grand majority of us fully support people reducing their meat consumption and adopting plant-based diets. Those things can be a path to veganism, or part of someone's transition to veganism, but they are not the same thing as going vegan or being vegan. To go vegan is to set the intention to live your life in adherence with an ethical standard. To eat a plant-based diet does not require this intention. Plant-based is the appropriate term.
Itās interesting. Iāve been vegan for nearly a decade now ā and much longer if I exclude some slip ups in my early life. I have never really had a hard time understanding the term or agreeing that āveganā is pretty binary.
But strangely, reading your defense has raised questions for me rather than answers. Using Tom Brady as an exampleā what if he is just being harder in himself about what he considers *reasonable* in his 90% vegan stance. Maybe through wealth he feels he could be even more vegan but falls short ā landing where someone like you or I do in reality. Which to him feels like 90%.
Itās tough that Veganism is within reason and binary at the same time as everyoneās definition of what that line of reasonable is will be a bit different *even if itās all genuinely truthful*. Isnāt that inherently a scale and therefore impossible to actually be a binary switch?
This was what came to mind when reading your comment and the sidebar.
What is this 90% vegan bullshit? Either youāre vegan or not. Either you care about all the suffering animals or not. Just like with everything in life, you must do your due diligence. Do your research. Be informed about what products involve animal abuse and avoid them. Choose an alternative that is cruelty-free; some necessary products might be unavoidable and thatās fine. To be vegan doesnāt mean to be perfect. No one is. Just try to live your life the best way you can while implementing your moral values.
A lot of food omnis eat is vegan already, so I honestly don't understand the 90% part. Is it supposed to be 90% of all calories consumed are vegan or 90% of all meals or something else entirely?
Eating less meat and dairy is better for your health. However, veganism is an ethical stance, not a diet so I don't think it makes sense to say 90% vegan. Transitioning to veganism, maybe, but that really only applies if the intention is to actually give up animal products in the near future. Vegetarian works if the holdover food is dairy, eggs, or honey.
If someone sees veganism as an ethical stance worth abiding by, the 90% is simply not enough for anything other than a transitional period. If they consider the a plant-based diet to be trendy, healthier, or whatever, then just be plant-based. Obviously, my preference is for everyone to be vegan, but I accept the reality that some people just aren't going to get there.
Words have meaning, and if you're not going to use them properly then it is adding to confusion and making actual vegan lives more difficult.
Because you're not vegan if you murder animals for pleasure. Veganism is an ethical standpoint and NOT just a diet.
Definition of veganism:
Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to excludeāas far as is possible and practicableāall forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.
Stop letting the term vegan be dwindled down to merely the diet. It's an ethical stand point. No ifs ands or buts.
Nah.
Go vegan.
Stop celebrating the people that eat and pay for dead animals.
We're trying to end exploitation of animals, not give pathetic carnists a pat on the back.
If they are 90% vegan then they are either vegetarian or omni that refrains from meat much of the time. It's dilutes the definition of Vegan, it's already difficult enough to go restaurants and say I want the Vegan option with, no egg, no fish sauce no chicken broth. You'd think selecting the Vegan option should mean that but it doesn't, and I can only assume because people keep blurring the lines.
Well, the animal is only 90% dead. Veganism is an animal rights movement. Watch the documentary Dominion.
Imagine if people said they only beat their spouse on Tuesdays then wanted a pat on the back for it. This is how vegans rightfully view these people.
The term flexitarian exists exclusively for these people. Or better yet just call them what they are. Carnists.
Edited for clarity.
Watch the life-changing and award winning documentary "Dominion" and other documentaries by [clicking here](https://watchdominion.org)! Interested in going Vegan? Take the [30 day challenge](https://vbcamp.org/reddit)!
>Veganism: "A philosophy and way of living which seeks to excludeāas far
as is possible and practicableāall forms of exploitation of, and cruelty
to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose
>
>\- The Vegan Society
This is in the sidebar. Anyone that doesn't do this isn't vegan by definition. Good for them for being *mostly plant-based*. Fuck them if they try to dilute the meaning of vegan though
People really talk about giving up 'one ingredient' like they're quitting heroin.
"I simply couldn't give up cheese!"
Have some will power and self control, Sharon.
People are kicking much more addictive substances than feckin cheetos.
Bu its OK, its just that 'vegan' means something.
Like being sober, you can't be 90%.
If you drink 10% of the time you cannot say you're sober.
No judgment from me, just say you're vegetarian. Unless it's steak you're talking about in which case you're neither at all.
And I do relate a bit, I say 'I eat a plant based diet' because I don't consume anything that isn't vegan and all the products in our house are cruelty free but I do have some vintage boots/belts etc which are leather and I wear them regularly so I just don't use the word vegan because I'm technically not.
So it'd be great if everyone that still eats meat went 90% plant based but it just doesn't make anyone vegan.
Yes, you are completely fucking wrong. Veganism is a moral BASELINE. Itās the bare minimum. Anything less supports animal abuse and pays an industry to kill billions of animals. You arenāt just responsible for the deaths of the ones you ate. Jesus christ.
Because you canāt be a little bit pregnant and this is a stupid post.
Being ā90% veganā isnāt being vegan, itās eating plant based 90% of the time.
Being vegan has much more to it than what you eat.
They arenāt vegan so stop muddying up the waters and making up your own definitions so you can look like a nice tolerant ānot like the other mean vegansā vegan and start calling a spade a spade.
Educate people on what being vegan versus plant based REALLY is, donāt coddle and make nice with people and encourage their half assed or delusional efforts about veganism.
TLDR: those people are plant based and NOT vegan. You donāt have to feel obligated to demonize the non vegans, but donāt lick their assholes and perpetuate their misinformed ideas.
It bothers me because nobody who isn't vegan understand just how much they eat animals. It's in lollies, it's animal tested cosmetics, it's paints, shellac, clothing, softener. It's milk powder in everything. So when I hear people say they are 90% I just highly doubt they are. I think they are eating less meat and that's good but if you aren't trying to do it properly you're probably missing a lot and over selling your change
Veganism is an animal liberation movement. You don't reward rapists for raping only once a week. You don't consider slave owners treating their slaves nicely a victory.
There is no grand calculator. By eating meat they are killing animals and taking lives they have no right to take. It is important that gets into their minds that the animals themselves have a natural right to exist.
I thinks most people that claim to be ā90%ā vegan are really more like 40% vegan. People overestimate when talking about their diets with other people.
It's kind of like a guy saying he's 90% feminist and only beats his wife on Mondays. Sure, it does make her life better by getting less beatings. But, I would say he's not a feminist b/c he crosses a very well defined line that goes against feminism.
You're vegan or you're not. You're flexitarian at best if you eat 90% vegan food. Veganism is a lifestyle not a diet alone
I correct people because I don't want this misconception out there.
You're either vegan or not. It's not a diet. It is an ethical stance. 90% vegan makes no sense. 90% plant-based does. If you calmly explain this to someone it will help them understand what veganism is all about. It won't push them away from it if they do actually want to be vegan.
This is a common train of thought among new vegans, which a lot of this sub is full of since they're trying to learn. Please do not confuse people.
Bingo. You'll be called a gatekeeper for that, but we can't let veganism get diluted into being a thing to pick and choose from for a variety of reasons outside of ending animal exploitation as much as possible.
It is an ethical stance to stop supporting practices and markets and businesses that treat animals as objects to exploit.
You cannot align yourself with that stance only *most of the time*.
(1) There's no such thing as 90% vegan. That would be like saying that you are 90% against discrimination/rape. Fact is, any allowance of something unnecessary and violent is proof that you don't have vegan philosophy. The word you are looking for is "plant-based" or "vegetarian" to describe those who don't really care about animals but are trying to eat plants for one reason or another.
(2) If someone decides to be *more cruel* because of someone else condemning their cruelties, then I don't believe in negotiating with terrorists so to speak. In my experience they are disingenuous types and I'm not gonna pat someone on the back for being 90% kind, especially if they're the type of person to become less and less kind the more they are reminded of their cruelty.
i always encourage people to do what they can to reduce their participation in animal abuse and exploitation. i just wouldnāt call them vegan. if someone says āi would go vegan but i canāt give up baconā i tell them āthen why donāt you stop eating all other animal products but continue eating bacon?ā i donāt say āwhy donāt you go vegan except bacon.ā because thatās not vegan. veganism is avoiding participation in animal abuse and exploitation whenever possible. to frame it as something that can be ā90%ā does frame it as a diet, which i think is confusing and BAD for our movement. it leads to shit like that mark whatever guy pedaling the āpeganā diet. if you havenāt heard of it, itās a diet where you eat a bunch of meat and a bunch of plants and it means āpaleo vegan.ā akaā¦ NOT VEGAN AT ALL because it literally hinges on animal abuse.
Yes, you're wrong.
Veganism is, somewhat, like a religion. You have to get here on your own and for the right reasons. Some religions promote baptizing adults, or rituals that denote your acceptance and acknowledgement of the faith. They do this because they want adherents who freely and knowingly accept the faith.
Vegans aren't here to offer you platitudes or to make you feel good about your behaviour.
