Exactly. I think we all learn a LOT from each other and the journey is usually entertaining! I've rarely seen a thread stay on just.one.topic. and I am glad that others are open to learning from one another.

Good article! It's kind of on the same lines as the book I'm loving right now, Burn the Fat, Feed the Muscle. It basically encourages a well-balanced diet, but also has different variations for different body types (mesomorphs, endomorphs and ectomorphs and some combinations as well). I, myself am a carnivore, by that I mean my body just runs better off lots of protein, low carb, and somewhat higher levels of fat than the RDA. It cautions that although you will lose weight initially on low carb/high fat, there are long term effects of eating too much of the wrong types of fat. ;)

This discussion has been very interesting, as it's meandered around from one place to another. Forgive me for latching on to this particular bit, as I realise it's totally tangential - but would you happen to know where Catholicism specifically disallows polygamy? (I'm not being combative here - genuinely interested, but not an expert on Catholicism.) I appreciate that in practice, the Rome-based Catholic church backs monogamous relationships, but the Old Testament has polygamous marriages, doesn't it? And the Christian Church in Africa encompasses polygamy. Just wondering whether the fact that Catholicism is equated with monogamy is specifically tied in with church law, and if so how recent.

(...and to be a total devil's advocate - quite a number of non-Christians would posit that Christianity IS a polytheistic faith. From the Muslim POV, that's where Christianity really jumps the shark - by claiming that the One And Only God has a magical son who is also a god - Islam is absolutely clear that there is No God But God. Islam reveres Jesus Christ as a prophet, but balks at the notion that he was the son of God - they're monotheists, and that means that God doesn't have a family. Whilst it's a knotty theological point, many polytheists [as I understand it] claim that their various deities are all facets of Brahma, just as Christ the Son, God the Father and the Holy Spirit are supposed to be facets of The One God.)

...none of which has a blessed thing to do with the vegetarian/vegan issue. I think that people who are not themselves vegetarians can be rather lax with the term simply because it isn't relevant to them. Then there are people who eat a not-particularly-carnivorous diet, for one reason or another, who sometimes borrow the term as an easier label than a lengthy explanation of ACTUAL eating habits. (Sounds like Joyce's sister was doing this - my mum and sister often call themselves vegetarian for simplicity's sake, meaning that they aren't big meat eaters. For the purposes of airplane meals/guidelines of what kind of restaurant your friends might pick to visit, this is helpful - but of course if questioned further, they'd quite cheerfully explain that they're not REALLY vegetarian - they're just not into red meat or pig-products.)

But, yes - vegan and vegetarian aren't the same, by any manner of means, and neither of these terms means 'secretly eats animals'. ;)

Prior to starting Atkins, I ate very little meat. It grosses me out, a lot of the time. Fish, however, never grosses me out - I don't think I was ever in any danger of giving up fish, but I could very happily have given up meat. (Indeed, when I was wee my mum REALLY had to work hard to make me eat meat. In retrospect, she wishes she'd never bothered.)

Really good point Kaplod! Wow...you always come up with the most thought provoking point of views! I'm always saying, "hmmmm....didn't think about it like that...good point!":D

SoulBliss - Kaplod makes a very valid point here. At what point does one stop being considered a true "Vegan" and at what point are they considered to be re-entered into true "Veganism" (not sure if right term??)?

I just thought I would direct your attention to this post as I missed it earlier and I think it makes a really valid point on the shades of grey thing. I believe that may be the reason why so many people consider Vegan just a short term for Vegetarian.;)

Well, I'm not Catholic OR Christian, for that matter. ;) But, working within the confines of that particular dogma, my analogy makes sense, in relation to veganism as a philosophy and lifestyle, not merely a dietary choice.

Here's what I've found but I am sure there's a better source out there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy

Ooooh...hey Fay! We must have cross-posted:dizzy:! This one's totally out of my league...unfortunately, I know very little of Catholicism so cannot contribute any info here. But, hey...always willing to learn.

I must say...we've really got some very intelligent, articulant and well-educated chicks on this thread! GIRL POWER!!!! (sorry ladies...I'm hormonal right now...PMS:^:)!

