On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 09:55:49 -0400, "C. James Strutz" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote in message ...
>> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 13:52:34 -0400, "C. James Strutz" > wrote:
>> >"Digger" > wrote in message ...
>> >> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 11:22:55 -0400, "C. James > wrote:
>> >> >"Digger" > wrote in messagenewspcqm0dkbv0dhqn3727dp6i1jp1fa76fq0@4ax .com...
>> >> >
>> >> >> If the vegan society want to pretend that human milk is
>> >> >> a valid source of nourishment for vegans to consume,
>> >> >> then they have no rational basis for excluding the milk
>> >> >> sourced from other animals.
>> >> >
>> >> >No. Veganism is a lifestyle that avoids the exploitation of
>> >> >animals. The case in which human mothers breastfeed
>> >> >their children is not exploitation.
>> >>
>> >> Relieving a cow of her milk is not inherently cruel or
>> >> exploitative,
>> >
>> >You must not know much about the process of producing milk.
>> >Before you reply, do us all and yourself a favor and research
>> >milk production and dairy farming.
>>
>> I've been on these groups for years and understand all
>> the bad practices that go on in the diary industry, but,
>> nevertheless, in spite of this inherent cruelty involved
>> in the industry, relieving a cow of its milk is not inherently
>> cruel or exploitative.
>
>That's why I recommended that you look up the words in the dictionary.

Will it tell me that relieving a mother of its milk is
inherently cruel and exploitative? If so, then it must
follow that relieving a human mother of her milk is
also cruel and just as exploitative, and thereby a
non-vegan product according to you.

>You either don't know what they mean or you have questionable moral
>judgement.

There's no need for you to start getting aggressive
and rude.

>> That being so, according to your
>> criteria which qualifies a foodstuff as valid vegan fare
>> so long as nothing has been exploited, you have no rational
>> basis on which to disqualify cows milk sourced from cows
>> that can be shown not to have suffered or been exploited.
>> Such a source for milk is possible, both in theory and in
>> practice, so now tell me why that milk is disqualified as
>> a valid vegan food item.
>
>You're making a statement that "relieving [sic] a cow of its milk is
>not inherently cruel or exploitative" and then you ask me to
>rationalize why "that milk is disqualified as a valid vegan food
>item". It's your rationalization, not mine.

It exactly your rationalisation, as shown by your earlier
comments regarding exploitation. If cows milk is to be
disqualified as vegan fare because procuring it exploits
the animal, you then have no rational basis on which to
exclude it if the animal can be shown not to have suffered
or been exploited. And, if cows milk is always said to
exploit the animal, then you cannot go on to claim that
using human milk isn't or can't be the same form of
exploitation. In short, you have no rational basis at all.

>> >Look into artificial insemination, grain-feeding and
>> >antibiotics, living conditions, what they do with new
>> >born calves, and what they do to dairy cows who
>> >stop producing. Then check your dictionary for "cruel"
>> >and "exploit" and think about how they might apply to
>> >dairy farming and milk production. You will see that it is
>> >anything but "relief" for cows.
>>
>> I've campaigned to close the dairy industry for years
>> now, and there's nothing you can tell me about it that
>> I don't already know.
>
>Okay. I'll hold you to that statement.

You can.

>> >> so if your only objection to it as a valid
>> >> vegan food source is on the basis that it is, you must
>> >> then allow vegans to use diary products sourced from
>> >> animals which can be shown not to have been cruelly
>> >> treated or exploited.
>> >
>> >You're concluding from flawed logic.
>>
>> You disqualify foods as vegan fare if the person or animal
>> has been exploited while procuring it. That much is clear,
>> so you therefore have no rational basis, in theory or in practice,
>> on which to disqualify cows milk if it can be shown that the
>> animal never suffered or was exploited.
>
>A calf sucking milk from it's mother isn't exploitation. It's the
>natural way that a mother feeds her offspring. A human "relieving"
>milk from a cow is exploitation

No, it is not. There are many instances where relieving a
cow of its milk is entirely ethical. The milk can be used to
feed her offspring if it's having problems trying to feed, for
example, so it's perfectly clear to see that milking a cow is
not inherently cruel or exploitative as you claim. That being
so, according to your criteria concerning exploitation as a
rule for identifying vegan fare, any leftovers from what
our hypothetic calf didn't finish will qualify as vegan fare.