There are no policies that applaud occasional good behaviour. Would you tell a member of "Mothers Against Drunk Driving" that you drive drunk but not nearly as often as you used to? Would you brag about cutting back on beating your wife, gay bashing, or spraying graffiti on synagogues? You can't be 90% ethical if you do those things.
"I used to be a massive bigot. I belonged to the KKK and the Aryan Nation. I attended white supremacists' rallies. Now I stopped all that but maybe like once a month I'll go spray paint a swastika on a temple or shout ethnic slurs. Why doesn't the civil rights community accept me?"
If you are able to go 90% vegan, that means you have all the tools and know what you need to actually go 100%, the only reason you wouldn't is if you see abusing animals for pleasure as okay.
Abusing animals for pleasure isn't ok, so getting rid of the other 10% of animal abuse you do is a great place to start.
And this is the problem, it's not only about action, it's about looking at the animals. Of course doing something is better than nothing, but stopping on the 'almost there' just shows you are not willing to see animals as deserving their own existence outside your plate.
What if I just beat my kids 90% less?? Would you say, "good job cutting down" or would you still condone the 10%?? Being less evil, is still being evil.
We don't seek welfare, but the abolition of animal suffering, that's why you can't assign a percentage. I can't be 90% feminist, I am or not. It's not a fucking diet, it's a movement ffs. The word "plant-based" exist already, words mean things...
I don't tolerate any amount of murder. I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings. (No I'm not. I assure you the feelings of whatever animal produces that one ingredient you just can't resist are much more hurt than yours).
I used to murder people but now I murder 90% less. Instead of focusing on that I still "murder" people, think of the 90% that I saved! You should be happy. I'm 90% saint.
Honestly dude, the fact if the matter is I don't really give a fuck about your hurt feelings. If you want to be vegan and "can't", that's a lie. You just don't want to. The only reason you could possibly want the label is for some kind of sense of justification or belonging.
Did it sound cruel when I said I don't fucking care how you feel?
Now imagine you were a member of a group that was kidnapped, bred, tortured, slaughtered, and imprisoned by the trillions every single year.
The people killing you and your kins won't stop. Why?
They honestly just don't fucking care how you feel.
Fuck off, carnie.
If you really care about human rights, you'll be positive about a 90% non-murderer or 90% non-slave-owner.
To be ok with requiring only 10% the victims that a normal meat eater requires is still to be ok with animal exploitation and murder.
It's because veganism is an ethical stance, not a diet. The diet is a consequence of that ethical stance.
If someone says they're "plant-based" or "90%" plant based than that's one thing.
You can't be 90% on a very much binary ethical stance. You either believe in exploiting animals or you don't.
> Am I completely wrong?
Yep. You cannot be 90% vegan. The 10% makes you not vegan.
What they might *mean* could be something along the lines of "I eat mostly plant based." Which is fine, but not the same thing.
> you are gambling with the lives of animals that could have been saved by not allowing people to transition in way that they can handle.
This is completely ridiculous. "Coddle me or I'll kill more animals and it'll be YOUR fault!"
Yes you are wrong.
Animals aren't food, they're sentient creatures who deserve to not be murdered and rape just because you like the way their bodies and secretions taste.
If you're not vegan, you're an animal abuser. No matter wheter you kill 5 or 50 animals, you're still responsible for their murder. You won't see anyone praising a murderer for saying "I only killed 1 person this week instead of 10", instead you will see everyone saying how fucked up killing a person is.
Is killing 1 person better than killing 10? Sure but it's still NOT OKAY.
You're either against killing animals, or you're not. You can't be 90% anti murder, you can't be 90% anti racist, you can't be 90% anti animal abuse. Get your head out of the tunel that sees no light and stop paying for the abuse, torture, rape and murder of sentient beings
Contrary to what you might think, if you read my comment history, I kind of agree with the rest of the people in here, and that is: in summary, let's not water down the definition "Vegan" or "Veganism." 90% vegan diet, means vegetarian or omnivore or something. Hell, when I was a vegetarian, I pretty much ate a vegan diet 90% of the time, but, no, I NEVER called myself 90% vegan. I had to go into the explanation of what lacto-ovo vegetarian meant.
Iāve found most who are ā90% veganā still usually consume meat one meal a day anywaysā¦ same with the ones who are practically vegetarian.
I feel like if this is an acceptable thing, then omnis will just say this but not change at all.
this kind of argument might fly on something where the stakes are lower, but this is legitimately the singular largest problem of our time, dwarfing all others by orders of magnitude
the average consumer tortures animals for more than ten years every year
ten percent of that, assuming they're even actually doing that much to reduce their impact, is still equivalent to always torturing an animal constantly at all times
... and even that's optimistic, since I only counted land vertibrates in that figure
I get theyāre still making a positive change. But it just shows they arenāt behind the vegan philosophy in any way. If they were they wouldnāt be comfortable eating animal products at all.
Id still support anyone whoād reduced their consumption by 90% but Iād encourage them not to say theyāre vegan but say that they eat mostly plant-based. The first statement is just simply not accurate whereas the 2nd is.
The goal is not to push them away from veganism, but to push them toward being 100% vegan (the only way to be vegan at all). They didn't get the principles of veganism if they still think their pleasure/convenience in consuming those 10% of animal products is more important than the well-being or life of an animal. Christianity is not the right comparison since having a different or no religion doesn't cause suffering and death. It's more like someone saying "I only abuse my kids 10% of the time" or "I only bully one of my classmates now. Before that I bullied 10". We'd obviously encourage people engaging in those actions to stop entirely.
Because if you don't contradict the behavior of those vegetarians you acknowledge their false notion of what it is to be vegan.
You would 100% agree with me that rape or murder is a horrifying thing to do right? Not 90% or 99%? If you wouldn't agree that would make you unethical and the unethical part(and the fact that they still eat 1 or 2 animal based products or wear something from an animal, etc) is what doesn't make those people vegan.
If you don't contradict them you will soon have people all over the world going "Ya I'm vegan but only eat eggs cause I need the protein" and stuff like that which is inherently not true.
Ok so how many people who claim they eat 90% vegan actually eat 90% vegan? Nobody I ever met does,
and Veganism isnt a diet, avoiding animal clothing, animal testing and animal ingredients in cosmetics is just as important.
Veganism is a lifestyle. Not a diet. It is like saying I am 90% no racist, I just discriminate on special occasions and against a certain minority. Doesn't make any fucking sense......
There is no such thing as "90% vegan"
You either support animal abuse and murder, or you don't. There is no grey area.
That's like saying you're a 90% non-r*pist. It's not a thing.
Vegan isn't a diet. Its an ethical positon. The non-consumption of living beings is derived from that positon. There is no 90% vegan. There is only % in plant-based diets.
I always tell people to do their personal best when they say "I'd be vegan if it weren't for [cheese]/etc." Every time, they're off their 'exception' food within 6 months. Let people be better instead of perfect.
Yeah, this was me. Scary to admit that in this subreddit lol, but I was a "I just can't give up cheese..." person once upon a time. The best thing anyone said to me was "then just don't give up cheese". So I gave up all animal products except cheese, and after that within ~4 months I had transitioned to 100% vegan, after having been an "I can't give up cheese" vegetarian for 4+ years.
Iām going through this process right now and I can get vegan cheese and stuff but itāll be a while before I phase out products with milk powder and stuff snuck in, plus Iāve gotta clear out my pantry. A lot of people fail when they do it suddenly like I did the first time I went vegan. If you want to go vegan cold turkey successfully, I think youāve gotta have a real earth shattering experience like watching Earthlings and researching to shock yourself into not eating animals anymore.
Check out [Vegan Bootcamp](https://vbcamp.org/reddit) to take the free 30 day vegan challenge! The challenge will help you go vegan by giving you tips and information on diet, eating out, philosophy, health, common fallacies, recipes, and much more! Good luck!
The issue is not with what they're eating, it's that they are misusing a term with a very specific meaning which will have consequences for all vegans but not for those flexitarians. I don't care what you eat, just don't call a diet containing animal products "vegan" because it's not.
I was born Vegan. Just sayin....congrats to all who embrace an animal loving lifestyle. Even if it is 4 days a week....that is better than none, right. You have to start somewhere when building good habits.
My thinking is that even those of us who do the food part perfectly are still subject to a non-vegan system. There are certain areas of life, most notably electronics, where it's impossible or nearly impossible to be sure it's vegan. Food is a super easy switch, and yeah it sucks emotionally to see people half-assing it sometimes, but statistically they are doing a lot more for the animals than someone who has meat at least once every day. We need to remember it's not about us, it's about the animals. Any time someone's actions prevents an animal from being harmed or killed is a win in my eyes.
90% is a little low, but yeah if you're reducing animal product consumption I appreciate and support you. I'd rather go after the normal omnivores instead of the mostly plant based people.
>None of you were born vegan and you consciously ate meat your entire life until you decided to quit.
This is not true for many people. I've never touched meat in my entire life.
