On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 14:49:24 -0400, "C. James Strutz" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote in message ...
>
>This will be my last post in this thread.

Is it because you can't defend your position regarding
what qualifies vegan foods, or is it because you can't
defend your position regarding what disqualifies them?

>You are digging (no pun
>intended) in your heals to support rationales that are nonsensical.

My argument is merely that milk, whether from a lion,
cow or woman cannot be said to be vegan fare because
it consists wholly of animal fats and proteins. There's
nothing nonsensical about that.

Your argument, on the other hand, is that milk, or any
other non-vegan fare is based *solely* on whether any
exploitation is involved, and here's your quote below to
prove it;

"No, you would be RIGHT in saying that "vegan fare is
based solely on exploitation", or rather non-exploitation."

That being the case, your argument is nonsensical when
it comes to explaining why scavenged meat and eggs are
disqualified as valid vegan fare. What you're failing to
consider is that there's an extra qualifier to vegan fare,
and that qualifier is based on whether the food is animal-
based or not.

>> >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.
>
>I'm being serious, not rude. If you can't understand the treatment
>involved in exploiting dairy cows is not in their best interest (to
>say the least) then your moral judgement must be called into question.

I've told you several times now that I find the dairy
industry inherently cruel and want it all be pulled
down because of it. You ignored that and then called
my moral judgment into question, and below this line
you're now saying I'm ignorant as well. That's being
unnecessarily aggressive and rude, especially while
I've been perfectly reasonable and polite throughout
this whole conversation.

>Besides, I gave you the benefit of doubt by suggesting that you
>consult a dictionary since ignorance can be the only other reasonable
>explanation.

Your unnecessary and aggressive behaviour here isn't
called for. If you can't discuss these issues in a more
courteous way, then I'm afraid I'll have to ask you to
buckle up and prepare yourself for a long and bumpy
ride. Is that the way you want things to go, or are you
going to start behaving yourself?

>> >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.
>
>Veganism is a personal choice. It's not something that can be imposed
>in a realistic or meaningful way.

No one is saying it can, but when disqualifying human
milk on the grounds of exploitation you automatically
disqualify all infants currently receiving expressed milk
as vegans too. I've no problem with disqualifying all
suckling infants on the basis that what they feed on is
an animal product, but you seem to be of the opinion
that, if a child nourishes herself directly from her mother,
then she is nourishing herself in the proper vegan way on
vegan fare, but if that child were to nourish herself from
the expressed milk of others, then she would be nourishing
herself on non-vegan fare because of the possibility of
exploitation involved in procuring it.

> Since an infant is incapable of
>making that sort of decision on it own then it can't be vegan.

I disagree, since I've brought up four vegans (3 lapsed)
and have a vegan grandson of 5. Neither my children or
my grandson were at an age where they could make that
kind of decision for themselves, yet I believe they were
still vegan by dint of their diet and lifestyle nevertheless.

>> >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.
>
>I did not "promote [exploited milk] at the expense of other milks as
>vegan fare". Nowhere have I said that.

I haven't claimed that you have. If you read my paragraph
again you'll see that I'm referring to human milk. I then go
on to explain that though it isn't inherently exploitative to
procure, it can be and is procured exploitatively in some
circumstances, just like any other milk. That being so, you
have no basis on which to promote it (human milk) at the
expense of other milks if exploitation is your only guide,
since both can be and are procured exploitatively.

>In fact, I have repeatedly
>stated the opposite. Read carefully: exploited milk is not vegan fare.

I agree that it isn't, but on the basis that it's an animal
product rather than on the basis of exploitation. If milk
is disqualified on the basis of exploitation, then you have
no rational basis on which to disqualify cows milk if that
animal can be shown not to have been exploited, so not
only does your rule allow cows milk, it disqualifies human
milk as well.

>> 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 will never find "non-fertilized eggs that have been sourced
>ethically"

You're quite wrong, and I think you know it, so who's
the one digging their heels in out of the two of us? Such
eggs can be and are sourced perfectly ethically without
any exploitation involved at all. That being so, according
to your criteria which qualifies vegan fare on the grounds
of exploitation, eggs sourced from hens which haven't
been exploited must qualify as vegan fare. So, back to
the question which you failed to answer; Could it be
that another component exists which disqualifies these
eggs, or do we just rely on your criteria concerning
exploitation?
"No, you would be RIGHT in saying that "vegan fare is
based solely on exploitation", or rather non-exploitation."

>as an ingredient in any of Mr. Falafel's recipes. As much
>as you want to deny it, there are NO eggs that are sourced ethically.

I disagree and have shown you are very wrong.

>> >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.
>
>If you want to eat road-kill and call yourself a "vegan" then
>go for it...

I'm not saying one can, but your criteria certainly allows
it because the animal hasn't been exploited. Your claim
is that vegan is fare is based solely on whether the
animal has been exploited;
"No, you would be RIGHT in saying that "vegan fare is
based solely on exploitation", or rather non-exploitation.
and that necessarily means non-exploited animals such
as road kill qualify are valid sources for vegan food. Road
kill isn't a valid source for vegan food, and the reason
for that has nothing to do with concerns about exploitation.
It's to do with the fact that road kill is an animal. Vegans
don't eat them or their derivatives.

>> >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.
>
>The problem with this is that you can't source any food from animals
>without exploiting them in some way.

1) Scavenged meat from road kill doesn't exploit the animal.
2) Eating one's pet dog after finding it dead doesn't exploit it.
3) Eating scavenged unfertilised eggs doesn't exploit anything.
4) Eating a dead fish found in a canal doesn't exploit it.
5) Milking a cow doesn't exploit her.
6) Milking the wife doesn't exploit her,

The list is probably a lot longer than that, and according to
your rule which qualifies vegan fare solely on the basis
of exploitation, or even the lack of it, those items qualify.

"No, you would be RIGHT in saying that "vegan fare is
based solely on exploitation", or rather non-exploitation."

In fact, according to your rule, all one need do to qualify
their animal wares as vegan food is to prove that the
animal in question hadn't been exploited. While you ignore
the essential component which disqualifies foodstuffs,
namely, that it is an animal product, you automatically
leave the way clear for all meats to be included as valid
sources of vegan food.