> particularly when she is part of an
>automated factory process (as you claim to know from above).
>
>> >> >The case in which human mothers feed their children
>> >> >dairy milk is exploitation.
>> >>
>> >> If exploitation is the sole reason for defining a food as
>> >> non-vegan, then what argument have you against those
>> >> who declare milk sourced from unexploited animals as
>> >> vegan fare?
>> >
>> >And just how do you get milk from a cow without exploiting her?
>>
>> In exactly the same way I would get milk from any
>> nursing mother with an excess of it. There's nothing
>> inherently cruel or exploitative in relieving a mother of
>> its milk.
>
>You're not looking at the big picture

Rather, you're looking at the smaller picture when asserting
all cows milk to be inherently cruel and always exploitative.
It isn't. The diary industry as it stand is, and that's why I
want it all pulled down, but cows milk isn't always an
unethical source for food. It will never be a valid vegan
source of food, but that doesn't mean to say milk must
then be an unethical food source either.

(that you claim to know from
>above). THINK about the factory farming, the antibiotics, the
>artificial insemination, milking machines, etc. that goes into getting
>cows to produce milk and tell me that's not exploiting.

I won't because it is, but that doesn't mean to say milk
can't be sourced ethically or by exploiting the animal.
If you do, then you must also acknowledge that human
milk can be unethically obtained and thereby not qualify
as proper vegan fare.

>> >> Also, it is on record that women can receive
>> >> £2.30 for each pint they express.
>> >
>> >It's exploitation.
>>
>> Thank you. You've now excluded human milk as vegan
>> fare on the grounds of exploitation.
>
>Don't you understand that a mother feeding her baby is NOT the same as
>a woman drawing milk from herself to sell for profit?

The scenario you called exploitation was of a woman
expressing milk for other babies at £2.30 a pint, not
a mother feeding her own child. Now that you've
acknowledged human milk can be and is exploited you
have no basis on which to include it as proper vegan
fare if your rule of logic is to be consistent.

>The former is
>NOT exploitation while the latter IS exploitation. You are trying to
>equate them and that is invalid.
>
>> Check out the 70000
>> hits on human milk banks from http://tinyurl.com/6dbs8
>> and see how many infants you've now disqualified as
>> being vegan, and all because of your criteria of
>> exploitation.
>
>Again, it's your rationalization and not mine.

Yours. By disqualifying human milk gained exploitatively
as proper vegan fare, you've also disqualified all those
infants from being vegan.

>> >> What if some third-
>> >> World country were to take advantage of that market
>> >> and hold women in milk parlours to extract their milk
>> >> for a small wage; would that be vegan fare?
>> >
>> >No.
>>
>> Thank you.
>
>I don't know why you're thanking me. It's exploitation.

And thereby, according to your rule, non-vegan. I'm
thanking you because you've effectively demonstrated
my point. Human milk, though not inherently cruel or
exploitative to procure is a non-vegan food if procured
in a cruel or exploitative way, according to you. That
being so, you have no rational basis on which to promote
it at the expense of other milks as vegan fare.

>> >> As you can see, exploitation is not the sole issue that
>> >> qualifies or disqualifies a food as vegan fare. Eggs,
>> >> for example, can be found on the ground, yet they
>> >> still don't qualify as a vegan foodstuff either, so your
>> >> basis for qualifying vegan foods on exploitation has
>> >> no grounds.
>> >
>> >Eggs are a form of life whether you find them on the ground or take
>> >them from a production farm. It's exploitation.
>>
>> Not all eggs are fertilised. So what about them then?
>
>You're still exploiting animals whether the egg is fertilized or not.

