"Digger" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 22:44:29 GMT, "John Coleman" > wrote:
>
> >"Digger" > wrote in message
...
> >> Milk is an animal product and thereby non-vegan by default.
> >
> >incorrect
>
> Then you must allow all diary users to announce themselves
> as vegan.

why - cow milk yes, a result of exploitation, but human milk no

> And where, in any of that does it conclude milk to be
> a vegan source of nourishment?

it does not - where does it conclude that human breast milk isn't vegan?

> There is nothing in that definition that says milk an placenta
> are vegan sources of nourishment.

they are not excluded either - but the definition says it all, one simply
has to apply it

> 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?

Any that fall outside the definition already given - do you not understand
this?

Vegans are people who seek to AVOID EXPLOITING ANIMALS. Eating roadkill
doesn't cause exploitation, so isn't prohibited in veganism.

> 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

This simply says that an exclusively plant based diet, animal free lifestyle
falls within the definitions bounds of being vegan. I agree. It doesn't say
that one must exclude animal products if they can be obtained without
exploitation.

Nor does it say breast milk isn't vegan - quite the opposite:
http://www.vegansociety.com/html/peo...astfeeding.php

> No, you haven't explained, and you haven't explained
> how meat sourced from animals involved in accidents
> is vegan fare either.

Well I did.

> 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.

according to what definition?

> 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?

I think exploitation could still be involved in that case, afterall you are
still _using_ the cow, and that is exploitation - you simply cannot
establish consent.

> cruelty or exploitation. It can, so why can't it be seen
> as a vegan source of nourishment?

I don't agree with your assertion of obtaining milk without exploitation. I
think exploitation is probably inherent, although there might be a little
greyness.

> It's of enormous practical value and would have been
> even more so had you not snipped out what the question
> referred to.

so expand - and start with THE definition given, not making it up yourself

John