"Digger" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 17:36:16 GMT, "John Coleman" > wrote:
> >"Digger" > wrote in message
...
> >>
> >> Road kill is not vegan fare. You're very wrong on this point.
> >
> >So where is your definition of vegan from?
>
> [The definition of "veganism," which is accepted
> as the decisive standard worldwide, is as follows:
>
> Veganism is a way of living which excludes all
> forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal
> kingdom, and includes a reverence for life. It applies
> to the practice of living on the products of the plant
> kingdom to the exclusion of flesh, fish, fowl, eggs,
> honey, animal milk and its derivatives, and encourages
> the use of alternatives for all commodities derived
> wholly or in part from animals.
>
> In its Articles of Association, the legal documents of
> the Society, a slightly different version is presented:
>
> Veganism denotes a philosophy and way of living
> which seeks to exclude - as far as is possible and
> practical - all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to,
> animals for food, clothing, or any other purpose; and
> by extension, promotes the development and use of
> animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans,
> animals, and the environment.
>
> Both interpretations begin by stating that veganism is
> a "way of life," and "a philosophy." Neither emphasizes
> diet over other aspects of compassionate living, because
> in vegan practice no one area is more significant than
> another;

This is my main point, Veganism IS A PHILOSOPHY, not a specific example of a
dietary regime. The society says that a diet that is plant based meets the
needs of the philosophy (because there is inherently no cruelty or
exploitation), and I agree. No specific exclusions like a need to exclude
animal products totally is suggested, but it could quite easily have been
added if that was the intention. One simply adopts a practice of not
promoting animal exploitation or cruelty (where practical) to obey the
philosophy. Scavenging involves neither of these explicity excluded
practices.

Furthermore, since modern production of plant foods inherently causes a lot
of collateral animal suffering, the road kill could be argued to be more
vegan than the fare at your local supermarkets.

A vegan cannot say that someone who eats some dead insects, or road kill or
such is unvegan. Furthermore, humans who live in remote places where it is
impractical to not eat animal products could still try to avoid causing
excessive suffering and exploitation, and therefore be philosophical vegans.
The fact that they ate animal products would not exclude them on the basis
of the "practicality" clause. Similarly I am not unvegan because I eat plant
foods that contain traces of insect. Veganism is an inclusive philosophy,
whereas you interpret it incorrectly as exclusive.

So long as that clear practically clause exists, your rigid exclusive
definition of veganism is simply incorrect, and that is a fact that cannot
be denied by the logic I supply above. I have nothing more to say on this
topic.

John