On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 13:52:34 -0400, "C. James Strutz" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote in message ...
>> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 11:22:55 -0400, "C. James > wrote:
>> >"Digger" > wrote in messagenewspcqm0dkbv0dhqn3727dp6i1jp1fa76fq0@4ax .com...
>> >
>> >> If the vegan society want to pretend that human milk is
>> >> a valid source of nourishment for vegans to consume,
>> >> then they have no rational basis for excluding the milk
>> >> sourced from other animals.
>> >
>> >No. Veganism is a lifestyle that avoids the exploitation of
>> >animals. The case in which human mothers breastfeed
>> >their children is not exploitation.
>>
>> Relieving a cow of her milk is not inherently cruel or
>> exploitative,
>
>You must not know much about the process of producing milk. Before you
>reply, do us all and yourself a favor and research milk production and
>dairy farming.

I've been on these groups for years and understand all
the bad practices that go on in the diary industry, but,
nevertheless, in spite of this inherent cruelty involved
in the industry, relieving a cow of its milk is not inherently
cruel or exploitative. That being so, according to your
criteria which qualifies a foodstuff as valid vegan fare
so long as nothing has been exploited, you have no rational
basis on which to disqualify cows milk sourced from cows
that can be shown not to have suffered or been exploited.
Such a source for milk is possible, both in theory and in
practice, so now tell me why that milk is disqualified as
a valid vegan food item.

>Look into artificial insemination, grain-feeding and
>antibiotics, living conditions, what they do with new born calves, and
>what they do to dairy cows who stop producing. Then check your
>dictionary for "cruel" and "exploit" and think about how they might
>apply to dairy farming and milk production. You will see that it is
>anything but "relief" for cows.

I've campaigned to close the dairy industry for years
now, and there's nothing you can tell me about it that
I don't already know.

>> so if your only objection to it as a valid
>> vegan food source is on the basis that it is, you must
>> then allow vegans to use diary products sourced from
>> animals which can be shown not to have been cruelly
>> treated or exploited.
>
>You're concluding from flawed logic.

You disqualify foods as vegan fare if the person or animal
has been exploited while procuring it. That much is clear,
so you therefore have no rational basis, in theory or in practice,
on which to disqualify cows milk if it can be shown that the
animal never suffered or was exploited.

>> >The case in which human mothers feed their children
>> >dairy milk is exploitation.
>>
>> If exploitation is the sole reason for defining a food as
>> non-vegan, then what argument have you against those
>> who declare milk sourced from unexploited animals as
>> vegan fare?
>
>And just how do you get milk from a cow without exploiting her?

In exactly the same way I would get milk from any
nursing mother with an excess of it. There's nothing
inherently cruel or exploitative in relieving a mother of
its milk.

>> Also, it is on record that women can receive
>> £2.30 for each pint they express.
>
>It's exploitation.

Thank you. You've now excluded human milk as vegan
fare on the grounds of exploitation. Check out the 70000
hits on human milk banks from http://tinyurl.com/6dbs8
and see how many infants you've now disqualified as
being vegan, and all because of your criteria of
exploitation.

>> What if some third-
>> World country were to take advantage of that market
>> and hold women in milk parlours to extract their milk
>> for a small wage; would that be vegan fare?
>
>No.

Thank you.

>> As you can see, exploitation is not the sole issue that
>> qualifies or disqualifies a food as vegan fare. Eggs,
>> for example, can be found on the ground, yet they
>> still don't qualify as a vegan foodstuff either, so your
>> basis for qualifying vegan foods on exploitation has
>> no grounds.
>
>Eggs are a form of life whether you find them on the ground or take
>them from a production farm. It's exploitation.

Not all eggs are fertilised. So what about them then?
Will we soon be seeing recipes from Mr Falafel that
include non-fertilised eggs and human milk? Nothing
has been exploited by eating an unfertilised egg found
in a hedgerow, but we still don't regard that as vegan
fare, do we?

>> >You can't just blanket define anyone who
>> >comsumes milk as non-vegan without considering the exploitation
>> >issues.

You just did, and on the basis of exploitation, no less.

>> Then you cannot exclude any diary product from the
>> list of vegan foods so long as it was produced without
>> cruelty and in a non-exploitative way.
>
>I ask again, how do you get milk from a cow without exploiting her?

In theory and in practice, a cow can be relieved of
its milk without exploiting it. That being so, according
to your criteria of what constitutes vegan fare, milk
from such an animal would qualify.

>While I'm at it, I'll ask you what you think the difference is between
>making love and prostition.

Another day - yeah?

>I wonder if you can draw any
>similarities...
>
>> >Agree with it or not, there's your rational basis.
>>
>> And it fails.
>
>Only if you conclude from faulty information and logic.

If I'm wrong in saying your criteria for excluding certain
foods as valid vegan fare is based solely on exploitation,
what else would it be based on, and how will you then
be able to include human milk onto that list?