|
'''Game Oriented Assembly Lisp''' (or '''GOAL''') is a computer game programming language developed by [[Andy Gavin]] and the [[Jak and Daxter]] team at [[Naughty Dog]]. It was written using [[Allegro Common Lisp]] and used in the development of the entire [[Jak and Daxter]] series of games.
==Protein combining==
Vgans are ppl who dont eat anything that come from animals
The Vegan page should have a nutrition section or a link to one. Vegan diets lack essential proteins unless planned somewhat carefully. For example, corn and beans when eaten together combine to form a protein similar to meat protein.
When eaten separately, that combination doesn't occur and the result is malnourishment unless you get the protein some other way. People who stay vegan for a long time have to know about things like this. I decided it was too much bother and chose not to become flat-out vegan partly for that reason. Could someone more knowledgeable than I am about this issue please add some material about it. --phr
Syntactically GOAL resembles [[Scheme (programming language)|Scheme]], though with many idiosyncratic features inspired by other languages such as classes, inheritance, and virtual functions. An example of what GOAL code looks like can be found at [http://lists.midnightryder.com/pipermail/sweng-gamedev-midnightryder.com/2005-August/003804.html]. GOAL encourages an [[imperative programming]] style: programs tend to be comprised of sequence of events to be executed rather than the [[functional programming]] style of functions to be evaluated recursively. This is a diversion from [[Scheme (programming language)|Scheme]], which allows such [[side-effect (computer science)|side-effects]] but does not encourage imperative style.
:Well, protein combining been has shown to be a faulty theory based on a biased study. In fact, Soy protein is equivalant to animal protein for all intents and purposes. You can find more info by going to this site: [http://www.vegansociety.com/html/info/info14.html Vegan Society] and scrolling down to Protein Combining. Maybe you can re-evaluate veganism as a personal choice for you? :) [[TheChin!]]
Like many modern implementations of Common [[Lisp programming language|Lisp]], GOAL does not run in an interpreter, but instead is compiled directly into [[PlayStation 2]] machine code for execution. It offers limited facilities for [[Garbage collection (computer science)|garbage collection]], relying extensively on runtime support. It offers dynamic memory allocation primitives designed to make it well-suited to running in constant memory on a video game console. GOAL has extensive support for [[Inline expansion|inlined]] assembly code using a special <code>rlet</code> form[http://lists.midnightryder.com/pipermail/sweng-gamedev-midnightryder.com/2005-August/003804.html], allowing programmers to freely mix assembly and higher-level constructs within the same function.
::We (my partner & I) have been vegan since 1984, and our 4 kids since birth, and I don't think we've ever conciously combined a protien once in all that time but we're all healthy and fine. we just eat a good variety of stuff, lots of fresh veg, fruit, pulses and grains, etc. But a link to vegan nutrition might be of value all the same, it's just that i think it's a myth that vegans have to be any more careful what they eat than anyone else, apart of course from the vitamin B12 which can be deficient (but if you eat lots of [[marmite]] it's not a problem :-) [[User:Quercusrobur|quercus robur]] 19:38, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
The GOAL compiler is implemented in [[Allegro Common Lisp]]. It supports a long term compiling listener session which gives the compiler knowledge about the state of the compiled and therefore running program, including the symbol table. This, in addition to dynamic linking, allows a function to be edited, recompiled, uploaded, and inserted into a running game without having to restart. The process is similar to the "edit and continue" feature offered by some [[C++]] compilers, but allows the programmer to replace arbitrary amounts of code (even up to entire object files), and does not interrupt the running game with the debugger. This feature was used to implement code as well as level streaming in the [[Jak and Daxter]] games.
==Macrobiotics==
GOAL's first use was for the original [[Jak and Daxter]] PS2 game; the predecessor language, GOOL, was also developed by Andy Gavin for [[Crash Bandicoot (video game)|Crash Bandicoot]].
Is macrobiotics more strict than vegan? I thought that macrobiotics ate fish. --[[:mincus|mincus]]
==External links==
:''There are more strict versions of veganism. One is the [[macrobiotic diet]].''
* http://www.franz.com/success/customer_apps/animation_graphics/naughtydog.lhtml — Franz Inc. success story
::This is incorrect. Though the macrobiotic diet is very restrictive, it is <b>not</b> a vegetarian diet. See your own definition of macrobiotic for one...