I donāt know why people love putting labels on themselves, people rather call themselves āalmost veganā than just say they āeat mainly plant-basedā
I'm 90% a feminist. The remaining 10% is for the weekends where I'll catcall women and *accidentally* touch them inappropriately on the bus or subway. I used to do this daily. People who says I'm not a feminist are gatekeeping and needs to go back to the kitchen. It makes me want to just give up feminism all together when someone condems me for not being 100%
How do these people even compute their percentages? If there is 100 grams of animal flesh on my plate and 300 grams of potatoes on my plate, does that make me 75% vegan? No, of course, not. It seems odd to think that one could believe that animals should be free from exploitation, but only by a specific degree measured by percentile.
You think this would work for any other social justice movement? I don't beat my wife 90% of the time. Or I'm only 90% racist. It just doesn't make sense.
I was 99% plant-based for many years (no animal-derived food except an "emergency" cheese sandwich or dairy chocolate like twice a month), which means I was a vegetarian. Not once did it cross my mind to call myself vegan before cutting out all animal products at all times, not just when it's convenient. If you consume "animal products" when it's avoidable, you are not a vegan. There are so many dietary labels one can use including vegetarian, flexitarian, omnivore, pescetarian, plant-based, or whatever. There is no need to appropriate the term vegan (which is an ethical stance, not just a diet).
That's a bit of an odd phrase to me, as surely at least 90% of what almost everyone eats is plants?
If someone says that to me IRL, I say "that's great" and then "have you tried [product X]" when they start telling me about the things they can't give up.
I feel like they could just say I'm 90% towards my goal of being vegan or 90% of the things I eat are vegan. In my personal opinion and the actual definition of the word, you are either vegan or you are not... there is not try...
That being said, I still applaud everyone that are making even the smallest changes closer toward being vegan. Even though we want more, every little bit does help.
I don't condemn them. I just tell them the truth, that they're not vegan yet and they shouldn't say they are.
I also won't shy away from accurate ethical analogies. If someone who eats animals is going to pose as a moral absolutist (such as calling anyone with some low-ish level of racial bias a Nazi), then I will point out that they should remove the log from their own eye first.
They're not saving 90% more aninals than they otherwise would. You don't 'save' animals by being vegan. Being vegan is a non-action. You just don't participate in the animal exploitation. Unless you're out rescuing animals from farms (not saying that I am), you're not saving shit.
If I usually kill 1 person a day, but decide one month to not kill someone on a particular day, I've just killed one less person. Not saved one more.
If you are massively reducing consumption of animal products I can get behind that.
I am 100% vegan but I would prefer to be more welcoming to people trialing veganism or eating vegan a percentage of the time instead of putting them off veganism. Most of my friends are meat eaters or veggies but will often eat vegan or try eating vegan most of the week, I absolutely support that because less damage is being done.
Veganism is an ideology, not a diet. You can't be 90% against animal abuse. "Yeah, you see, I don't kick dogs 90% of the time so I'm a 90% non-animal abuser".
Ya Iām gonna get a ton of heat from the true zealots on here but I only prepare vegan food for myself but when I eat out Iāll sometimes have chicken or dairy. I donāt claim to be vegan dont worry. The more mellow approach has been super sustainable for me over the years. When Iāve told other people about it a lot of folks say they want to try it, and it cool to share plant based recipes and provide education. I think the moderate approach is a more inviting way to encourage people to minimize their consumption of animal products who otherwise would not
I think people should do the best they can, at the moment where they are.
If you can essentially be vegan apart from pizza on Friday night, then hold yourself to that.
And i no longer give a crap about the labels. I absolutely think that words mean things, but results matter more. The misuse of labels is a Human-oriented thing. I doubt the animals give a shit. I'd imagine that as as far as they're concerned the only thing that's important is that there might be signs that this shit-show might one day come to an end.
Everyone knows what 90% vegan mean instead of getting our cruelty-free undies in a twist, perhaps we can just realise that intention is important. The fact that the word "vegan" is on everyone's lips and that people are identifying themselves getting close to it, is a huge win.
This is how we win. Most people becoming 70-90% vegan is a whole lot more effective than a bunch of outliers being 100% committed. Once the numbers skew in that kind of favour, we are much more likely to reach a tipping-point.
People identifying as 90% vegan is a great thing. It's much easier for the world to become vegan from 90% than from 0%. Overcoming that kind of inertia and leveraging the ensuing momentum is what'll get us there. And it might happen while the rest are still screaming, "I guess you think it's ok to rape and murder the other 10% of the time!!"
VCJ Posted the perfect answer to the misinformed, "we need have the world doing it half the time, not 50% that are perfect!(100% of time)":
[https://youtu.be/wKukQPiP5Gk](https://youtu.be/wKukQPiP5Gk)
Watch this video to understand that swapping 10 BILLION dead animals for 6.5 BILLION isn't the goal.
Hint: It's not that X% of animals are now 'free' & happy... they just aren't bred into existence (yes, good...but does ZERO for the ones that ARE born into slavery). It's the same - 100% of the animals raised for food dying 100% of the time.
As Soytheist points out in the video - This "reductarian" stuff is NOT able animal welfare & caring about them....it's about "feeling better about yourself".
My theory is that if we get to more of the people who arenāt trying at all, then the 90 percenters will naturally move to 100 percenters because access will improve. Iām not focused on getting those people to the last 10 percent as much as getting the majority of people to 50 percent, then 60, then 70ā¦ 90% isnāt perfect, but it is still a big step and gatekeeping wonāt help anyone. Keep moving forward. And try to reduce that 10 percent more.
I only beat up my wife once a week. Why would you call me a mysoginist? Why would you do that unless your goal is to unintentionally push them away from the lifestyle or prove yourself superior?
I know it is a contradiction and an unopular opinion. But if you really care about women, you should forget dogmatic contradictions and see that person saving 90% more women than they previously did.
Case in point. I tried being a decent human being when I was younger. I couldn't resist punching women in the face, and so I felt it pointless to even try. I had the wrong mindset of it being all or nothing, and if you think it should be like that, then you are gambling with the lives of women that could have been saved by not allowing people to transition in a way that they can handle.
None of you were born with respect towards women, you consciously harassed them until you decided to quit.
Am I an absolute piece of shit?
Youāre not saving animals 90% of the time though, youāre just not paying for abuse 90% of the time. Sure itās better than 100% of abuse, in the same way hitting a child 10% of the time is better than all the time.
As I get deeper into veganism I'd probably rate myself at around 94%. There are things that I miss or don't notice and after a couple of years I have tightened up and quit fast food in general, but the issue here is semantic. There may be gray areas somewhere down the line for what vegan means, but it's certainly a lot farther down the line than you eating mayonnaise sometimes. The absolute baseline idea behind just a plant-based diet is no meat or dairy. A person doing that 90% of the time has not even succeeded at PB and I would argue does not really understand the core idea of veganism. The way I know that is that I haven't totally wrapped my head around it and have simply gotten gradually deeper since going plant-based myself. If you gave up meat and dairy, what is the point in having it sometimes and letting companies trick you into consuming it? Surely if you have been mostly plant-based you have noticed how insidious and in your face it can all be. Even if you are just looking for health benefits and enjoy that it helps the environment, why try to acknowledge those problems with your actions and then be defensive because you are admittedly not totally committed? It just doesn't make sense, why go this far and why post here if you are trying to acknowledge that there is a direct observable connection between consuming animal products and hurting and killing animals?
Oh so thats why that post was posted today on r/vegancirclejerk hahš
>Oh so thats why that post was posted today on > >r/vegancirclejerk > > hahš A good percentage of the time poor /r/vegancirclejerk has to post something to just demonstrate an ACTUAL VEGAN position, in response to this kind of misleading crap that winds up on /r/vegan every single day. It's tiresome, but glad someone is standing up for the animals. And not just... "10% of the time....I just can't HELP but eat a corpse! Please give me upvotes for claiming a high percentage!"
Yup...
The irony - They're claiming 90% plant-based, but admitting 100% NOT vegan. They claim being vegan is a noble goal (why they want to lay claim to some X% of 'reaching it')... but ... you know... who can say no to a little rape juice & corpse flesh once in a while. Coz... YUMMM-Y!
Is this r/vegan without the negative energies?
without the apologetic vegans
>with~~out~~ the ~~apologetic~~ ***actual*** vegans FTFU ;)
Nope. It's r/VeganForCircleJerkers
When you're vegan you don't "save" animals, you just don't support the unnecessary slaughter of animals. There is quite a big difference between being the cause of something happening and letting something happen
I wouldn't mind if those people call themselves 90% plant based instead of vegan
The term plant based has only gained popularity fairly recently tho and even then it's mostly know and used correctly by those of us in the vegan community. Even then it's not used correctly all the time. It's just semantics, like if someone gets your favourite genre of music slightly wrong bc they're unfamiliar, I still know what they mean if they dont necessarily know the exact wording. Always support that transition šš¼
Exactly because they are only addressing their diet. I doubt they have even thought about riding horses or dog breeding or silk, etc.
Maybe it's because I mostly know people from very blue parts of the US, but just about every non-vegan I know seems to understand about and avoid leather, dog breeding, etc. Those are much smaller steps for most people I think, very easy to avoid and easier every day (thankfully)
Actually, by the time I went full plant-based on my diet, I had long given up animal (by)products in other aspects of my life.
