On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 17:36:16 GMT, "John Coleman" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote in message ...
>>
>> Road kill is not vegan fare. You're very wrong on this point.
>
>So where is your definition of vegan from?

[The definition of "veganism," which is accepted
as the decisive standard worldwide, is as follows:

Veganism is a way of living which excludes all
forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal
kingdom, and includes a reverence for life. 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.

In its Articles of Association, the legal documents of
the Society, a slightly different version is presented:

Veganism denotes a philosophy and way of living
which seeks to exclude - as far as is possible and
practical - all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to,
animals for food, clothing, or any other purpose; and
by extension, promotes the development and use of
animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans,
animals, and the environment.

Both interpretations begin by stating that veganism is
a "way of life," and "a philosophy." Neither emphasizes
diet over other aspects of compassionate living, because
in vegan practice no one area is more significant than
another;

**all are expected to be implemented simultaneously.**

In the second version, a disclaimer about practicality
has been inserted, revealing that the founders
acknowledged the impossibility of totally divesting
oneself of all animal products and derivatives in the
modern world. This phrase is also critical because
it helps practitioners understand that veganism is not
about personal perfection or "purity," but rather the
avoidance and elimination of exploitation of and cruelty
to animals. The first rendition mentions "reverence for
life," with no hierarchy of value given to the life to which
it is referring. Therefore, the statement is inclusive,
asserting that all life forms are equally deserving of
reverence.

**It also delineates the specific foods that are to be avoided,**

and both definitions encourage the use and development
of alternatives to animal commodities.] **my edit**
http://www.vegsource.com/jo/essays/namegame.htm

As you can see, meat is definitely OFF the menu.
Even your road kill.

>I got mine from the Vegan Society
>in England, the original home of veganism.
>
>Here it is again
>
>"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. "
>
>If you can tell me how eating some roadkill is animal exploitation, I would
>be interested to know.

You've missed out a huge swathe from the beginning
which covers meat quite clearly.

"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."

Road kill is meat and therefore not a vegan food, by
that definition and anyone else's definition who knows
anything about veganism.

>I already rejected the dairy argument as cows are pretty clearly exploited.

I agree that cows are terribly exploited in the dairy
industry and want it shut down, but I'm not ready to
agree that milk cannot be sourced quite ethically
without any cruelty or exploitation involved. That
being so, according to your rule such milk qualifies
as vegan fare so long as it can be proved as described.

>> > although you might be taking food away from predators -
>>
>> Irrelevant.
>
>not to predators
>
>John
>