* http://bc.tech.coop/blog/060118.html — Page about LISP developments by [[Paul Graham]] and [[Naughty Dog]]
* http://www.gamasutra.com/features/gdcarchive/2003/White_Stephen.ppt — (Powerpoint) ''Jak & Daxter: The Precursor Legacy'', development overview, lessons learned, very interesting
* http://www.gamasutra.com/features/gdcarchive/2003/Denman_Stu.ppt — (Powerpoint) ''Highly detalied continuous worlds'', about the streaming world loader
[[Category:Lisp programming language family]]
==Pronunciation==
[[Category:Functional languages]]
[[Category:Object-oriented programming languages]]
{{videogame-software-stub}}
From [[:Vegan|Vegan]]:
"There is a bit of variety in the vegan community; Europeans and Americans not only pronounce it differently..."
So? How *do* they pronounce it?
::taken from http://www.vegweb.com/glossary/docs/vegan.shtml
:The word vegan was invented by Donald Watson in the 1940's. It is pronounced "vee-gun". This is the most common pronunciation in the UK today. No one can say this pronunciation in "wrong", so this is also the politically correct pronunciation.
:In the US, common pronunciations are "vee-jan" and "vay-gn" in addition to "vee-gn", though the American Vegan Society says the correct pronunciation is as per the UK.
:(as a side note, I am an American and have always pronunced vee-gun)
::<i>Thanks. Suggest this info be included on the [[:Vegan|Vegan]] page.</i>
==Vegetarianism stub==
Regarding the creation of a Vegetarianism page which consists solely of a link to Vegan: I would prefer that such 'empty' stub pages not be created until there is some real content in the article. See [[:Wikipedia commentary/Kill the Stub Pages|Wikipedia commentary/Kill the Stub Pages]] for some different opinions on this issue.
Anyway, I'll have a first draft of a Vegetarianism article written up by this evening (Melbourne time), but feel free to jump in ahead of me. -- [[:Claudine|Claudine]]
==Honey==
As long time American vegan the statement "European vegans also generally won't eat honey, while American ones generally will" strikes me as false. The majority of people who claim to be vegans that I have met, in the US, do not consume honey nor would they consider it to be vegan.
==Breatharian==
''Finally, there are people who call themselves [[breatharian]]s, which while not scientifically proven, on paper is a form of veganism.'' I removed this on the grounds that the article on [[Jasmuheen]], apparently a primary advocate of breatharianism, suggests that she sometimes eats cheesecake...something not reknowned for being vegan. However, if anyone feels strongly that the 'paper definition' of breatharianism is vegan then please return the statement...but, by this token, breatharians are a sub-set of omnivores too! [[User:Mazzy|Mazzy]]
:I guess it is [[vacuously true]] that Breatharianism is an instance of any kind of diet.
==Rewrite==
I rewrote this entry pretty substantially
* include pronunciation
* include distinction of dietary vegans
* make distinction between vegan products and practicing vegans
* some nutrition stuff with reference
* related diets, religions bit
* removed out of place bit on Eastern Orthodoxy
* add useful references and remove silly ones
* clarify passage on
==Naive Vegetarian link==
I'm all for 'balance' but much of
* The Naive Vegetarian http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/vegetarian.html
seems to be this person's personal prejudices against vegans & vegetarians, with 'evidence' of the 'harm' that 'extreme' vegetarian diets cause to children. Any bad diet, vegan or vegetarian or omnivorous can cause harm to children. Conversely, any 'good' diet, vegan, veggie or omnivorous, will ensure that childrens nutritional and health needs are met [[User:Quercusrobur|quercus robur]] 09:29 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)
==Strive==
I've restored the word 'strive' to this articel as it's agreed by most vegans I've met that it's virtually impossible to elimonate absolutely ALL animal products from the diet or lifestyle in today's world, eg, most fruit is grown on trees that have been grafted, often using beeswax to join the graft to the rootstock, most vegetable crops will have been grown on land that has been fertilised with animal manure that is a by-product of the farming industry, much commercial sugar has been refined using bone charcoal in it's production and so on... Thus most vegans will accept that they will never totally free themselves from all animal products, but do strive towards this as a goal. [[User:Quercusrobur|quercus robur]] 20:06 May 9, 2003 (UTC)
:By that definition, if a child were raised in a vegan community, never coming into contact with any other way of life, it would not be considered a vegan since there'd be no conscious ''striving'' involved. Meanwhile, someone who strives to be vegan but every now and then succumbs to cravings and goes on a McDondald's binge would be considered a vegan.