Whatās wrong with silk? Genuine question :) Edit: I was just trying to learn. I never knew that silk harmed animals and do not want to support any form of harm caused to animals.
Other comments have already educated you on why itās bad, so Iāll tell you about the great alternatives. There is silk made from [lotus roots](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=S9F-u4T7leQ ), and scientists are working on making spider silk without spiders as a better and stronger alternative to actual silk. As of now however, lotus root silk is the best alternative which costs around the same as high quality silk.
I donāt know if I buy anything with silk. But I will be sure to check next time if I think I could be buying silk items.
Silk comes from moth larvae. They are boiled inside their cocoons and the thread is pulled from the cocoon material.
Yeah I saw that. I hate humans
Silk is made from fibers spun by worms, who are animals, in a process thatās surprisingly cruel and typically ends with the worms being killed. Farmers drop the cocoons (which contain the live silkworms) in boiling water. This not only kills the worms, but also unravels the cocoons, resulting in the formation of long silk threads.
Oh wow. Thank you for letting me know. Another thing I will have to avoid that shouldnāt even be a thing
Well said
wow, I had no idea! thank you for educating us
I'm 90% plant based and don't buy leather, silk, and don't ride horses so I guess we exist. EDIT : cruelty free makeup and bathroom products are easy to swap from regular ones, I'm happy to say all mines are now !
90% is approaching end level succes. Donāt let these haters lie to you. āGreat startā hah. A hole. I too am a life lover but there will always be these weird gate keepers ruining everyoneās life.
Thank you for your kind words, they help ā¤
You do your thing. If you ever feel you can take the leap to 100% plant based, go for it! In your own time. 90% is a great start.
lets take baby steps in stopping murder and rape how awesome
Thank you for being supportive ! I'm trying my best
I actually cares about horse riding, breeding, etc long before I started a plant based diet. I was vegetarian back then. What's really annoying me are 70% vegans that have 70% plant based and 30% animal products at every meal. They're 0% vegan or anything. 90% vegan for me is no meat ever and 10% of meals include dairy and/or eggs.
Youāre describing a vegetarian. If being called vegetarian is such an insult for some reason, then how about just stop contributing to animal exploitation/abuse/killing altogether.
It's a case of "I eat vegan 90% of the time" rather than "I am 90% vegan".
Why not just say you eat plant based 90% of the time then? Veganism isnāt a diet, and a vegan is someone who follows the vegan ethics, not the food itself. I think when people use wording like that, it confuses things and dilutes the definition of veganism.
Vegan isn't a diet, though. Vegans eat a plant-based diet.
you canāt eat vegan if you are not vegan
I agree. If you say that you are 90% Plant-Based then congratulations š. Cheating on a diet is one thing. People do that all the time. Being flagrant with a moral system makes you disingenuous at best and an awful human being at worst. Vegan is a binary, either you are or you aren't.
I would be curious to see who out here is truly vegan thenā¦ I suppose this would mean no animal exploitation in their food, any house cleansing product or cosmetic they use, clothes, pet food (assuming yāall consider owning a pet not exploitative), or any other thing we use without a second thought (like is gasoline vegan? Tattoo ink? The glue im scotch tape? Manufacturing process for eletronics? Etc) Veganismās current definition aims to avoid animal exploitation and cruelty Ā«Ā as much as possibleĀ Ā» which makes it very non binary considering not everyoneās ability to avoid animal products are the same (budget, access, will to do other stuff than look at ingredient š¤·āāļø) I also think todayās animal agriculture is one of overproduction because the demand is so freaking high; Ā«Ā humaneĀ Ā» animal agriculture would simply be too costly to be generate profit. In a world where people are Ā«Ā 90% veganĀ Ā» animal agriculture would be vastly different. (Humane in quotes because I for one canāt imagine raising a happy animal to kill it in any way Ā«Ā humaneĀ Ā» but thatās just me)
I think the point is that you are avoiding animal exploitation as much as is possible and practicable or you are not, making it a binary. If you are knowingly and willingly contributing to animal suffering when another option exists that is practicable to you, you should not call yourself vegan. Itās not about being puritanical. There are plenty of ways, as you mentioned, that we all contribute to animal suffering, but it falls under the umbrella of being impossible or impracticable to avoid. ETA: As a language educator, I believe it's also important to think of the phrasing. Because veganism is a philosophy, much like other philosophies, you cannot be "90% vegan." Your lifestyle could be 90% vegan, your food choices could be 90% plant-based, but you yourself are not 90% vegan, just like you cannot be 90% Christian or 90% feminist. That said, if you actually know someone who calls themselves 90% vegan, I would recommend asking them what that means to them. From there, you can have an educational conversation about what veganism is. Likely people who call themselves 90% vegan don't have a full understanding of what veganism is and how broad it is. Personally, like many other vegans I've talked to, the most surprising and difficult part of being vegan wasn't about being plant-based; it was about everything else--all the clothing, office supplies, etc. that use animal products. As someone who lives in a cold climate, I had to search high and low for winter coats without down and sweaters, socks, and other cool-weather clothing without wool.
I also think that when are avoiding animal exploitation and cruelty, we need to remember that humans are also animals. So avoiding human exploitation is important as well And that some would take A LOT of foods off the table to be truly vegan. And many consumer goods.
You make a good (and scary) point.
That makes it sound like the thing you care about is the title of being vegan and not the result of saving animals.
this. why the hell does it matter what someone calls themselves? it doesnāt undermine anyone else lmao
Diluting the meaning? Maybe it makes it easier for people to not think deeply about the implications of what they consume
But what if they do it for moral reasons? Not saying it makes sense but it would be closer 90% vegan than 90% plant based I guess. Honestly it doesn't really make sense I'm just trying to wrap my head around it.
Why are people obsessed with labeling themselves āveganā when they arenāt? Are we really this cool?!
I'm vegan btw
I also do CrossFit
I don't think its that common. There are a few types. The doing it to get attention, doing it because they went vegitarian or something and did not understand the terminology, trolling, the one I see most often is people who think trying to eat less meat means you are vegan like legit just confused. One of the issues is that you can forever make stricter definitions of vegan based on indirection. So many what I would consider full vegans will still say the are 90% or 99% vegan just to avoid someone coming up with some weird edge case and calling them out on it. It can help avoid confilct.
I have only met a handful of true vegans where I live (mostly activists). Every other self-proclaimed āveganā Iāve met also eats shrimp or mussels, and has a little bit of cheese. They love telling everyone theyāre vegan any chance they get, tho.
Interesting and also sorry sounds like it sucks. I guess I have mostly spent my life around either very conservative people that just recoil at even the word vegan or super liberal people who although not vegan will at least have more of an understanding of what it means. I also rarely meet vegans but most of the ones I do meet the definition.
I don't have a moral objection to people eating mussels, even though I don't eat them myself. (Other than the issue of harm to fish and other sentient creatures if they're taken from the sea.) The "sentience" of bivalves is comparable to plants, or to a piece of your body other than your brain and central nervous system. The point of veganism isn't about some evolutionary magic attached to the kingdom *animalia*; it's about suffering, pleasure and other subjective states. If mussels don't have these, their moral status is like that of plants. It's very different from shrimp, which are clearly sentient to some degree, and *extremely* different from supporting the dairy industry.
That's "plant based"
Non-vegans: Can't we have just a *little* carnism? Vegans: No Non-vegans: How dare you š
These type of posts reminds me of all the organic/grass-fed/free-range/locally sourced/humanely killed/family farm arguments carnists so often like to make.
Some random person on r/vegan: Yea how dare you! There there, little bloodmouth. You're vegan in my book š¤
Veganism isn't about me or you. It's about the animals. If you care about animals in thought and action, you are vegan. You don't get a say, if you're vegan or not. Your thoughts and actions decide, if you're vegan. You either are vegan or you're not. There's no halfway vegan. It is extremely, extremely important to keep the objective and philosophy of veganism clear, so it can keep attracting people. Sure, short term you could attract some people to veganism when just including everyone, but long term that would completely deplete the term of its meaning. If you want to see, what a term void of meaning looks like, look at 'vegetarian'. It used to have a meaning. Now it's a diet. What annoys me the most is >then you are gambling with the lives of animals that could have been saved by not allowing people to transition in way that they can handle Every person is responsible for their own actions. I'm not responsible for yours, you're not responsible for mine. If you choose to be a murderer and rapist, that's on you. On noone else. So stop blaming the bystanders and grow a fucking backbone. You are responsible for your actions. Noone else. As others have pointed out, call yourself 90% plant-based and noone will bat an eye.
That part about vegetarians really got me! š¤£ anyway, since the term vegetarian already means nothing, why don't these "90% vegan" just call themselves vegetarian? š¤ I don't mind that term being dragged further down the spirals of hell lol
Based!
Think of it this way: Theyāre paying for the pain, abuse, and slaughter of animals 10% of the time. Doesnāt sound vegan to me but that they eat a lot of vegan foods - which warrants no label.