The egg was never alive, so nothing has been exploited there.
The hen that laid it doesn't even know of its existence after
leaving it in the hedgerow, so nothing's been exploited there
either. As nothing has been exploited, why doesn't that egg
qualify as proper vegan fare? Could it be that there's
something else that disqualifies it, such as the fact that it's
an animal product?

>> Will we soon be seeing recipes from Mr Falafel that
>> include non-fertilised eggs and human milk? Nothing
>> has been exploited by eating an unfertilised egg found
>> in a hedgerow, but we still don't regard that as vegan
>> fare, do we?
>
>You're really trying to pick nits to prop yourself up...

There's no need to be rude. If non-fertilised eggs can be
sourced ethically as described above, why doesn't Mr.
Falafel include them in his vegan recipes? Could it be
that another component is there that disqualifies these
eggs, or do we just rely on your criteria concerning
exploitation?

>> >> >You can't just blanket define anyone who
>> >> >comsumes milk as non-vegan without considering the exploitation
>> >> >issues.
>>
>> You just did, and on the basis of exploitation, no less.
>
>No I didn't. I have consistently said that getting milk from a mother
>for any other purpose than natural feeding for her offspring is
>exploitation.

And thereby disqualifying that expressed milk as a non-vegan
food source because of the exploitation involved in procuring
it, according to you. If that milk is gained by exploiting women,
as you asserted earlier, then the milk by dint of that exploitation
would no longer qualify as proper vegan fare. Did you check
out those 70000 hits on human milk banks? All non-vegan,
according to your rule.

>> >> Then you cannot exclude any diary product from the
>> >> list of vegan foods so long as it was produced without
>> >> cruelty and in a non-exploitative way.
>> >
>> >I ask again, how do you get milk from a cow without exploiting her?
>>
>> In theory and in practice, a cow can be relieved of
>> its milk without exploiting it.
>
>You're being evasive. I asked you HOW and you tell me it can be done
>"in theory and in practice". TELL ME HOW!

I've given you at least two examples already.
1) Helping a cow by relieving her of her heavy burden isn't
exploiting her if leaving her makes her suffer all the worse.
2) Drawing milk from her to feed her struggling calf wouldn't
be exploiting her or her calf.

There's just two examples where milk can be sourced without
exploiting cows, so to claim all cows milk is always inherently
exploitative with these two exceptions in mind would be false.

>> That being so,
>
>There you go again basing your argument on false suppositions.

I've shown that they aren't false assumptions.

>> according
>> to your criteria of what constitutes vegan fare, milk
>> from such an animal would qualify.
>
>BS...

Your criteria for excluding milk relies on whether the
female has been exploited while procuring it rather
than on the basis of it being an animal product. It must
now follow that cows milk qualifies so long as the cow
can be shown not to have been exploited.

>> >While I'm at it, I'll ask you what you think the difference is
>between
>> >making love and prostition.
>>
>> Another day - yeah?
>
>Well, I'm trying to get you to understand the difference between
>exploitation and not-exploitation.
>
>> >I wonder if you can draw any
>> >similarities...
>> >
>> >> >Agree with it or not, there's your rational basis.
>> >>
>> >> And it fails.
>> >
>> >Only if you conclude from faulty information and logic.
>>
>> If I'm wrong in saying your criteria for excluding certain
>> foods as valid vegan fare is based solely on exploitation,
>> what else would it be based on,
>
>No, you would be RIGHT in saying that "vegan fare is based solely on
>exploitation", or rather non-exploitation.

Then what of the meat sourced from animals that haven't
been exploited, such as those which die of old age, or even
road kill; would that meat qualify as vegan fare? If not, and
we both know it doesn't, then your rule for qualifying vegan
fare is wrong and inconsistent.

>> and how will you then
>> be able to include human milk onto that list?
>
>Why do you keep trying to get me to rationalize your position to
>include human milk as vegan?

That's not my position. My position is that milk does not
qualify as a vegan food source on the basis that it's an
animal product.