:That strikes me as incorrect; veganism is defined by actions, not intent. You don't re-define an ideal just because you deem it impractical or too difficult to attain. [[User:Mkweise|Mkweise]] 05:34 May 10, 2003 (UTC)
::I wonder if there is one single person on the planet who has been able to consciously eliminate ''all'' animal products or animal suffering from their lifestyle: even 100% [[vegan organic horticulture and agriculture|vegan organically]] grown food involves some degree of pest control which inevitably will cause some mortality to an animal somewhere, even if it's only a [[slug]] or 2 falling in a [[beer trap]] <nowiki>[actually, vegan organic growers commonly delegate pest control to the local wildlife and don't interfere further. It's up to you whether you consider that vegan or not.]</nowiki>... Therefore the best any vegan can ever do is ''strive'' to eliminate animal products and suffering, as it is an unattaniable goal, for by the 'action not intent' criteria most vegans in fact ''would not'' be vegan if they were to consume such vegetables, or, indeed, consume fruit from a tree that has been grafted with bees wax, but most vegans would certainly do their best (strive) to elimnate animal products or suffering as far as possible or practical from their lives. This is not the same as popping down [[McDonalds]] when the urge takes your fancy, which wouldn't be striving at all... Therefore I would consider it a valid use of the word, but I'm not going to go to war over it :-) [[User:Quercusrobur|quercus robur]] 09:23 May 10, 2003 (UTC)
:::It struck to me when I read "strives", because it sounds so pejorative and unbalanced. That many so-called vegans only eliminate partially animal products doesn't change the fact that "a vegan is a person that avoids the use of animal products" (note the absence of "all", and maybe add "tries to" or "to a certain degree"). Not all vegans "strive", and I do know examples. So if you say "strives" you are going to leave out a lot of vegans from the definition, and also you are putting the stress in the wrong place, as the whole point to vegans is to "avoid", not to "strive to avoid".
:::I thought all that was obvious and that the "strives" thing had simply passed unnoticed, so I changed it. I didn't know there was discussion about it, sorry! Now I said my maybe-not-so-obvious reasons, I am very much for removing "strives", together with "all" and maybe explaining how difficult it is to be "vegan in a full degree". [[User:Jordi Burguet Castell|JBC]] May 20, 2003
::::No problem, I think with wiki we just have to be a bit careful that what is obvious to one person may not be to another... The edit you are proposing sounds fine to me, BTW, I've been vegan myself since 1984 so I hope you didn't take my comments as being pejorative towards vegans... [[User:Quercusrobur|quercus robur]] 16:53 20 May 2003 (UTC)
:::::Not at all, it just sounded like that to me, I didn't think it was the intention anyway. And yes, I should be more careful. I'm quite a newbie here at wiki and, by the way, I do appreciate that a much more experienced one like you is taking care of these pages... thanks! [[User:Jordi Burguet Castell|JBC]] 17:25 May 20, 2003 (UTC)
::::::The "as far as possible" clause is definitely preferable to saying "strives", which really bothered me. I still think it's completely redundant, as "avoids" already covers avoidance with partical success. It also weakens the definition, as one's definition of necessity may include e.g. a misinformed doctor's orders. [[User:Mkweise|Mkweise]] 17:28 21 May 2003 (UTC)
==Secondhand vegan==
How vegan is using second hand leather shoes and clothes? Not at all, or..?
:Well, I wouldn't do it (except maybe in an emergency situation), partly because it might send the wrong signals, that it is ok to use leather.. This might encourage people to purchase new leather products. However, this is verging on the pedantic and is in danger of leading vegans to be labelled as cranks. IMHO.
::I would say second hand leather shoes are totally vegan. Veganism is always moral/political, never entirely dietary, so vegans don't buy new leather because it pays for the slaughter of a cow and the toxic tanning of its hide, but the cow has already been killed if its second hand and buying used things is enviromentally friendly. IMHO. [[User:Hyacinth|Hyacinth]] 16:57, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
:::By the same argument then it is ok, indeed required, to purchase lampshades made from the skin of Auschwitz victims, rather than a new lampshade made from synthetic materials, if we have that choice. I know what my choice would be. Sorry to be so extreme, but these things are happening every day to animals.
:::[[User:TonyClarke|TonyClarke]] 19:23, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
==CNN Poll==
I wonder about the validity of the CNN poll quoted in this article: perhaps it rules out people who are vegan, but would not call themselves vegetarian?