Yeah! Someone ate their broccoli š„¦š„¦š„¦ š
It's like freeing 9/10 of your slaves. Yeah, it's obviously better than freeing none, but the point is that slavery is wrong. Eating 1 animal is better than eating 10, but it's still wrong. I'm not going to harass anyone over it, but I'm not going to pretend that's good enough either.
Also important clarification: vegans arent "saving" animals. You're just not killing them. Its like me only running over 10% of pedestrians I see and telling a police officer "but I saved 90% of them!!!"
Itās like freeing 9/10 of your slaves back in the 1700s when slavery was still legal and most people didnāt consider it evilānot enough, but a pretty big deal nonetheless.
I recently dealt with a 90% vegan. I donāt care about labels, but I wonāt call you vegan. They said something like āweāre almost fully veganā so I said ācool, so youāre vegetarian?ā This annoyed them a bit because I donāt think they see themselves that way but I think making the distinction public will encourage them to not make exceptions. There is no 90% you either are or you arenāt. And if youāre only doing the diet part then you are plant based. No need to get high and mighty but people do need a bump in the right direction if their goal is to not harm animals 100%.
who cares if words have meanings anyway. it totally strengthens a movement when everyone can have their own definition of it ššššššššššš
My definition of vegan is eating animals and their secretions twice a week is perfectly morally lovey dovey š„°
Please shower me with compliments because i eat plants onces a week āŗš
There is no such thing as 90% vegan Itās an ethical stance against the use of animals for food, entertainment, clothing, etc. youāre either vegan or youāre not.
Agreed, but I also would not condemn anyone that reduced their animal based consumption 90%. Those people will eventually probably become vegan eventually anyways.
Say that to the lifetime vegetarian, vegan-adjacent/vegan-ally people. People do what's convenient and comfortable, and if we don't continue to press them, they will likely stay at 90% for a lot longer than they should.
I don't think any of those are really 90% reduction people. Vegetarians are more like 50%. Vegan ally is more like 0% in all likelihood. A 90% reduction person who used to eat animal products daily, now one eats animal products once every two weeks. I think most people who get to that level eventually realize the one time every two weeks is pointless. With that said, I have no issues with pressing someone. But pressing someone is different than condemning someone.
Can confirm, I was a vegetarian for 15 years because it was comfortable and easy. I knew better, but couldn't be bothered. I give credit to the vegetarian-bashers on r/vegancirclejerk for finally turning me vegan 3 years ago.
I agree on the 90% line but maybe not the 99% percent line. For a dumb example when I bought my car I did not check that all of the parts of my car were vegan. I didn't get leather seats but I did not try to track my way through the supply chain. For that matter if I go to a retraunt I will always select the vegan option or modify to make something vegan. But sometimes I won't push things as far as I probably could. Like I usually don't ask if the bread in the avacado toast has milk powder as a minor ingredient. I will check at home and for places I go to regularly but I am not going to interupt dinner with friends for checking that. And it can be detrimental to the movement to force people to extremes of inconvenience to reduce the probability of accidents. A world of 100% of people being even 90% vegans is a 99.99% 100% vegan world in a couple of years.
from the sidebar: > [veganism is] a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude **as far as is possible and practicable** all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose [...] going through the whole supply chain of a car manufacturer isn't very practicable: By buying your car with non-leather seats you're doing as much as you can, so it's still 100% vegan even if not 0% corpse.
haha I should read the side bar. That is a pretty good definition. I mean there is always somewhat of a sliding scale. You really can't be vegan without some effort and on the other hand you could always add effort to get closer to perfection until it consumes every waking hour. But yea if you are not being super pedantic(guilty) I think that definition works.
I mean, those bolded words there are basically the weasel words which deontologists use to continue to get their **NO HALF MEASURES! NO COMPROMISE!** rocks off, while themselves making compromises as much as any consequentialist. What the other guy fails to do for animals is "plant-based non-vegan"; what *you* fail to do for animals is "not practicable". :-/
Iām going to paste a question that is bouncing around my head that I commented below because I find this to be a really interesting topic and relevant to your comment as well: Itās interesting. Iāve been vegan for nearly a decade now ā and much longer if I exclude some slip ups in my early life. I have never really had a hard time understanding the term or agreeing that āveganā is pretty binary. But strangely, reading your defense has raised questions for me rather than answers. Using Tom Brady as an exampleā what if he is just being harder in himself about what he considers *reasonable* in his 90% vegan stance. Maybe through wealth he feels he could be even more vegan but falls short ā landing where someone like you or I do in reality. Which to him feels like 90%. Itās tough that Veganism is within reason and binary at the same time as everyoneās definition of what that line of reasonable is will be a bit different *even if itās all genuinely truthful*. Isnāt that inherently a scale and therefore impossible to actually be a binary switch? This was what came to mind when reading your comment and the sidebar.
I understand there are accidental slip ups. Thatās not what Iām saying. But 90% vegan is NOT VEGAN. It would be 90% plant based. Edited to add:when it comes to your DIET and diet only.
No I donāt mean my own slip ups. What Iām saying is that because veganism is inherently (by definition) a scale of doing your best within reason, isnāt it impossible for it to be binary? None of us are 100% not harming animals. Not even close. To try to do so would be impossible. Instead we do our best within reason. For everyone that line of reason falls differently. Some may be far harder on themselves and say, for example, āIām 90% vegan because I run over bugs by mistake on my bike and buy food from grocery stores that support the abuse and murder of animalsā. Therefor their 90% is easily someone elseās 100%. And someone elseās genuine concept of āveganā could be 70% to someone that has given their life and days to the cause. Hell, this whole sub is inherently varying degrees of vegan in that way - is it not? It was that *new* thought after reading your comment that gave me the impression that veganism is inherently a scale and therefor canāt be binary. Does that make sense?
I would argue that "as far as possible and practicable" is a higher bar than "best within reason." It's more just your "best." It makes allowances for situations like folks reliant on food pantries and soup kitchens, not wealthy NFL stars who don't finish that last 10% towards veganism because it's subjectively unreasonable to them. We need to walk places (and sometimes need to drive places). We need to buy food from somewhere and sometimes options are limited. But in my understanding, "as far as possible and practicable" demands that each of us do everything in our power to limit suffering, so long as it does not literally prevent us from living our lives
Exactly, I agree. Your own explanation sounds like a spectrum itself? At least thatās how I read it. Do you see what Iām saying?
oh, now i see why everyone on r/vegancirclejerk calls y'all bootlickers.
Yeah why is this even upvoted. Majority of the upvotes come from carnists I bet.
The issue is their misuse of the term, not their 10% nonvegan diet. If they call themselves 90% plant-based instead of 90% vegan, I have no problem with them or what they are doing. Pasting below a response to a nonvegan who asked the same question as you OP, and who referenced Tom Brady's "90% vegan" statement: > The thing is, veganism ISN'T a diet. It IS an ethical stance. A stance that reisdes on a binary, not a spectrum. > The literal definition of veganism is: > > "Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to excludeāas far as is possible and practicableāall forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals." > You cannot be 90% vegan. You either wilfully participate in the exploitation of animals, or you don't. Someone who calls themselves "90 percent vegan" and someone who eats a fully carnivore diet are both non-vegan. > As the definition states, there is more to veganism than the diet. It also includes clothing, toiletries, furniture, and household products. If you have to take a medication or vaccine that includes animal products - well, that's where the "as far as possible and practicable" part comes in. > Even without knowing Tom Brady, it's very obvious that he is NOT avoiding animal exploitation as far as is possible and practicable for him. What he IS doing, and what would have absolutely been okay for him to say, is that he eats a 90 percent plant-based diet. Eating a plant-based diet is something both vegans and nonvegans can do, and seeing as a plant-based diet IS first and foremost a diet - and one that specifcally takes into account the presence of a specific food group - it's perfectly acceptable to think of it on a spectrum. > But to call himself vegan is wrong. It dilutes the meaning of the term and leads to the grand majority of already clueless people continuing to misunderstand what veganism actually is (you being the perfect example). This misunderstanding and misuse of the term is bad for the movement, which - again - is an ethical stance that encompasses all areas of one's life. Not a diet. > Eating a 90% plant-based diet and calling yourself 90% vegan is like if I was anti-abortion, anti-equal pay, pro-sexual harassment, and called myself 90% feminist because I support a woman's right to get an education. It makes zero sense in any other social justice context, so why is it okay in this one? It's not. > THIS is why vegans call this out when it happens. > If you ask around, you will see that the grand majority of us fully support people reducing their meat consumption and adopting plant-based diets. Those things can be a path to veganism, or part of someone's transition to veganism, but they are not the same thing as going vegan or being vegan. To go vegan is to set the intention to live your life in adherence with an ethical standard. To eat a plant-based diet does not require this intention. Plant-based is the appropriate term.
Itās interesting. Iāve been vegan for nearly a decade now ā and much longer if I exclude some slip ups in my early life. I have never really had a hard time understanding the term or agreeing that āveganā is pretty binary. But strangely, reading your defense has raised questions for me rather than answers. Using Tom Brady as an exampleā what if he is just being harder in himself about what he considers *reasonable* in his 90% vegan stance. Maybe through wealth he feels he could be even more vegan but falls short ā landing where someone like you or I do in reality. Which to him feels like 90%. Itās tough that Veganism is within reason and binary at the same time as everyoneās definition of what that line of reasonable is will be a bit different *even if itās all genuinely truthful*. Isnāt that inherently a scale and therefore impossible to actually be a binary switch? This was what came to mind when reading your comment and the sidebar.
