veganism: "way of living which excludes all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal kingdom, and includes a reverence for life" to "way of living which seeks to exclude - as far as is possible and practical - all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing, or any other purpose" http://www.vegsource.com/jo/essays/nameg鈥?/a> "In the second version, a disclaimer about practicality has been inserted," Does anyone know what year that disclaimer was added? This question sponsored by whoever got one of my answers deleted.|||Why didn't you post the entire original. Part of the original reads, "encourages the use of alternatives". The definition never included words such as "demands" or "requires" The main points were the exclusion of all animal foods and use of obvious animal products such as wool, honey, leather, feathers, etc. "as far as is possible and practical" is just used to further clarify in regards to the key word "encourages". I would hope that Donald Watson and his peers would have wanted veganism to be a movement with the potential to influence people in any walk of life. If he was an elitist that believed that isolation from the majority was the only notable choice, I'm afraid that the movement has thankfully abandoned his intentions for it. Regardless, based on interviews with him that I have read, that is far from the truth and he wanted compassion the be the core message, not purity. PS - I'm sorry that your answer was deleted. If anyone deserves a place here lighting short fuses, it would be you. =) --------------------------------------鈥?br> SORRY, I STILL DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION We've had a lot of people coming here and spewing BS just to piss people off, so I apologize if you were seeking genuine answers but only getting hate. It didn't help that you seemed to be mimicking another account, that wasn't the best way to introduce yourself. Someone had been continually impersonating user after user and making them sound like *overt* hypocrites. I thought that you were the latest model. Yes, this is our first. My honest interpretation of "exploitation" is controlling the birth, death or resources of another and/or having a negative effect on their quality of life for personal gain. This is just a simple one to be used in this case. The use of animals for food is the reason for this immeasurable volume of organic slaughter-waste and I take no responsibility for any of the demand. To be honest once more, I would rather have these substances "sent back to the Earth" than have them dumped into a landfill that would trap their natural resources indefinitely. When an animal dies, its body should contribute to new life. If I could change everyone's view on using animals for food, I would. I am aware that I can't change anyone and I don't try. With the support of everyone there would no longer be slaughter by-products to render. We could also develop technology to repel small animals from a field that would eventually be ravaged by a combine. All of this leads me to believe that conventional produce has no connection to any "exploitation" other than that of the abused immigrants that it "employs". No "animal" existed or suffered for the sake of my diet and the logic of a contrary view would have one believe that no pile of dirt is vegan due to its history. Someone that isolates themselves just for the sake of being removed from animal by-products is just fooling themselves into thinking that they alone make a difference. I am willing to admit that I make no difference whatsoever, but instead do what I can to show people that human animals do not have to cause suffering to survive. I am doing what I can do have a positive effect long after I am dead because I don't do it for myself. The person mentioned above has no such power or purpose. They live in their own world. If this is a rant - my bad.|||I can't add much to Krister's thoughtful and intelligent reply, which has to be your best answer.. I don't know the answer to your question, but I do know that Donald Watson himself didn't isolate himself from society in order to avoid animal by-products so presumably did not envisage the movement he started causing people to do so. As for your answer being deleted, I don't know what answer it was or who reported it but I assume they thought you were one of the many trolls on this forum. I used to think that myself, and it didn't help that you keep changing your user name - I assumed for some time that you were using multiple identities and were up to the same trouble-making as the likes of Mr Meat, David V and The Only Straight Veggie (nasty little homophobe forever jack-knifed over his flying fist). Now I think you make an intelligent contribution, though your nit-picking at the word vegan can get tiresome. We do what we can - nothing dies or suffers to feed, clothe, clean or beautify me, and I call myself a vegan where necessary and appropriate to make this clear. I don't care what other people call me, and as I've said before I'm not JUST a vegan, I have other beliefs and priorities and no desire to join an elitist - and presumably already wealthy - group of sociopaths in forming an isolated community and letting the rest of humanity go hang.|||Maybe you should contact the source. That would be the smart thing to do for such things.|||Don't know the answer to the question. But if you're going to get totally hung up on technicalities and keep dragging this one out day after day... then yeah ok, as far as you're concerned I'm just a very awkward vegetarian who uses the term 'vegan' to give your average Joe a quick and simple description of what principles I generally stick to, without going into a half-hour rant of all the things I do and don't do. I am not first and foremost a vegan, I follow this lifestyle because I follow a Buddhist path, which involves finding your own salvation, making your own choices through knowledge and never, ever - and this is very important - sticking rigidly to any strict rule no matter what because somebody said so. When I discovered how food, toilletries, clothing, etc ,etc, etc were really produced, I stopped consuming many of them as part of my small contribution to the greater good. Doing what I can for the greater good makes me feel better and gives me a clear conscience, it would be wrong for me to do something I feel is wrong at the time of doing it. However, just because the vegan society, or even the government or a religious leader makes a rule, doesn't mean all their supporters have to obey this rule at all times forever more until the end of time. Yes, maybe technically you can't call yourself a whatever-it-is word if you don't follow the rules, but because of my beliefs I have to be adaptable to circumstance. I find my own path that I think is right according to the circumstances I'm in i.e. if I was in a jungle tribe I'd probably trap/hunt my dinner and clothes, but that's different to living a comfortable life in the city and giving money to massive industries who keep billions of animals in awful conditions, when I have the choice to eat/use/wear something else. If the vegan society makes a rule that is absolutely impossible not to break, then I have no moral issue with breaking their rules. If like you say, vegetables aren't vegan then ok, but I still have to eat something and my choosing to eat only plant-based foods isn't lining the pockets of the meat industry anything like it would be if I ate meat. I'm a really, really awkward vegetarian to the point where I won't even brush my teeth with something that's not on the vegan society's list.