[[User:TonyClarke|TonyClarke]] 13:02, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
==Ethics of Motivation==
I could said that veganism is in and of itself imoral, as plants are not considered able to "feel" by vegans dispite the lack of traits that make [[animal]]s mentaly,or emotionaly distinctive from plants.Thus veganism is just as "[[Kingdomist]]" as vegans consider non-veganism specist.''
:Removed the above from main article, many vegans use the basis of sentience as the line upon which to draw their ethical objections to the use of animal products. Most plants aren't demonstrably sentient in the way that most animals are, and even if vegans are mistaken in their ethics regarding this issue, it doesn't make them 'immoral'[[User:Quercusrobur|quercus robur]] 16:53, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
==Vegan & vegetarian food==
Some people consider the usage "vegan food" to be synonymous with "vegetarian food", however a necessary distinction due to the strange but popular notion that dairy and eggs (and sometimes even fish or fowl) to be "vegetarian foods".
:Removed the above from the main article. The existence of the market for "vegetarian eggs" shows that, indeed, eggs are believed to be vegetarian. A vegetarian egg is one where the chicken is fed corn and not bone meal. It's silly to be splitting hairs on the old "how vegetarian is vegetarian" debate and it doesn't really belong on the vegan page anyway, because vegan was a term created just to avoid hair splitting like this. If text like the above were included (to get rid of any true confusion) it shouldn't call the notion "strange". [[User:Mshonle|MShonle]] 07:09, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Hi Mshonle,
I would appreciate this being (partially) reverted, as I can argue the term
"vegan product" is unnecessary, as it should be synonomous with "vegetarian product". However, many corporations are involved in deceptive practices and label foods "100% Vegetarian!" or "Suitable for Vegetarians" which contain animal products. This is should be addressed in the article.
The word "vegetarian" (person) is a synonym for herbivore, meaning, eating only plants. Now I realize that many people who call themselves vegetarian consume dairy and eggs. This does not make dairy and eggs "vegetarian".
A vegetarian diet is "Consisting primarily or wholly of vegetables and vegetable products". [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=vegetarian (refer)] Eggs and dairy ARE NOT VEGETABLE PRODUCTS. There is nothing at all "vegetarian" about a cheese omlet, for example.
I would consent to removal of "strange" if this controversy was covered.
:[[User:Mshonle|MShonle]] 23:10, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC) replies: First, vegan product is not synonmous with vegetarian product. Lip balm could be made of beeswax, which is vegetarian. Also, a vegetarian product could be tested on an animal, a vegan product never can be tested. Further more, vegetarian to refer to people is not a synonym for herbivore. The word vegetarian did not derive from the word vegetable, it derived from the latin vegitus, which means lively, energetic (think of vegetation).
:Also, wether you like it or not, the word vegetarian refers to people who do not eat meat but who possibly eat eggs and dairy. In fact, the wiki entry for vegetarian even begins saying this is so. Language is dictated by usage, not by fiat. The majority of the literature today says vegetarian means, for example, that cheese is ok, just as long as it doesn't have rennet. I challenge you to go to any vegetarian restaurant in America and order any random menu item to give to a vegan: odds are they would not find that policy acceptable. Either case, you do not seem impartial on this controversy. If it was one or two companies messing up and claiming rennet is vegetarian, that's one thing. You should post something discussing the confusion in meaning, but please be impartial and don't say that one is "the correct" one. A put it on the vegetarian page. You are confusing "strict vegetarian" with "vegetarian."
==Sublingual==
What is a sublingual vitamin? [[User:Rmhermen|Rmhermen]] 16:16, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)
==Norm?==
''Also, a 'vegan' diet is the norm in most parts of the world, partly for economic reasons, but a clear outcome is the absence of the diseases of the developed world such as cancer, heart and other obesity-related illnesses.''
(1) You're saying that cancer and heart disease are absent in vegan societies? I'm sure that's not true. (2) Is obesity less common in parts of the world because of veganism or because of a lack of abundance of available food? (3) What '''exactly''' does "the norm in most parts of the world" mean? I can believe that most of the world follows a '''mostly''' vegan diet (whether from ideology or necessity), but I doubt that most of the world follows a purely vegan diet.
I think this sentence needs some NPOV-ing.
''These facts are quoted by those who feel that 'veganism' is a modern localised and reactionary movement, rather than a movement which advocates a return to what is seen as a healthier and simpler lifestyle.''