Honestly, I wish more people were like this where they could totally share completely different opinions and views (some from across the globe) and never get defensive, argumentative, etc. A difference of opinion is always a learning opportunity for either or both sides...why do so many people run from this?:?:

When does someone become a virgin after not having sex for a period of time? :D

I think what people don't understand is that veganism is more than a dietary choice, it is a philosophical lifestyle that extends to other areas, such as products used in ones' household and a basic philosophy towards life. Vegans believe that animals aren't here for us to use for our own purposes, so that's why there's so little "gray" involved. Here's a few nice explanations: http://www.vegsource.com/jo/vegan.htm

http://www.vegan.org/about_veganism/index.html

http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/vegan.htm

"Veg*n" is a term often used to denote veganism and vegetarianism alike but "vegan" is in no way merely an abbreviation for "vegetarian". I have never before heard that expressed as a common belief before you just typed it now, in fact.

It's like someone saying they are following "Atkins" when in reality they are doing their own version of a diet, a diet that MAY be lower in carbs than others, but that doesn't make it "Atkins". It's NOT "Atkins" if it isn't Atkins, right?

I hope this clarifies things. ;)

I agree. I love open discussion! :) Every moment is a teachable moment, right? :carrot:

:bravo: Its called Modified low carb!

Quote: [When does someone become a virgin after not having sex for a period of time?]

Are you saying that a vegan cannot be a former meat eater? Must a vegan be a vegan from birth? Is any lapse grounds for being banned from using the term for life, in essense an immediate and permanent "excommunication?"
If a vegan buys a pair of shoes they thought were synthetic, but turned out to be leather do they permanently lose their vegan status? If they sip tea at a party and realize it was sweetened with honey, are they no longer a vegan (does it still count if they spit it out? Do they have to rinse their mouth and spit again, just to make sure they don't ingest a molecule of the honey?) Can a vegan have an animal friend that they care for (an animal others might call a pet)? If they rub the tummy of someone else's pet, or care for a friend's pet in their absence are they suddenly no longer a vegan?

I'm really not trying to be argumentative. I do understand and am sympathetic to much of the vegan perspective (as much as someone who doesn't agree can). Although, I guess I do not understand any "only perfect counts," perspective because I don't believe that perfection is possible on any path.

No, not at all. Very few people are vegan from birth, as you know. Having an open mind and heart is an integral part of the process. Once a person knows what they know, that drives the decision to become vegan and they often make that decision and stand behind it 100%. It's a lot more than just a dietary preference.

All the examples you give are honest mistakes, either that, or ludicrous examples that I know you know don't make someone less or more vegan (the animal companion one for example). That is different than making a conscious choice to use/eat non vegan where it could have been avoided. I don't believe in "perfection" but I do believe we have control over what we put in our mouths and how we vote with our dollars. Conscious choices are in our control and that's what I think should be supported, making conscious, informed choices. That's what being vegan is, to a large extent, making conscious, consistent, informed choices and having a harmonious marriage of mind, body and spirit, with actions in alignment with them. So, a person who is really vegan doesn't arbitrarily "lapse" because even the idea of doing that isn't in alignment with their philosophy for themselves, for their relationship with animals and our ecosystem.

Yes, I agree that this happens a LOT. :( It IS relevant to the vegans and vegetarians, however, which is a main point I was trying to make.

The virgin analogy seemed an odd and extreme one.. so, Yes my examples in the last post were equally extreme to come back to my original point. Actually, there was nothing in my original post about lapses being arbitrary, or even premeditated, as I clearly said "a person who intends to never eat/use meat products may actually "lapse" occasionally." Repeating for clarity, "intends to never." Why they failed, and what they do about it, and how often they "fail" clearly do make a statement about their beliefs and commitment to them.

It can be very confusing (both from the outside, and from what I see the inside as well), when there are committed self-proclaimed vegans who have pets (and even feed them vegan diets) as well as vegans who argue that keeping an animal is evil, and anyone caring for an animal is immoral and not a true vegan.

It is no wonder that outsiders are confused when there is so much debate within the vegetarian and vegan communities (regarding not only definitions, but philosophy as well).

I've never met anyone like that. I'd love to talk to someone who feels that way and see where their reasoning is rooted.
I'd have to say that stance is a very extreme and unrealistic viewpoint and not very vegan in sentiment at all. It is a kindness to care for domesticated animals who have become reliant upon humans to support them, through no fault/desire of their own. To deny them the care they require would be cruel. That doesn't mean that supporting commercial breeders is a good idea, but I think you see what I mean.

There's an organization called "Vegans Against Pet Ownership" (I think they might be affiliated with PETA, but I'm not sure). I have no idea how to contact them or how large their organization is, but in college and graduate school I knew several vegans with this view, but their philosophy definitely was (what I considered) extreme.

But that really is the point isn't it? "Extreme" is very subjective, and defined mostly by our own perspectives (as in extreme is never our own beliefs, only someone else's).