On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:28:12 +0100, "Richard" > wrote:

>"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.

And you would be wrong, as the demonstration using
a lion cub shows. The lion cub nourishes itself on its
mother's animal fats and proteins, and then goes on to
eat meat. It was never a vegetarian and never will be,
so this exception alone shows your rule to be flawed.

>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.

A lion is an obligate carnivore. It cannot live on veg.

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

Only by vegans hoping to broaden the definition so as to
include their child as a vegan. Those who acknowledge
the fact that the child is living off animal fats and proteins
give the better definition because it's the only accurate
one of the two. Milk, whether it's from a lion or a human
is animal fats and proteins, and therefore non-vegan by
default.

>> >> >> 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.

So, I'm a pavementarian, am I?

>The term "vegetarian" comes from "vegetus", the latin for "enlivened", and
>has no connection, apart from a linguistic one, with vegetables.

Then you're simply trying to equivocate on the term to
support your assertion, which in itself is yet another
fallacy. Let's use the term "light" for example.

A feather is light.
What is light cannot be dark.
So a feather can not be dark.

The above argument commits this fallacy: The word
light is used in the sense of having little weight the
first time, but of having a bright colour the second
time. Since the middle term in this syllogism is actually
two different terms, equivocation is actually a kind of
the fallacy of four terms.

The fallacy of equivocation is often used with words
that have a strong emotional content and many meanings.
These meanings often coincide within proper context, but
the fallacious arguer does a semantic shift, slowly
changing the context as he goes in such a way to achieve
equivocation by equating distinct meanings of the word.

Equivocation is closely linked with the fallacy of amphiboly,
where amphiboly relies on a syntantic shift.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

> 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.

I do, and your statement above which asserts a person
can be a vegetarian without eating vegetables is wrong.

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 an animal product and therefore not a viable
vegan foodstuff.

>Milk is nothing more than the transformed
>blood of the cow. You seem to be confusing vegan with vegetarian.

Rather, you're moving the goalposts by trying to include
vegetarians when the subject of this thread and its
subject title involves vegans. Milk is not a vegan food
source.

>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.

They don't, so it's no good denying the fact that milk is
an animal product, and therefore an non-vegan food.

>> 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.

Wrong. A lion cub feeding from its mother is not a 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.

Why don't you want me to point out the simple fact
that milk is an animal product and therefore a non-
vegan food?

>But it is by definition a vegetarian

No, it is neither a vegetarian or a vegan while nourishing
itself on animal fats and proteins.

> which is what this conversation is about.

So you keep saying, despite the subject title of this thread.

>> >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?

It seems to escaped your notice that affirming the
consequent, as you've done and I've so clearly
demonstrated, is specious. Affirming the consequent
in a conditional statement says nothing about the
truth of the antecedent, so using this line of arguing
to make your point is logically flawed. Lion cubs
aren't vegetarians, and the demonstration above which
concludes they are when based on your premises shows
that both the argument itself and the conclusion drawn
from it is false.

>> >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.

As the subject title shows, yes. Milk, whether from a
lion, a cow or a human is not vegan fare, and nor is it
vegetable matter either. It's an animal product.