So, this is a sort of a tangent from a vegetarian thread that I was reading and posting in. The synopsis of many of the posts was that to be considered a vegetarian it requires a 100% commitment without wavering for anything or anyone. If you don't eat meat 99.9% of the time, why can't you be considered a vegetarian? In a post I cynically compared being vegetarian to being a passing student. If to a be a vegetarian you have to be 100% committed to the "rules" of vegetarianism, why don't you have to consistently receive 100% on tests and papers to be considered a passing student? There are grades for students, thus creating a sliding pragmatic scale between failing and passing. Why couldn't there be a sliding scale for vegetarianism?
This got me to thinking about society in general, why do we feel that a sliding scale is alright for some things such as the definition of a passing student, but not alright for other definitions such as vegetarian?
What if a person is a car mechanic, but is not 100% dedicated to his job? Can he truly consider himself a car mechanic?
Does simply being registered a democrat or republican make you a democrat or republican, or must you be 100% unwaveringly committed to those candidates and platform? Could you still be a democrat if you only agree with 80% of their rhetoric?
Can someone be considered a snowboarder if only 50% of their spare time is dedicated to snowboarding, while the other 50% is dedicated to other things?
What if someone is only partially dedicated to the aspects AB or DL lifestyle? Can they still be considered AB/DL? What if they like wearing diapers, but don't like using them? Are they truly a DL?
Why is it okay to be defined as something when you are only 50% dedicated to it in one situation, but not the other? Why does a pragmatic approach work in some situations and not others?
Any thoughts or other examples?