While you are right that my citation of the original meaning of the term proves nothing, if you want to talk about the history of ideas, there is a very compelling case to be made for the history of veganism as a response to the problem of animal oppression and exploitation. That you should look up, because the bulk of history when it comes down to it is truly on my side of this argument.

To reiterate: I equate non-AR reasons for being vegan not as theory divorced from praxis but instead as a bad fit between theory and praxis. My entry says as much. I'm not saying that no one has thought about it; obviously they have. I can't believe that you'd argue that any kind of reflexive action in and of itself constitutes a justifiable reason to do something. And to be completely frank, I actually do have a certain level of disdain for views that neglect issues of rights, because I think that view is very dangerous. I'd have the same disdain if someone suggested to me that your rights were unimportant, because I believe that in either case, rights deserve appropriate recognitions. I'm not convinced that because someone has what they believe are good reasons to do something that I must then, therefore, also share in their appreciation of those reasons as “good.” In fact, from a moral standpoint, what you suggest implies in a broader sense a space from which no one could ever make any judgment about the actions of another if the other actor had been shown to have had what they believed to have been a good reason for their action. Common sense flies in the face of this, though I suppose if you're off huffing po-mo crap at some liberal arts college somewhere, this kind of logic might make sense.

As for what you do or don't know, I actually have no idea beyond what you've written here because you're comfortably hiding behind a pseudonym, which is fine — it takes guts to own your positions, because then people can come back later and let you know if you were wrong. Well, I'm not hiding behind anything, and as a result, my training, credentials, and ideas are available for your perusal on this blog, in the books I've had something to do with, in the articles I've published in both academic and nonacademic sources, and probably in other places. Sure, I've said a bunch of stupid shit, and put myself out there on the line a lot, and I've been wrong a lot. I'm not stubborn enough to imagine that people who agree with me are the only intelligent people with well-thought-out positions. If that kind of accusation were true about me as a general matter, I'd not be vegan. So no, I don't think I have the lock on Truth, but I do think that there is a thorough and logically compelling case to be made for animal rights veganism, and that the logic of that case also immediately implies a certain kind of praxis. Though I used to believe otherwise, I'm no longer convinced that there's any purely environmental theory that necessarily implies a praxis of veganism. That — and only that — was my point.

And with that, I'm closing the comments, because I really should be finishing up two books, and I don't have time to respond thoughtfully and play these little games. But thanks for the challenges. I wish I could say that they were at least interesting enough to make me think about my position from a new angle, but in all honesty, it was mostly undergrad-league thinking laced with a rather tiring moral relativism. Regardless, good luck with whatever you've got going on, and thanks for the points.

There are four possible combinations, as I see it. One can either use or not use animal products (including wool, leather etc.) and one can either believe or not believe in animal rights. So the possibilities are as follows:

Uses animal products (+). Believes in animal rights (+). Bob says “Not a vegan at all”
Uses animal products (+). Believes in animal rights (-). Bob says “Not a vegan at all”
Uses animal products (-). Believes in animal rights (+). Bob says “VEGAN!!!”
Uses animal products (-). Believes in animal rights (-). Bob says “Not a “real” vegan”

So, why is it that the person who believes in animal rights AND uses animal products not a vegan, Bob? They have the theory, just not that not-so-important praxis. Is it because what one DOES is actually important? I already know how you're going to answer this: someone who REALLY believes in animal rights would not use animal products. But I don't buy that. Not at all. I know plenty of people who are “guilty omnis” or “guilty vegetarians.” I think we all do. They essentially do believe in animal rights, but they're not vegan i.e. they don't have the praxis. Theory and praxis are both important to MOST vegans, but when it comes down to it, the theory is not worth jack if you don't have the praxis. The praxis is what really matters and envirovegans have it.

Your “white race” vegan hypothetical is ridiculous, but I would say that the person would indeed be a vegan, but I would NOT say the person is “an ally to veganism on the whole” because 1) no such person exists 2) this non-existent person has an ideology with no sound basis in fact, whereas environmental vegans are doing it for good reasons with a basis in fact (it's just not the one you prefer to promote). But I question why you feel the need to throw out an absurd hypothetical when we have examples of non-AR vegans, the very topic of your blog post, namely people who are vegan for environmental reasons. Let's stick to them.

Regardless of whether you think someone has a “real reason to be fully vegan 100% of the time,” the fact remains that there are non-AR vegans who ARE vegan 100% of the time. You yourself acknowledge “The existence of envirovegans,” so some people obviously do, in fact, have non-AR reasons to be vegan 100% of the time. You many not “get” it, but they DO and that's what matters. So how can you claim that “the only philosophical orientation that produces full-fledged veganism is an orientation that recognizes the inherent worth of animals.” Huh? Either these people exist or they don't. If they exist, their very existence disproves that statement (unless, of course, you believe that belief matters MORE than praxis).

When you say “The term itself was coined from an animal rights perspective — go look it up,” are you making an argument that the coinage and etymology of a term can define an idea? If so, you don't know much about etymology or intellectual history. Ideas and words change all the time. The person who first put forth a term or idea has no more right to continue to define and delimit what the word or idea means seventy years later. Language changes. Ideas change. Deal with it. This “term was coined” argument proves nothing.