Uh, this is backwards isn't it? These facts would be quoted by people who think that veganism is a return to what is seen as a healthier and simpler lifestyle, no?
[[User:Axlrosen|Axlrosen]] 15:39, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
:Hmm - I would have guessed people ate whatever they could get - [[insect]]s, [[bushmeat]], etc. I don't think this common veganism will stand scrutiny. [[User:Rmhermen|Rmhermen]] 15:44, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
Hi
OK hands up, I'll look at what I wrote again, with your valued comments in mind.
[[User:TonyClarke|TonyClarke]] 23:09, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
:Thanks, that's improved. Still some concerns:
: * I'm not convinced that in ''most'' parts of the world, people follow a mainly vegan diet. Do you have a (relatively unbiased) reference for this?
: * The whole flow of the "reaction or return to nature" section still seems out of whack to me. I'm not sure what it's getting at. Does it really say what it's supposed to say? The first two paragraphs, and the last paragraph, seem to be saying that veganism is NOT a return to nature, while the 3rd and 4th paragraphs seem to be saying that it is. Yet there are now "however"s or "on the other hands"s as I would expect. I'm confused.
:[[User:Axlrosen|Axlrosen]] 15:52, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Hi,
Well as regards point one, googling produced some statistics on two countries chosen at random, Zimbabwe and Pakistan, info from the Food and Agricultural Organisation, admittedly there is not good nutrition in these countries, to put it mildly:
"Cereals and green vegetbles form the main part of the Zimbabwean diet...table shows 2 1/2 per cent on average of daily energy supply obtained from animal sources. (1997 )
info from http://www.fao.org/es/esn/nutrition/zim-e.stm
Pakistan: the consumption of meat and fish is very low, providing 2% of daily energy
Cereals are the main source of dietary energy(62%)"
`I suspect more than 2% of our supermarkets are given over to animal based foods?
Point two, I'll have another look at the flow.
[[User:TonyClarke|TonyClarke]] 18:32, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
:www.fao.org is an interesting resource, thanks for pointing that out. Wherever you Googled that from, they're reading it wrong. They seem to be looking at the percentage of "meat & offal", but ignoring "fish & seafood", "animal fats", and "milk & eggs". Here are the total numbers for a few different countries:
:China: 16%
:India: 7.5%
:Pakistan: 14%
:Zimbabwe: 8%
:Granted, I'm sure the numbers for the US and Europe are higher than this - but I'd hardly call this "mainly vegan". (Even for a low number like India's - I know that milk products are a regular part of most Indian diets.) Since China + India + US + Europe is over half the world's population, I think we can safely conclude that the majority of the world is NOT vegan or "mainly vegan". (What does "mainly vegan" even mean? If I eat 49% animal products then am I "mainly vegan"?)
:So, I think this stat has to go.
:[[User:Axlrosen|Axlrosen]] 19:00, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Hi
The figures I looked at did not seem so high, and seemed to include fish, dairy etc. Statistics can be deceiving. I've reworded it to refer to vegetarian or vegan, and made some other changes to try to make clear what I meant. I changed the financial reason for widespread veganism, it suggested the amusing picture of people waiting thousands of years for affordable hamburgers to come along (!), hope you don't mind.
[[User:TonyClarke|TonyClarke]] 23:10, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
==Nutrition References==
Secretlondon: you've moved the "References" section from nutrition to the end of the document. Those references apply specifically to nutrition and not to veganism in general - should they not therefore stay in the nutrition section? If not, we should probably add a note like "see references below" in that section, and change the heading "References" to a == instead of a ===
[[User:KarlNaylor|KarlNaylor]] 09:06, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
:OK, as it's been 7 days since I posted this (I wrote the above on the 5th, but only added a signature on the 7th when I'd made a username for myself), and there's been no reply, I'm gonna go ahead and attempt to fix the situation myself. Feel free to change it if you don't like it. -- [[User:Karl Naylor|Karl Naylor]] 14:14, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
==Most __ sugar==
[[User:Mshonle]], [[User:Mkweise]], "most" ''what''?[[User:Hyacinth|Hyacinth]] 03:14, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
:See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Vegan&diff=0&oldid=3192621] in the edit history. Most (if not all) vegans avoid sugar that has been filtered through bone char, etc. You'll find lots of info on the web (and in books predating the web) about which brands of various products are known to be suitable for vegans and which aren't. [[User:Mkweise|Mkweise]] 04:36, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
::"Some vegans replace white table sugar with unbleached cane sugar or dehydrated and granulated cane juice, both of which are available in natural food stores. Most of these products can replace white sugar measure for measure for general use (such as on cereal or in beverages) and in recipes." [http://www.vegsource.com/jo/qa/qasugar.htm] Given that some "vegans" choose to consume honey, the sugar issue shouldn't be so absolute. Even though I don't think honey is vegan, people who consume it but are otherwise vegan should still be identified as such. It's in product labeling of something being vegan that it's important that no rules are broken.