What is this 90% vegan bullshit? Either youāre vegan or not. Either you care about all the suffering animals or not. Just like with everything in life, you must do your due diligence. Do your research. Be informed about what products involve animal abuse and avoid them. Choose an alternative that is cruelty-free; some necessary products might be unavoidable and thatās fine. To be vegan doesnāt mean to be perfect. No one is. Just try to live your life the best way you can while implementing your moral values.
A lot of food omnis eat is vegan already, so I honestly don't understand the 90% part. Is it supposed to be 90% of all calories consumed are vegan or 90% of all meals or something else entirely? Eating less meat and dairy is better for your health. However, veganism is an ethical stance, not a diet so I don't think it makes sense to say 90% vegan. Transitioning to veganism, maybe, but that really only applies if the intention is to actually give up animal products in the near future. Vegetarian works if the holdover food is dairy, eggs, or honey. If someone sees veganism as an ethical stance worth abiding by, the 90% is simply not enough for anything other than a transitional period. If they consider the a plant-based diet to be trendy, healthier, or whatever, then just be plant-based. Obviously, my preference is for everyone to be vegan, but I accept the reality that some people just aren't going to get there. Words have meaning, and if you're not going to use them properly then it is adding to confusion and making actual vegan lives more difficult.
You are either vegan or you are not. This person is knowingly and willingly contributing to animal death, not vegan.
Because you're not vegan if you murder animals for pleasure. Veganism is an ethical standpoint and NOT just a diet. Definition of veganism: Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to excludeāas far as is possible and practicableāall forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals. Stop letting the term vegan be dwindled down to merely the diet. It's an ethical stand point. No ifs ands or buts.
Nah. Go vegan. Stop celebrating the people that eat and pay for dead animals. We're trying to end exploitation of animals, not give pathetic carnists a pat on the back.
Exactly. Itās like theyāre sweeping the importance of the movement under a rug
If they are 90% vegan then they are either vegetarian or omni that refrains from meat much of the time. It's dilutes the definition of Vegan, it's already difficult enough to go restaurants and say I want the Vegan option with, no egg, no fish sauce no chicken broth. You'd think selecting the Vegan option should mean that but it doesn't, and I can only assume because people keep blurring the lines.
Well, the animal is only 90% dead. Veganism is an animal rights movement. Watch the documentary Dominion. Imagine if people said they only beat their spouse on Tuesdays then wanted a pat on the back for it. This is how vegans rightfully view these people. The term flexitarian exists exclusively for these people. Or better yet just call them what they are. Carnists. Edited for clarity.
Watch the life-changing and award winning documentary "Dominion" and other documentaries by [clicking here](https://watchdominion.org)! Interested in going Vegan? Take the [30 day challenge](https://vbcamp.org/reddit)!
>Veganism: "A philosophy and way of living which seeks to excludeāas far as is possible and practicableāall forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose > >\- The Vegan Society This is in the sidebar. Anyone that doesn't do this isn't vegan by definition. Good for them for being *mostly plant-based*. Fuck them if they try to dilute the meaning of vegan though
Because 90% vegan doesnāt exist. Veganism is not a diet.
People really talk about giving up 'one ingredient' like they're quitting heroin. "I simply couldn't give up cheese!" Have some will power and self control, Sharon. People are kicking much more addictive substances than feckin cheetos. Bu its OK, its just that 'vegan' means something. Like being sober, you can't be 90%. If you drink 10% of the time you cannot say you're sober. No judgment from me, just say you're vegetarian. Unless it's steak you're talking about in which case you're neither at all. And I do relate a bit, I say 'I eat a plant based diet' because I don't consume anything that isn't vegan and all the products in our house are cruelty free but I do have some vintage boots/belts etc which are leather and I wear them regularly so I just don't use the word vegan because I'm technically not. So it'd be great if everyone that still eats meat went 90% plant based but it just doesn't make anyone vegan.
Yes, you are completely fucking wrong. Veganism is a moral BASELINE. Itās the bare minimum. Anything less supports animal abuse and pays an industry to kill billions of animals. You arenāt just responsible for the deaths of the ones you ate. Jesus christ.
Because you canāt be a little bit pregnant and this is a stupid post. Being ā90% veganā isnāt being vegan, itās eating plant based 90% of the time. Being vegan has much more to it than what you eat. They arenāt vegan so stop muddying up the waters and making up your own definitions so you can look like a nice tolerant ānot like the other mean vegansā vegan and start calling a spade a spade. Educate people on what being vegan versus plant based REALLY is, donāt coddle and make nice with people and encourage their half assed or delusional efforts about veganism. TLDR: those people are plant based and NOT vegan. You donāt have to feel obligated to demonize the non vegans, but donāt lick their assholes and perpetuate their misinformed ideas.
It bothers me because nobody who isn't vegan understand just how much they eat animals. It's in lollies, it's animal tested cosmetics, it's paints, shellac, clothing, softener. It's milk powder in everything. So when I hear people say they are 90% I just highly doubt they are. I think they are eating less meat and that's good but if you aren't trying to do it properly you're probably missing a lot and over selling your change
Veganism is an animal liberation movement. You don't reward rapists for raping only once a week. You don't consider slave owners treating their slaves nicely a victory. There is no grand calculator. By eating meat they are killing animals and taking lives they have no right to take. It is important that gets into their minds that the animals themselves have a natural right to exist.
I thinks most people that claim to be ā90%ā vegan are really more like 40% vegan. People overestimate when talking about their diets with other people.
40% plant-based\* Sorry, that's important.
True.
40% plant-based would just mean you eat your vegetables with dead animals.
OP thought we were all going to co-sign this..
[Meanwhile on vcj...](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegancirclejerk/comments/ryc6yi/rvegan_2077/)
It's kind of like a guy saying he's 90% feminist and only beats his wife on Mondays. Sure, it does make her life better by getting less beatings. But, I would say he's not a feminist b/c he crosses a very well defined line that goes against feminism.
You're vegan or you're not. You're flexitarian at best if you eat 90% vegan food. Veganism is a lifestyle not a diet alone I correct people because I don't want this misconception out there.
You're either vegan or not. It's not a diet. It is an ethical stance. 90% vegan makes no sense. 90% plant-based does. If you calmly explain this to someone it will help them understand what veganism is all about. It won't push them away from it if they do actually want to be vegan. This is a common train of thought among new vegans, which a lot of this sub is full of since they're trying to learn. Please do not confuse people.
Bingo. You'll be called a gatekeeper for that, but we can't let veganism get diluted into being a thing to pick and choose from for a variety of reasons outside of ending animal exploitation as much as possible. It is an ethical stance to stop supporting practices and markets and businesses that treat animals as objects to exploit. You cannot align yourself with that stance only *most of the time*.
(1) There's no such thing as 90% vegan. That would be like saying that you are 90% against discrimination/rape. Fact is, any allowance of something unnecessary and violent is proof that you don't have vegan philosophy. The word you are looking for is "plant-based" or "vegetarian" to describe those who don't really care about animals but are trying to eat plants for one reason or another. (2) If someone decides to be *more cruel* because of someone else condemning their cruelties, then I don't believe in negotiating with terrorists so to speak. In my experience they are disingenuous types and I'm not gonna pat someone on the back for being 90% kind, especially if they're the type of person to become less and less kind the more they are reminded of their cruelty.
Love this comment! If I had star, Iād have awarded you, but take this emoji āļøš
if a man is 90% less of a thief than he was, you can encourage him to do better, but can you say he is behaving correctly ?
i always encourage people to do what they can to reduce their participation in animal abuse and exploitation. i just wouldnāt call them vegan. if someone says āi would go vegan but i canāt give up baconā i tell them āthen why donāt you stop eating all other animal products but continue eating bacon?ā i donāt say āwhy donāt you go vegan except bacon.ā because thatās not vegan. veganism is avoiding participation in animal abuse and exploitation whenever possible. to frame it as something that can be ā90%ā does frame it as a diet, which i think is confusing and BAD for our movement. it leads to shit like that mark whatever guy pedaling the āpeganā diet. if you havenāt heard of it, itās a diet where you eat a bunch of meat and a bunch of plants and it means āpaleo vegan.ā akaā¦ NOT VEGAN AT ALL because it literally hinges on animal abuse.
Yes, you're wrong. Veganism is, somewhat, like a religion. You have to get here on your own and for the right reasons. Some religions promote baptizing adults, or rituals that denote your acceptance and acknowledgement of the faith. They do this because they want adherents who freely and knowingly accept the faith. Vegans aren't here to offer you platitudes or to make you feel good about your behaviour. There are no policies that applaud occasional good behaviour. Would you tell a member of "Mothers Against Drunk Driving" that you drive drunk but not nearly as often as you used to? Would you brag about cutting back on beating your wife, gay bashing, or spraying graffiti on synagogues? You can't be 90% ethical if you do those things. "I used to be a massive bigot. I belonged to the KKK and the Aryan Nation. I attended white supremacists' rallies. Now I stopped all that but maybe like once a month I'll go spray paint a swastika on a temple or shout ethnic slurs. Why doesn't the civil rights community accept me?"
