On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 22:44:29 GMT, "John Coleman" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote in message ...
>> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 20:53:07 GMT, "John Coleman" > wrote:
>> >"Digger" > wrote in message ...
>> >> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 00:10:50 -0400, "magnulus" >wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Isn't a human an animal,
>> >>
>> >> We are mammals by virtue of the female of our species
>> >> having mammary glands. (thank you, Lord)
>> >>
>> >> >so wouldn't human breast milk be an "animal
>> >> >byproduct"?
>> >>
>> >> Yes, and therefore a non-vegan source of food.
>> >
>> >incorrect - you need to start with a valid definition of
>> >veganism, then work from there
>>
>> Milk is an animal product and thereby non-vegan by default.
>
>incorrect
Then you must allow all diary users to announce themselves
as vegan.
>- please start with the right defiition
>
>as stated befo
>"Today, the Society remains as determined as ever to promote vegan
>lifestyles - that is, ways of living that seek to exclude, as far as is
>possible and practical, all forms of exploitation of animals for food,
>clothing or any other purpose. "
>http://www.vegansociety.com/html/about_us/
And where, in any of that does it conclude milk to be
a vegan source of nourishment?
>> Then, a person who nourishes himself on expressed human
>> milk and placentas is living on a vegan diet, is he?
>
>According to the original definition above yes,
There is nothing in that definition that says milk an placenta
are vegan sources of nourishment.
>but not according to the
>traditional practices of vegans.
And certainly not according to the definition you've brought
here, either. In another thread to this you've claimed meat
can be sourced from animals that die accidentally, and be
regarded as vegan fare, and now you're claiming a woman's
placenta is vegan fare as well. What other animal products
do you regard as vegan fare and ware, John?
>As with Islam, there is Islam the religion
>and the traditions of Islamists. In practical terms vegans avoid animal
>products because exploitation is usually inherent.
They avoid animal products for other reasons apart from
its exploitative component. "It applies to the practice
of living on the products of the plant kingdom to the
exclusion of flesh, fish, fowl, eggs, honey, animal milk and
its derivatives, and encourages the use of alternatives for
all commodities derived wholly or in part from animals."
http://www.vegsource.com/jo/essays/namegame.htm
>> They give up their milk quite voluntarily, and there's no cruelty
>> or exploitation involved in relieving them of it, so why isn't it
>> vegan fare while human milk is?
>
>Already explained.
No, you haven't explained, and you haven't explained
how meat sourced from animals involved in accidents
is vegan fare either.
> Cows do not volunteer their milk, it is all part of a
>cruel system of exploitation and extermination.
It goes without saying that in some cases, milk and
eggs can be sourced without causing any harm to the
animal concerned at all, yet it still wouldn't be vegan
fare.
>Distress to Young Calf & Mother
[snip]
I'm fully aware of the dairy industry and the inherent
cruelty involved in it. I want it abolished yesterday.
However, as I keep trying to point out, milk can be
sourced from dairy and feral cows without harming
them in the least, so why isn't that milk vegan while
human milk is?
>> Exactly. It's very common for cows to make their own way
>> to the milking parlour for just that very reason; to volunteer it
>> up so as to relieve themselves. There's nothing inherently cruel
>> or exploitative about relieving a cow of it's milk, John. That
>> being so, why isn't it vegan fare if cruelty and exploitation
>> aren't involved in its production?
>
>see the above - cruelty and exploitation are involved in milk production
That's very true, and it's because of this inherent
cruelty involved that I want diary parlours to close,
but that doesn't mean milk can't be sourced without
cruelty or exploitation. It can, so why can't it be seen
as a vegan source of nourishment?
> (if
>you could synthesise milk in a lab from non animal sources, I guess that
>would be vegan, but I expect not environmentally friendly)
>
>> What if calves weren't taken and made to suffer - would
>> the milk from its mother qualify as vegan fare?
>
>This question is of little practical value
It's of enormous practical value and would have been
even more so had you not snipped out what the question
referred to.
- we deal with the system that
>DOES exist. But the answer would still be no IMO, as veganism is mainly
>about stopping exploitation. As we cannot ascertain the intentions of other
>animals, then it is hard to be in a position where we can reason that we are
>not exploiting them, that is that they are consciously consenting as equals.
>
>Chattel slaves go to work to avoid the pain of a beating, and cows to avoid
>the pain of milk excess buildup (that their calves should relieve) - in both
>cases although very different, fundamentally the situation is one of fear
>and exploitation.
>
>I submit that if they gave a cow pain killers so it didn't feel that its
>udders were full, it would not turn up at the milk parlour and "volunteer"
>its milk. This suggestion that cows "volunteer" milk is absurd - a confusion
>of similarity and equivalents. One does not "volunteer" when one is
>compelled through pain or fear of pain.
>
>John
>