"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.
Then you must allow all diary users to announce themselves
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
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."
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
Nor does it say breast milk isn't vegan - quite the opposite:
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
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
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
It's of enormous practical value and would have been
even more so had you not snipped out what the question
so expand - and start with THE definition given, not making it up yourself