:::[http://www.tipustiger.com/ Tipu's Tiger] of [[Missoula, Montana]], uses possibly bone-char filtered, probably partially bone-char filtered sugar in their 'vegan' items. PETA is okay with this as they featured Tipu's: [http://www.peta.org/liv/eats/indexmarch.html] or [http://www.petaeats.com/out-tipu.asp] (which are essentially the same).[[User:Hyacinth|Hyacinth]] 08:24, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
::::Remember: PETA is an animal rights advocacy group, not a vegan advocacy group. I see no reason for PETA to oppose the use of bone char, since no animal was ever harmed in its making. [[User:Mkweise|Mkweise]] 13:33, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
:::::Actually PETA advocates veganism, though they rarely use the term (they do use it more frequently on PETA2.com) and, since bone char requires that an animal be killed so as to remove its bones...[[User:Hyacinth|Hyacinth]] 18:06, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
:::For the purposes of building an encyclopedia, please don't go merrily redefining words according to how you think they ought to be used. A vegan who chooses to consume honey and/or milk thereby ceases to be a vegan and becomes a '''strict vegetarian''' (that's what I am, BTW, though I have been a vegan in the past.) [[User:Mkweise|Mkweise]] 13:33, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
::::Ahem, the definition of vegan on this page includes "as far as is possible and practical". A literal interpretation would imply practically no one but the most staunch isolationist could ever be vegan. That's not what veganism is about... it's about doing what you can. If a pan had meat in it before, and that's the only pan you have, a person no longer stops being a vegan by using it. (For what it's worth, strict vegetarians do not consume milk.) [[User:Mshonle|MShonle]] 17:03, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
::::For the purposes of building an encyclopedia, please don't go merrily redefining words ''against common usage'' according to fiat. [[User:Hyacinth|Hyacinth]] 18:06, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
==Fruitarianism==
:''Occasionally veganism is criticized as a prejudiced position, in that [[plant]]s are alive and that not killing should also extend to plants. Although this argument is used to suggest an absurdity of veganism by people with less stringent diets, it also forms the basis of [[fruitarian]]ism for some people.''
Mshonle, you removed this on the grounds that 'veganism is not specifically criticized by fruitarians'. I wasn't intending to imply that it was; I added this as an argument used by omnivores and lacto-ovo-vegetarians, and thought I should also point out the link to fruitarianism. This is based on the edits by [[User:205.188.116.79]] that you previously removed as vandalism. Maybe this issue could be better integrated with the existing reference to f'ism, but since the main point is to show that veganism has been criticized as prejudicial or as a kind of half measure, it seemed better under ==Backlash==. Does anyone have any ideas how this can be better integrated? -- [[User:Karl Naylor|Karl Naylor]] 12:42, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
:We've been removing that "kingdomism" guy for many months now; we don't need to bend over backward to satify a troll. Omnivores and lacto-ovos don't criticize vegans for eating plants. And while Fruitarians may criticise people who do eat plants, their main target is not veganism. There's a good discussion about the Inuit on the vegetarian page, and maybe we should copy that content. If we are to say anything under "backlash" we should have some evidence it actually exists. [[User:Mshonle|MShonle]] 16:23, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
::Fair enough, your point about evidence is well received. I've personally had the argument thrown at me a couple of times (by omnivores) that if I'm giving up milk and eggs, then 'surely' I should avoid hurting plants too, and this led me to accept the argument as a common one without checking for evidence that it was. -- [[User:Karl Naylor|Karl Naylor]] 18:00, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
:Actually, I've just noticed that the ==Similar diets= section mentions 'the aforementioned fructarian diet', but I can't find any other references in the article. Perhaps something was deleted? -- [[User:Karl Naylor|Karl Naylor]] 13:09, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
==Ethical criticism==
"Some would say that veganism itself is prejudiced, hypocritical, and nonsensical for the following reasons:"
* "it is prejudiced aganst plants, bacteria etc. and thus constitutes speciesism. This viewpoint is related to [[fructarianism]];"
* "it does not take into acount that simply by living a human being is killing many bacteria by the involuntary actions of ones immune system."
