Had an old block of tofu that needed to be used. Crumbling up tofu by hand is so much more satisfying than breaking up ground beef in a pan. I tossed it in double fermented soy sauce and squid brand fish sauce and baked it at 350F until it browned. The beans were kidney, black, garbanzo, and some tiny guys called “rice beans”
“Almost vegan” isn’t a thing. And it’s not even vegetarian.
This kind of comment is why people turn away from veganism.
If you expect nothing but perfection from the people who try, they won’t bother.
Ask yourself if you actually want people to use fewer animal products, or if you just want to feel morally superior.
Of course it is. The concept is harm reduction. If you aren’t able to make the entire leap-fine, reduce your reliance on animal products instead. Gatekeeping and belittling people ain’t it bud.
I mean im trying to reduce but hes right its not vegan. it is a type of vegetarian though but pescatarian has come in as vogue for it. My goal would be lacto-ovo vegetarian
I’m not arguing that what you did was vegan. I’m challenging his assertion that you can’t describe something as approaching veganism without meeting the threshold of actual veganism. It’s weird and gatekeepy.
I don’t understand why you are so against using the accurate and more flexible term “plant-based” instead of “vegan”.
Why do you insist on bastardizing veganism? I don’t get it. Like I told you earlier, labels matter and this just breeds confusion on what’s vegan and what’s not. People already are confused about veganism because of nonsense like this. Just call it “mostly plant based” and call it a day.
“Veganism” is total abstinence from animal products.
Something is either vegan or it’s not. It’s completely binary. Either it contains animal based products or it doesn’t.
Food that is mostly plant based is way better for the environment and animals than your average meat and dairy based meals, but it’s just not “almost vegan”. Labels have meanings and it should be like that so there’s no confusion.
For someone so keyed in on definitions you seem to have missed the definition of the word ‘almost’. Things can be more similar to one thing than another. For instance using fish sauce in dishes vs easting a hamburger. But thank you for sharing your apparently very binary view of the world.
Have you heard anyone say “almost halal” or “almost kosher”? No?
This is just as ridiculous.
I don’t understand your argument. Those are religious definitions, you also don’t say your “almost christian”.
Have you heard someone say “almost dry” or “almost complete”? Because “dry” and “complete” are also binary things.
It’s almost like context matters.
veganism is a philosophy of harm reduction on animals. while it is not perfect it is not intentional. therefore your dish is no where near vegan.
It is almost plant based though.
the definition is rather important to lots of people and this is the reason you are getting some push back.
He said almost vegan. As in not vegan but closer to it than other diets. Why are you so concerned with not using vegan as the far end of a spectrum of diets? It makes you look incredibly performative.
Veganism is not a diet. I think this is the source of your confusion.
I suppose I can get behind this distinction. Veganism is a philosophy that results in following a vegan diet. And so I am saying his diet approaches a vegan diet, I don’t know the motivations for such- so I can agree that perhaps it isn’t motivated by a vegan philosophy. But it is not debatable that his diet is “almost vegan” in nature (it is definitely much closer to vegan than an average Western diet for example) even if their philosophy may not be. That being said- trying to belittle people for a lesser form harm reduction when vegan philosophy is literally a harm reduction practice seems counterintuitive and elitist.
My bad for using incorrect terms. *Meatless.