On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 18:01:37 GMT, "John Coleman" > wrote:
>"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

Humans can be exploited for their milk, in theory and
in practice, so according to your definition of what
constitutes proper vegan fare, human breast milk is
disqualified so long as people claim women are being
exploited for it.

>> And where, in any of that does it conclude milk to be
>> a vegan source of nourishment?
>
>it does not

Then you cannot conclude that human milk has been
made an exception unless clearly stated.

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

Human milk is animal milk, and according to the material
below this line it should be avoided.

"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

>> There is nothing in that definition that says milk an placenta
>> are vegan sources of nourishment.
>
>they are not excluded either

They have to be if they are to be made an exception to the
rule. A man can easily sustain himself on placentas and
human milk, and according to your position on this issue
regarding vegan fare, that man would qualify as a vegan.

>- but the definition says it all, one simply
>has to apply it

That exactly what I say, so read the bit where it refers
to animal milk and meat again.

>> 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?

Then list these animal products, please.

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

You're very very wrong on this. Meat sourced from road kill
is a non-vegan product.

>> 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.

Then all one need do is scavenge for meat and still be
regarded as a vegan.

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

Breast milk is just breast milk. It's no different to any
other mammal's milk. It's source can be exploited like
any other source, and just as easily procured without
any cruelty or exploitation. You have no rational basis
on which to exclude one while promoting the other.

>> 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.

Why won't you be told that scavenged meat isn't vegan
fare when all logical evidence shows that it cannot be?
"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

>> 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?

Anyone's definition, and that's always going to be your
stumbling block, because whenever the claim is made
that a animal based food was sourced without causing
it harm or exploitation, you'll always be obliged to accept
it as vegan fare. Good luck with that. Any anti worth
his salt will rip you up within three posts with that.

>> 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.

A cow may have to be milked in some circumstances
to relieve her of her heavy burden. That wouldn't be
exploiting her or being cruel. Is that milk now vegan
because of that philanthropy?

>> 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.

Just as I don't agree with your assertion that meat
sourced from road kill is vegan fare.
[..]