It's not really a moral issue, it's simply the definition of the word. Using an incorrect term to describe yourself knowing it is incorrect can be perceived as virtue-signaling or claiming your own moral superiority. For example, one could ask "why call yourself a vegan if you eat fish?".
There's no policing body here, but people are rightfully calling the double-standard out here.
Edit: Would also love to hear the ethics of why fish can be eaten when cows/chicken/pigs cannot. Doesn't sound ethically consistent to me at all.
I actually prefer not to call myself a vegan IRL both because of the issue you’re describing and because veganism is (rightfully) associated with having a toxic and intolerant culture. The only reason I said “vegan except fish” in my comment is because the title of the study used the word “vegan” and because the study was talking about veganism in a purely dietary/scientific lens, not an ethical one. I think this was a pretty reasonable thing to do.
If it doesn’t make sense for people to say “vegan except for chicken”, “vegan except for beef”, then why on earth would it make sense to say “vegan except fish”?
Fish aren’t lesser beings, they are living creatures like anything else.
Just stop saying “vegan except fish”. Say you eat plants and fish. That’s all you have to do.
If it doesn’t make sense for people to say “vegan except for chicken”, “vegan except for beef”, then why on earth would it make sense to say “vegan except fish”?
I don't know why you take offense to someone saying "vegan except for beef" or "vegan except for fish." There is nothing inherently wrong with these statements. It just depends on whether you view veganism as a lifestyle or as a diet, which can vary depending on the context. In the context of a nutrition study, we are obviously talking about the diet, not the lifestyle.
Comments
It's not really a moral issue, it's simply the definition of the word. Using an incorrect term to describe yourself knowing it is incorrect can be perceived as virtue-signaling or claiming your own moral superiority. For example, one could ask "why call yourself a vegan if you eat fish?".
There's no policing body here, but people are rightfully calling the double-standard out here.
Edit: Would also love to hear the ethics of why fish can be eaten when cows/chicken/pigs cannot. Doesn't sound ethically consistent to me at all.
I actually prefer not to call myself a vegan IRL both because of the issue you’re describing and because veganism is (rightfully) associated with having a toxic and intolerant culture. The only reason I said “vegan except fish” in my comment is because the title of the study used the word “vegan” and because the study was talking about veganism in a purely dietary/scientific lens, not an ethical one. I think this was a pretty reasonable thing to do.
If it doesn’t make sense for people to say “vegan except for chicken”, “vegan except for beef”, then why on earth would it make sense to say “vegan except fish”?
Fish aren’t lesser beings, they are living creatures like anything else.
Just stop saying “vegan except fish”. Say you eat plants and fish. That’s all you have to do.
I don't know why you take offense to someone saying "vegan except for beef" or "vegan except for fish." There is nothing inherently wrong with these statements. It just depends on whether you view veganism as a lifestyle or as a diet, which can vary depending on the context. In the context of a nutrition study, we are obviously talking about the diet, not the lifestyle.