"Digger" > wrote:

> >> Does that logic apply to suckling lion cubs as well?
> >
> >Well they don't need meat to live in the early stages so sure.
>
> No. A lion cub is never a vegetarian, even while
> nourishing itself from another animal, namely its
> mother in this case..

We must have different definitions of the word.

To me, the word vegetarian refers to a creature that does not presently eat
meat. The reason I say does not presently is because anyone can change at
any time if they choose so you can not emply a life choice.

If you have a different definition fair enough, but I think mine is fairly
commonly accepted.

> >> >> I wouldn't, for the simple fact that it doesn't feed exclusively
> >> >> on vegetables. It's a suckling baby without any labels or
> >> >> stigma attached to its diet.
> >> >
> >> >What have vegetables got to do with it?
> >>
> >> Quite a bit, actually.
> >
> >Elaborate.
>
> A vegetarian eats them. A non vegetarian nourishes
> itself with animal derived foods such as milk and meat.

A vegetarian isn't defined by what they eat, but what they don't eat.

The term "vegetarian" comes from "vegetus", the latin for "enlivened", and
has no connection, apart from a linguistic one, with vegetables. This is a
common misconception. There are several types of vegetarians, as I'd hope
you well know, that eat varieties of different foods.

> >> >You could be a vegetarian without
> >> >eating vegetables.
> >>
> >> No, you couldn't.
> >
> >Yes you could. I wouldn't recomend it though.
>
> Neither would I, because if a person goes without veg
> of some description for too long, he will most probably
> die. Therefore your earlier statement cannot be true.

Who cares about vegetable, or grains, beans or whatever. Most creatures eat
these things. A vegetarian is one who doesn't eat meat, and maybe more
depending on the specific sub-type.

> >> >Do you have even the slightest idea as to what a
> >> >vegetarian is?
> >>
> >> Some.
> >
> >A person who eats no meat can be called vegetarian.
>
> He can be.

Glad you agree.

> >> >Of course the baby is vegetarian.
> >>
> >> No, it is not.
> >
> >Denying it don't make it so.
>
> Asserting it won't make it true, either, especially when
> the baby is nourishing itself on animal fats and proteins.

And what do you think milk is? Milk is nothing more than the transformed
blood of the cow. You seem to be confusing vegan with vegetarian. A
vegetarian is one who doesn't kill the animal and eats its body, but has no
problem with animal products. Its like the difference between drinking your
mothers breast milk and killing her and eating her body. No comparison.

> Vegetarians don't nourish themselves on animal fats
> and proteins,

Em? Read above.

> so while a baby does, it cannot be
> described as a vegetarian anymore than you could
> describe a lion cub as one.

Its very simple. No meat = vegetarian. No meat + animal by-products = vegan.

> >> >It only stops being
> >> >vegetarian when you make it meat.
> >>
> >> It was never a vegetarian or a vegan to begin with,
> >> and no, I wouldn't make a baby eat meat.
> >
> >Doesn't really matter what you choose to call it.
>
> Then why call it a vegetarian?

You're right, just don't talk about it. But it is by definition a
vegetarian, which is what this conversation is about.

> >A baby is vegetarian because it eats no meat.
>
> Affirmation of the consequent.
>
> 1) If an animal is vegetarian, then it eats no meat
> 2) A lion cub eats no meat
> therefore
> 2) a lion cub is a vegetarian

Exaclty! Simple isn't it?

> >If you think it is not, then at what point does it
> >become a vegetarian or a meat eater?
>
> That question assumes I agree that a baby was at
> one time a vegetarian, and I don't. If a baby goes
> on to eat meat after finishing with its mother milk,
> then it would never have been a vegetarian by dint
> of its diet on animal fats and proteins.

As above, you don't know what the word vegetarian means. You seem to be
thinking vegan.