"However, the latter criticism does not take into account the point (above) that veganism means making whatever effort one feels is reasonable to avoid causing harm to animals—in most societies today, avoiding all harm even to the most apparently sentient animals is practically impossible. Many vegans feel that causing their biological functions to cease in order to avoid killing bacteria is not reasonable."
I removed the above. "Prejudice" against [[plant]]s and [[bacteria]] would not be speciesism, as neither are [[species]]. "Prejudice" against bacteria would be "[[Domain (biology)|domainism]]", and "prejudice" against plants would be [[Kingdom (biology)|kingdomism]]. I'm not aware of serious sources which make these criticisms (or their accurate versions). [[User:Hyacinth|Hyacinth]] 19:22, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
==Trans Fats==
Recently there has been a bit of deleting and reverting on the trans fats section. What does everyone think, should we leave it in, revise it, or delete it? I think it should be left in, but perhaps make it more clear that this is a nutritional issue not just for vegans but for anyone who eats processed food. [[User:Rosemaryamey|Rosemary Amey]] 20:04, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
Here is my base on deleting/rewriting the Trans Fat section.
*First, Trans-fat (hydrogenated oils) is found in all types of food, not just Vegan. In fact it is mostly found in junk food, fast food, or any highly processed food and not vegan food. Companies that make vegan food know how bad hydrogenated oil is and usually do not included it in their products.
*Secondly, the paragraph states it's "found in some popular vegan products such as veggie-burgers, french fries, and almost all baked goods." This is a huge over generalization. People who love french fries are most likely non-vegan and most likely get their fries from fast food restaurants, which certainly do use hydrogenated oils when making them.
*Any health conscious vegan knows to avoid hydrogenated and partially hydrogenated oils. I think this paragraph was written with "lazy" vegans in mind. Yes there are many vegans and even more vegetarians who eat a lot of junk food and do not practice good nutrition, but that's a whole other article. Which is why I don't think this short paragraph should be included in the Vegan-Nutrition section. I have also read many Vegan Nutrition guides and none have ever mentioned to watch out for trans-fats. I discovered them on my own.
So I think this section should either be deleted or re-wrote to expand it and include some of the points I made. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Milk Milk] 27 May 2004
I know lots of vegans who love french fries and other vegan junk foods, so I think this should be left in but reworded so that it doesn't look like this is a special vegan issue, since most non-vegans probably consume way more trans fats. (By the way, you can quickly add your name and the date and time to your comment by typing four tildes (~) together.) [[User:Rosemaryamey|Rosemary Amey]] 17:52, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
Yes, it should be re-written then. I will go ahead and then you can see if it's ok. [[User:Milk|Milk]] 15:58, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
==Alternative Medicine==
There is nothing particularly alternative about veganism. Veganism is supported by mainstream medical science and these days most opposition to the vegan diet comes from alternative practitioners (such as the blood type diet, Atkins, etc). I do not like seeing veganism associated with "alternative" medicine. Many vegans (myself included, obviously) are skeptical about alternative medicine. I would like to remove that text box at the bottowm, but what do others think? [[User:Rosemaryamey|Rosemary Amey]] 16:10, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I agree. While veganism is considered an "alternative diet or lifestyle" it should not be associated with "alternative medicine". [[User:Milk|Milk]] 01:39, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
:Every article can be classsified more than one way. So, it is with a lot of mainstream activities like exercise and diet. They are part of natural approaches to health such as [[Natural hygiene]] which is classified [[alternative medicine]]. I have replaced the orange box with one that doesn't even look like a box. -- [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde]] 07:53, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
::Now it just looks out of place. This article already has a see also section Which you are free to place alturnaive medcine link if you feel they are relivant. There are a number of other places the role of vegaism in alt med could be better covered.12:46, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
==Modern veganism in context==
I have corrected minor factual error about Buddhism and vegan. Chinese buddhist practice vegetarianism but not veganism. The rest of buddhist schools don't. Jain monks practice much stricter form of veganism. Also, in developing countries, they didn't eat much meat or daily product simply because they were poor and lack of protein intake were genuine and serious health problem. That obviously change once these people become wealthy enough to be able to pay for imported food and supplement.