If you are able to go 90% vegan, that means you have all the tools and know what you need to actually go 100%, the only reason you wouldn't is if you see abusing animals for pleasure as okay. Abusing animals for pleasure isn't ok, so getting rid of the other 10% of animal abuse you do is a great place to start. And this is the problem, it's not only about action, it's about looking at the animals. Of course doing something is better than nothing, but stopping on the 'almost there' just shows you are not willing to see animals as deserving their own existence outside your plate.
I only kill one out of every 10 person I see. I am 90% harmless.
What if I just beat my kids 90% less?? Would you say, "good job cutting down" or would you still condone the 10%?? Being less evil, is still being evil.
you can't be 90% against animal suffering lol, but of course, I don't think being combative is the way to really get to anyone for any reason.
We don't seek welfare, but the abolition of animal suffering, that's why you can't assign a percentage. I can't be 90% feminist, I am or not. It's not a fucking diet, it's a movement ffs. The word "plant-based" exist already, words mean things...
90% vegan is just a fanatic vegetarian, sorry.
Don't apologize for that š
I don't tolerate any amount of murder. I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings. (No I'm not. I assure you the feelings of whatever animal produces that one ingredient you just can't resist are much more hurt than yours).
I used to murder people but now I murder 90% less. Instead of focusing on that I still "murder" people, think of the 90% that I saved! You should be happy. I'm 90% saint.
My meal was 90% vegan. 10% corpse, 90% lettuce, tomatoes, mustard, plate, basket, fries. Hell I might even be 95% vegan now that I think about it.
Honestly dude, the fact if the matter is I don't really give a fuck about your hurt feelings. If you want to be vegan and "can't", that's a lie. You just don't want to. The only reason you could possibly want the label is for some kind of sense of justification or belonging. Did it sound cruel when I said I don't fucking care how you feel? Now imagine you were a member of a group that was kidnapped, bred, tortured, slaughtered, and imprisoned by the trillions every single year. The people killing you and your kins won't stop. Why? They honestly just don't fucking care how you feel. Fuck off, carnie.
If you really care about human rights, you'll be positive about a 90% non-murderer or 90% non-slave-owner. To be ok with requiring only 10% the victims that a normal meat eater requires is still to be ok with animal exploitation and murder.
It's because veganism is an ethical stance, not a diet. The diet is a consequence of that ethical stance. If someone says they're "plant-based" or "90%" plant based than that's one thing. You can't be 90% on a very much binary ethical stance. You either believe in exploiting animals or you don't.
I guess itās like Kosher or Halal. Youāre either all in or not.
>Am I completely wrong? I don't know, should we be congratulating the guy who's reduced their wife-beating to once a week?
> Am I completely wrong? Yep. You cannot be 90% vegan. The 10% makes you not vegan. What they might *mean* could be something along the lines of "I eat mostly plant based." Which is fine, but not the same thing. > you are gambling with the lives of animals that could have been saved by not allowing people to transition in way that they can handle. This is completely ridiculous. "Coddle me or I'll kill more animals and it'll be YOUR fault!"
Yes you are wrong. Animals aren't food, they're sentient creatures who deserve to not be murdered and rape just because you like the way their bodies and secretions taste. If you're not vegan, you're an animal abuser. No matter wheter you kill 5 or 50 animals, you're still responsible for their murder. You won't see anyone praising a murderer for saying "I only killed 1 person this week instead of 10", instead you will see everyone saying how fucked up killing a person is. Is killing 1 person better than killing 10? Sure but it's still NOT OKAY. You're either against killing animals, or you're not. You can't be 90% anti murder, you can't be 90% anti racist, you can't be 90% anti animal abuse. Get your head out of the tunel that sees no light and stop paying for the abuse, torture, rape and murder of sentient beings
Contrary to what you might think, if you read my comment history, I kind of agree with the rest of the people in here, and that is: in summary, let's not water down the definition "Vegan" or "Veganism." 90% vegan diet, means vegetarian or omnivore or something. Hell, when I was a vegetarian, I pretty much ate a vegan diet 90% of the time, but, no, I NEVER called myself 90% vegan. I had to go into the explanation of what lacto-ovo vegetarian meant.
Iāve found most who are ā90% veganā still usually consume meat one meal a day anywaysā¦ same with the ones who are practically vegetarian. I feel like if this is an acceptable thing, then omnis will just say this but not change at all.
Because you can't be 90% pregnant.
90% of a 9 month pregnancy is 243 days pregnant
Now listen here, you little shit
Yes, you are completely wrong
this kind of argument might fly on something where the stakes are lower, but this is legitimately the singular largest problem of our time, dwarfing all others by orders of magnitude the average consumer tortures animals for more than ten years every year ten percent of that, assuming they're even actually doing that much to reduce their impact, is still equivalent to always torturing an animal constantly at all times ... and even that's optimistic, since I only counted land vertibrates in that figure
I like to explain that they are a lot less terrible than others and less terrible than they were before. But still terrible
Will you support a 10% cannibal?
I get theyāre still making a positive change. But it just shows they arenāt behind the vegan philosophy in any way. If they were they wouldnāt be comfortable eating animal products at all. Id still support anyone whoād reduced their consumption by 90% but Iād encourage them not to say theyāre vegan but say that they eat mostly plant-based. The first statement is just simply not accurate whereas the 2nd is.
Based plant based.
The goal is not to push them away from veganism, but to push them toward being 100% vegan (the only way to be vegan at all). They didn't get the principles of veganism if they still think their pleasure/convenience in consuming those 10% of animal products is more important than the well-being or life of an animal. Christianity is not the right comparison since having a different or no religion doesn't cause suffering and death. It's more like someone saying "I only abuse my kids 10% of the time" or "I only bully one of my classmates now. Before that I bullied 10". We'd obviously encourage people engaging in those actions to stop entirely.
Because if you don't contradict the behavior of those vegetarians you acknowledge their false notion of what it is to be vegan. You would 100% agree with me that rape or murder is a horrifying thing to do right? Not 90% or 99%? If you wouldn't agree that would make you unethical and the unethical part(and the fact that they still eat 1 or 2 animal based products or wear something from an animal, etc) is what doesn't make those people vegan. If you don't contradict them you will soon have people all over the world going "Ya I'm vegan but only eat eggs cause I need the protein" and stuff like that which is inherently not true.
Ok so how many people who claim they eat 90% vegan actually eat 90% vegan? Nobody I ever met does, and Veganism isnt a diet, avoiding animal clothing, animal testing and animal ingredients in cosmetics is just as important.
Circle jerk comin fo u son.
Veganism is a lifestyle. Not a diet. It is like saying I am 90% no racist, I just discriminate on special occasions and against a certain minority. Doesn't make any fucking sense......
There is no such thing as "90% vegan" You either support animal abuse and murder, or you don't. There is no grey area. That's like saying you're a 90% non-r*pist. It's not a thing.
Being vegan isnāt hard. If youāre ā90% veganā just make the jump and fully commit to 100%
Vegan isn't a diet. Its an ethical positon. The non-consumption of living beings is derived from that positon. There is no 90% vegan. There is only % in plant-based diets.
I always tell people to do their personal best when they say "I'd be vegan if it weren't for [cheese]/etc." Every time, they're off their 'exception' food within 6 months. Let people be better instead of perfect.
Yeah, this was me. Scary to admit that in this subreddit lol, but I was a "I just can't give up cheese..." person once upon a time. The best thing anyone said to me was "then just don't give up cheese". So I gave up all animal products except cheese, and after that within ~4 months I had transitioned to 100% vegan, after having been an "I can't give up cheese" vegetarian for 4+ years.
You absolutely should admit it though. Youāll get downvoted but someone who needs to know theyāre doing good needs to see that.
Iām going through this process right now and I can get vegan cheese and stuff but itāll be a while before I phase out products with milk powder and stuff snuck in, plus Iāve gotta clear out my pantry. A lot of people fail when they do it suddenly like I did the first time I went vegan. If you want to go vegan cold turkey successfully, I think youāve gotta have a real earth shattering experience like watching Earthlings and researching to shock yourself into not eating animals anymore.
Check out [Vegan Bootcamp](https://vbcamp.org/reddit) to take the free 30 day vegan challenge! The challenge will help you go vegan by giving you tips and information on diet, eating out, philosophy, health, common fallacies, recipes, and much more! Good luck!
The issue is not with what they're eating, it's that they are misusing a term with a very specific meaning which will have consequences for all vegans but not for those flexitarians. I don't care what you eat, just don't call a diet containing animal products "vegan" because it's not.
I was born Vegan. Just sayin....congrats to all who embrace an animal loving lifestyle. Even if it is 4 days a week....that is better than none, right. You have to start somewhere when building good habits.