No one, certainly not me, is advocating “divorcing theory from praxis.” The fact that you got that from what I wrote illustrates your small way of thinking about veganism. You equate being vegan for non-AR reasons with “divorcing theory from praxis” and that is what is insulting. Do you REALLY think that non-AR vegans don't have their own philosophical or theoretical underpinnings for their veganism? Do you think that they just do it for no good reason at all? You equate not being AR with having no philosophy or theory for one's actions. That's my main problem with people that think veganism and AR are inextricably linked: they think that the AR approach is the ONLY way and anyone that disagrees is not a “real” vegan. You say that “The existence of envirovegans… proves that people have not paid attention to the theory [] behind their actions.” No, Bob, what it proves is that not all that people have paid attention to YOUR theory behind YOUR actions. To imply that people who disagree with you have not though about the theory behind their actions is super insulting. And how exactly does “The existence of envirovegans… prove[] that people don't really have a fundamental understanding of environmental problems?” Please explain.

And when you say that you “don't really care who [you] insult,” I can understand that, because it is your blog (and I am grateful for the opportunity to provide my opposing viewpoint here). What I don't understand is why you would want to insult a group of people who already have the praxis part down. How does that make for good AR outreach? These people are more likely to ultimately become receptive to an AR viewpoint than almost any other group of non-AR vegans that I can think of.

“You're not obliged to “take [my] critique seriously.” But if you assume that I “haven't really thought through what [I'm] suggesting,” you're free to just dismiss what I say because it doesn't fit with the way you see things. Anyone that disagrees with you just hasn't though about it, because if they had, then they would agree with you. right? That is what I find insulting and reeking of hubris and disdain for opposing viewpoints.

But, hey, what do I know? I'm just a guy that obviously hasn't really though through what he believes, right? So please dismiss me. Only people that agree with your are thinking, intelligent people with well-thought out positions. Keep telling yourself that. Repeat it like a mantra.

“But most of us — barring, perhaps, primitivist anarchists — would argue that the person objecting on environmental grounds is rather missing the larger point here: namely, that genocide is deeply repulsive and horribly wrong because it violates the basic rights that we think all human beings should have.” This line in particular condenses much of what I've had trouble articulating in the past.

Vegan Freak was the first book I bought when I made the decision to live the cruelty-free lifestyle, and one I suggest frequently, and quote from (sometimes just in my own head) even more frequently. I'm happy to see, that despite how very good the book is, you're not resting on the subject, and look forward to finding new nuggets of sanity in the revision.

I argue this point because I think that the action is (and should be) informed by the theory. For example, someone who is vegan only for health reasons has no real reason to be fully vegan 100% of the time. One can eat small amounts of meat or dairy or eggs or fish and still be quite healthy. Similarly, an envirovegan has no real reason to be 100% vegan, because they can probably convince themselves at some point or another that free-range beef is less environmentally harmful than tofu (I have no idea, but I'd guess that there probably are sets of environmental trade-offs for either, if one is thinking solely in those terms). The only philosophical orientation that produces full-fledged veganism is an orientation that recognizes the inherent worth of animals. There's no convincing reason to not be fully vegan if you buy the notion of animal rights.

You may not like the idea, but veganism is and always has been about animals rights. The term itself was coined from an animal rights perspective — go look it up. Without animal rights, veganism isn't really anything; it is a strange diet. Rather than telling me what i need to realize — and jeez, some of you people seem so hostile — you need to realize that divorcing theory from praxis is idiotic. The existence of envirovegans does not prove that veganism and animal rights are not fundamentally linked; it proves that people have not paid attention to what that linkage means, and what the theory is behind their actions. It proves that people are confused about the linkages between morals and living them, and it proves that people don't really have a fundamental understanding of environmental problems.

Truth is, I don't really care who I insult. I'm not in this to protect people's feelings. From the looks of it, many of the anonymous cowards who comment on this blog aren't worried about it either, because in the past two days, I've been called a number of things, and had my motivations questioned — all because I try to raise some points for discussion and thought.

But with all that said, I really don't know why anyone would imagine that embracing only an animal rights view of veganism is self-serving to me. If you look at it from the most craven possible angle which is that I'm trying to sell more books, the perspective that would make the most sense would be the one that opened the biggest tent, or a perspective such as what you're proposing, where there is no fundamental connection between the practice and theory of veganism. Logically, wouldn't that help me the most if you presume that my goal is to sell the most books? Wouldn't I want to promote the broadest possible interpretation of veganism, and wouldn't I be selling the environmental angle heavily? In short, I have the most to gain by doing exactly the opposite of what I'm doing, which makes your point look, at best, ill-considered. I think you're trying to discredit my argument without having done the hard work of thinking of a rational response that means much of anything.

I'm convinced that you haven't really thought through what you're suggesting, and that's okay: it is the Internet. The stakes for making a critique are low. But to imply that what I'm promoting is self-serving is absurd, and not backed up by any kind of evidence that would be considered passable by any rational person. Coupled with the troubling assertion that what people do is not related to what the action actually means, I'm not sure that I can actually take your critique seriously.

As for the environment, when are people going to realize that an infinitely expanding system that requires infinite resources (capitalism) cannot possibly, by its very definition, be sustainable? And when are they going to realize that a system which places profit over anything else is fundamentally at odds with the environment? I don't think you're just “dream[ing] big.” As Joel Kovel points out, it's either the end of capitalism or the end of the world.