yes, all over the world "developing" countries are becoming Westernized and adopting the western traditions of heavy meat and dairy intake, and so they are also developing our common health problems. Japan is a prime example of this. More and more fast food restaurants are opening up, and now many Japanese children are becoming overweight. [[User:Milk|Milk]] 20:36, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I think that increase in intake of suger, cereal, meat and eggs ought to be described as sign of increased affuluence and labelling it as "Westernization" is a POV given that these type of foods are common in most culture. On the other hand, popularisation of dairy product is certainly part of "Westernization" as many culture did not always consume milk of other mammals. Plus the extent in which dairy product contribute to the problem of obesity is bit debatable IMO. [[User:FWBOarticle|FWBOarticle]]
More information on this can be found in the book "Diet for a New America" by John Robbins, and his more recent book "The Food Revolution". He describes how countries with the highest intake of meat and diary have the highest rates of osteoperosis, heart disease, etc. But many factors could go into that as well. More info on the link between meat/diary and obesity/health problems can be found at: www.goveg.com, www.milksucks.com, www.pcrm.org [[User:Milk|Milk]] 00:42, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
:Or you might find that people who eat right type of food for the right amount have the best health. If those lazy fat arse switch to vegan, do you really think they look after their diet. Surely we would be switching one health problem with others. Best and easiest diet to follow is to eat the right type of food (including meat) with right amount. Trying to promote vegan diet as "healthier" diet is dishonest in my view. More accurate representation is to say vegan diet can be as healthy as others thought some medical research seems to disagree. The case for vegan is in ethics, not health.
::The China Study found that the optimum amount of animal products in the diet is zero. Meat is never "the right type of food" in any amount for humans, even ignoring issues of ethics. [[User:Rosemaryamey|Rosemary Amey]] 18:06, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
:::Well, given that there is no reliable source of vitamine B12 from vegetables, the logic of research is highly questionable. Either someone took the research out of context or the research itself is highly questionable. Either way, can you state the source of "The China Study"? Anyway, when one's main argument is matter of ethics, why bother with redhearing. Sound like a Jehovah's witness I talked to. He was telling me that blood transfusion is unnecessary. I told him he won't do it even (hypothetically) it is necessary. So why bother.
==Human hair?==
I agree with [[User:ContiE]] that products using human hair are still vegan, but I'm wondering what [[User:Heegoop]] has to say on the matter. Heegoop, are you a vegan who avoids human hair, or do you know vegans who do? And if so, why? [[User:Rosemaryamey|Rosemary Amey]] 18:28, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
(copied from [[user talk:rosemaryamey]])
==Human hair is not vegan==
Human hair from salons is not vegan because human hair is techinally an animal product. Vegans do use the human they grow but not other human's hair. You see humans are actually animals because they are in the kingdom Animalia. Vegans also avoid other human products such as keratin.
Get the picture, vegans do not use human products. Now I am not vegan but I thought about being vegan. - [[User:Heegoop|Heegoop]], 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
:I have never heard of any vegan avoiding human hair. Vegans avoid animal products because of the suffering and exploitation involved, neither of which apply to freely given human hair. [[User:Rosemaryamey|Rosemary Amey]] 23:32, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, this issue is very weird and getting too technical. Yes humans are technically animals but thats taken it to the extreme. I have never heard any vegan mention human products as part of their veganism. Use of human hair is not very common anyways. Wigs are mostly made with horse hair, right? I also have a problem with mentioning human mother's milk. The way it's written seems as if adult vegans drink milk from lactating women, which is wrong. It should be written in way to describe the "milk" vegans avoid as not including human milk, only cow-milk, goat-milk, etc. [[User:Milk|Milk]] 00:33, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
:It is not unusual for lactating mothers to let their adult partners have a sip. I have also heard of a woman giving her milk to her husband in the hopes that it would treat his cancer. [[User:Rosemaryamey|Rosemary Amey]] 02:39, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
We seem to be forgetting the motivation that more accurately characterizes veganism than any dietary prohibition. There are at least two important differenes:
*Humans may consent to the use of their hair, non-human animals can not.
*Human hair, from barber shops, is removed in a usually cruelty-free manner.
This is simply another "What if...?" question. "What if you were trapped on a lifeboat, just you and a chicken, would you eat the chicken?" [[User:Hyacinth|Hyacinth]] 03:50, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
| 