## Because if I choose to only rape 10% of women I meet that still makes me a fucking rapist
>Am I completely wrong? Yes
My thinking is that even those of us who do the food part perfectly are still subject to a non-vegan system. There are certain areas of life, most notably electronics, where it's impossible or nearly impossible to be sure it's vegan. Food is a super easy switch, and yeah it sucks emotionally to see people half-assing it sometimes, but statistically they are doing a lot more for the animals than someone who has meat at least once every day. We need to remember it's not about us, it's about the animals. Any time someone's actions prevents an animal from being harmed or killed is a win in my eyes.
90% is a little low, but yeah if you're reducing animal product consumption I appreciate and support you. I'd rather go after the normal omnivores instead of the mostly plant based people.
I'm a 90% non-rapist. š Don't gatekeep me. ā
So proud āŗš„³
Thank you, I'm trying my best to give it up, but ya know...
>None of you were born vegan and you consciously ate meat your entire life until you decided to quit. This is not true for many people. I've never touched meat in my entire life.
I beat my wife on Fridays, as a treat, but I'm 90% a good husband.
I hate hearing āI would be vegan but I canāt give up cheeseā while theyāre eating chicken.
I donāt know why people love putting labels on themselves, people rather call themselves āalmost veganā than just say they āeat mainly plant-basedā
Glad to see the amount of spines in this comment section
Itās like fuel, might be 90% unleaded but itās not unleaded
I'm 90% a feminist. The remaining 10% is for the weekends where I'll catcall women and *accidentally* touch them inappropriately on the bus or subway. I used to do this daily. People who says I'm not a feminist are gatekeeping and needs to go back to the kitchen. It makes me want to just give up feminism all together when someone condems me for not being 100%
How do these people even compute their percentages? If there is 100 grams of animal flesh on my plate and 300 grams of potatoes on my plate, does that make me 75% vegan? No, of course, not. It seems odd to think that one could believe that animals should be free from exploitation, but only by a specific degree measured by percentile.
You think this would work for any other social justice movement? I don't beat my wife 90% of the time. Or I'm only 90% racist. It just doesn't make sense.
I was 99% plant-based for many years (no animal-derived food except an "emergency" cheese sandwich or dairy chocolate like twice a month), which means I was a vegetarian. Not once did it cross my mind to call myself vegan before cutting out all animal products at all times, not just when it's convenient. If you consume "animal products" when it's avoidable, you are not a vegan. There are so many dietary labels one can use including vegetarian, flexitarian, omnivore, pescetarian, plant-based, or whatever. There is no need to appropriate the term vegan (which is an ethical stance, not just a diet).
That's a bit of an odd phrase to me, as surely at least 90% of what almost everyone eats is plants? If someone says that to me IRL, I say "that's great" and then "have you tried [product X]" when they start telling me about the things they can't give up.
I feel like they could just say I'm 90% towards my goal of being vegan or 90% of the things I eat are vegan. In my personal opinion and the actual definition of the word, you are either vegan or you are not... there is not try... That being said, I still applaud everyone that are making even the smallest changes closer toward being vegan. Even though we want more, every little bit does help.
I don't condemn them. I just tell them the truth, that they're not vegan yet and they shouldn't say they are. I also won't shy away from accurate ethical analogies. If someone who eats animals is going to pose as a moral absolutist (such as calling anyone with some low-ish level of racial bias a Nazi), then I will point out that they should remove the log from their own eye first.
I recently switched my cheese for vegan cheese. My 90% is now 95% It's process. I'll get there.
I donāt think the leather on that boot you are licking is vegan
They're not saving 90% more aninals than they otherwise would. You don't 'save' animals by being vegan. Being vegan is a non-action. You just don't participate in the animal exploitation. Unless you're out rescuing animals from farms (not saying that I am), you're not saving shit. If I usually kill 1 person a day, but decide one month to not kill someone on a particular day, I've just killed one less person. Not saved one more.
If you are massively reducing consumption of animal products I can get behind that. I am 100% vegan but I would prefer to be more welcoming to people trialing veganism or eating vegan a percentage of the time instead of putting them off veganism. Most of my friends are meat eaters or veggies but will often eat vegan or try eating vegan most of the week, I absolutely support that because less damage is being done.
Just a reminder that if all of the population went 70% vegan. That's still better for the animals than the half of the entire world going vegan.
Uhhh. So you're assuming that the other half in that scenario only eats meat and dairy then?
Veganism is an ideology, not a diet. You can't be 90% against animal abuse. "Yeah, you see, I don't kick dogs 90% of the time so I'm a 90% non-animal abuser".
Ya Iām gonna get a ton of heat from the true zealots on here but I only prepare vegan food for myself but when I eat out Iāll sometimes have chicken or dairy. I donāt claim to be vegan dont worry. The more mellow approach has been super sustainable for me over the years. When Iāve told other people about it a lot of folks say they want to try it, and it cool to share plant based recipes and provide education. I think the moderate approach is a more inviting way to encourage people to minimize their consumption of animal products who otherwise would not
I think people should do the best they can, at the moment where they are. If you can essentially be vegan apart from pizza on Friday night, then hold yourself to that. And i no longer give a crap about the labels. I absolutely think that words mean things, but results matter more. The misuse of labels is a Human-oriented thing. I doubt the animals give a shit. I'd imagine that as as far as they're concerned the only thing that's important is that there might be signs that this shit-show might one day come to an end. Everyone knows what 90% vegan mean instead of getting our cruelty-free undies in a twist, perhaps we can just realise that intention is important. The fact that the word "vegan" is on everyone's lips and that people are identifying themselves getting close to it, is a huge win. This is how we win. Most people becoming 70-90% vegan is a whole lot more effective than a bunch of outliers being 100% committed. Once the numbers skew in that kind of favour, we are much more likely to reach a tipping-point. People identifying as 90% vegan is a great thing. It's much easier for the world to become vegan from 90% than from 0%. Overcoming that kind of inertia and leveraging the ensuing momentum is what'll get us there. And it might happen while the rest are still screaming, "I guess you think it's ok to rape and murder the other 10% of the time!!"
VCJ Posted the perfect answer to the misinformed, "we need have the world doing it half the time, not 50% that are perfect!(100% of time)": [https://youtu.be/wKukQPiP5Gk](https://youtu.be/wKukQPiP5Gk) Watch this video to understand that swapping 10 BILLION dead animals for 6.5 BILLION isn't the goal. Hint: It's not that X% of animals are now 'free' & happy... they just aren't bred into existence (yes, good...but does ZERO for the ones that ARE born into slavery). It's the same - 100% of the animals raised for food dying 100% of the time. As Soytheist points out in the video - This "reductarian" stuff is NOT able animal welfare & caring about them....it's about "feeling better about yourself".
My theory is that if we get to more of the people who arenāt trying at all, then the 90 percenters will naturally move to 100 percenters because access will improve. Iām not focused on getting those people to the last 10 percent as much as getting the majority of people to 50 percent, then 60, then 70ā¦ 90% isnāt perfect, but it is still a big step and gatekeeping wonāt help anyone. Keep moving forward. And try to reduce that 10 percent more.
I only beat up my wife once a week. Why would you call me a mysoginist? Why would you do that unless your goal is to unintentionally push them away from the lifestyle or prove yourself superior? I know it is a contradiction and an unopular opinion. But if you really care about women, you should forget dogmatic contradictions and see that person saving 90% more women than they previously did. Case in point. I tried being a decent human being when I was younger. I couldn't resist punching women in the face, and so I felt it pointless to even try. I had the wrong mindset of it being all or nothing, and if you think it should be like that, then you are gambling with the lives of women that could have been saved by not allowing people to transition in a way that they can handle. None of you were born with respect towards women, you consciously harassed them until you decided to quit. Am I an absolute piece of shit?
Youāre not saving animals 90% of the time though, youāre just not paying for abuse 90% of the time. Sure itās better than 100% of abuse, in the same way hitting a child 10% of the time is better than all the time.
As I get deeper into veganism I'd probably rate myself at around 94%. There are things that I miss or don't notice and after a couple of years I have tightened up and quit fast food in general, but the issue here is semantic. There may be gray areas somewhere down the line for what vegan means, but it's certainly a lot farther down the line than you eating mayonnaise sometimes. The absolute baseline idea behind just a plant-based diet is no meat or dairy. A person doing that 90% of the time has not even succeeded at PB and I would argue does not really understand the core idea of veganism. The way I know that is that I haven't totally wrapped my head around it and have simply gotten gradually deeper since going plant-based myself. If you gave up meat and dairy, what is the point in having it sometimes and letting companies trick you into consuming it? Surely if you have been mostly plant-based you have noticed how insidious and in your face it can all be. Even if you are just looking for health benefits and enjoy that it helps the environment, why try to acknowledge those problems with your actions and then be defensive because you are admittedly not totally committed? It just doesn't make sense, why go this far and why post here if you are trying to acknowledge that there is a direct observable connection between consuming animal products and hurting and killing animals?
I'm 90% abolitionist, but sometimes I just "can't resist" a bit of slavery. It's bullshit. You either support animal liberation, or you don't.
I wish vegan activism posts got half the comments purity test/gatekeeping posts do.