"Digger" > wrote:

> >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.

I am a vegetarian and have been all my life. I consume dairy products and
have done all my life. Vegans do not. Understand?

Of course milk is not a vegan food source! Of course it is a vegetarian food
source. Vegetarians have no problem with animal by-products such as milk.
The animal is not killed for their production.

> >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.

You are confusing potential with actuality. During the time it is a baby the
lion can not eat vegetables or meat. Only milk. So therefore it is not a
meat-eater, or a vegan but a vegetarian by definition.

In the future it will go on to assume a carnivorous diet in the wild. If it
died before this happened, then it would never have eaten meat and it would
have died a vegetarian. We are talking about the hear and now.

> >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.

Of course they are. That is what I have been telling you all along. What is
milk only an animal product?

> Milk, whether it's from a lion or a human
> is animal fats and proteins, and therefore non-vegan by
> default.

Exactly. Why is this so hard to understand. It is not vegan, but is vegetari
an.

> >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

Vegetarians consume milk products. Simple. Vegans do not. Get it?

> >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.

Is it that hard to comprehend that one who does not eat meat is a
vegetarian?

> >And what do you think milk is?
>
> Milk is an animal product and therefore not a viable
> vegan foodstuff.

Yes. And? It is a vegetarian 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.

I am not vegan. The only reason I got involved in this thread is becaus you
said and I quote:

"The baby, however, cannot be said to be a vegan or even a vegetarian while
it gains nourishment from animal derived products such as human breast
milk."

They are your words. You are wrong. Admit it. Vegetarians take milk, so why
would the breast milk of the mother be the exception? You don't make any
sense.

> >> 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.

Vegetarians do, vegans don't. You said it was non-vegetarian, you are wrong.
Its not that difficult to understand.

> >Its very simple. No meat = vegetarian.
>
> Wrong. A lion cub feeding from its mother is not a vegetarian.

How can something that has never eaten meat and only ever consumed a
vegetarian lifestyle not be 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?

Because I agree with you! Are you that dense? You said it was not
vegetarian, this is what I take exception too as it is completely false.

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

Wrong. Vegetarians have no such problem with animal products like milk. You
seem confused and had better learn what a vegetarian is.

> > which is what this conversation is about.
>
> So you keep saying, despite the subject title of this thread.

You said:

"The baby, however, cannot be said to be a vegan or even a vegetarian while
it gains nourishment from animal derived products such as human breast
milk."

You are wrong.

> 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.

How can something that has never eaten meat and only ever consumed a
vegetarian lifestyle not be a vegetarian?

> >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.

Of course it is not vegetable matter! It's an animal product. Vegetarians
don't just eat vegetables and most meat eaters don't just eat meat.

You seem to think that the word vegetarian is in some way related to
vegetables. Its time you did a tiny bit of research and understand that
there is no connection.

Richard