 |
|
| Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 22:53:08 -0400, "magnulus" > wrote:
> >"Digger" > wrote in message ... >> >> The focus is on diet and what qualifies as a vegan source >> of nourishment. > > Wrong... Then look at the subject title of this thread. >wool hats are "not vegan". They aren't bottles of breast milk, either. Stick to the subject and we'll discuss headwear later. Neither is leather. Yet neither have >anything to do with diet. One of them, wool, has very little to do with >killing animals. > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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. 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. If you have a different definition fair enough, but I think mine is fairly commonly accepted. > >> >> 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. The term "vegetarian" comes from "vegetus", the latin for "enlivened", and has no connection, apart from a linguistic one, with vegetables. 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. 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 nothing more than the transformed blood of the cow. You seem to be confusing vegan with vegetarian. 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. > 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. 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. But it is by definition a vegetarian, which is what this conversation is about. > >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? > >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. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 13:13:04 +0100, BIG ONE > wrote:
>On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 22:50:03 +0100, Digger > wrote: > > >>[The definition of "veganism," which is accepted >> as the decisive standard worldwide, is as follows: > >note your use of the definite article > >> Veganism is a way of living which ><snip> >> Veganism denotes a philosophy and way of living ><snip> >>Both interpretations begin by stating that veganism is >>a "way of life," and "a philosophy." Neither emphasizes > >note the use of the indefinite article Do you have a point to make? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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 messagenews  pcqm0dkbv0dhqn3727dp6i1jp1fa76fq0@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. You either don't know what they mean or you have questionable moral judgement. > 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. > >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. > >> 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, 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 (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. > >> 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 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. > >> 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. > >> 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. > 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... > >> >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. > >> 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! > That being so, There you go again basing your argument on false suppositions. > according > to your criteria of what constitutes vegan fare, milk > from such an animal would qualify. BS... > >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. > 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? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Digger" > wrote in message ...
> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 22:57:03 -0400, "magnulus" > wrote: > >"Digger" > wrote in message ... > >> > >> "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." > >> http://www.vegsource.com/jo/essays/namegame.htm > >> > > > > That's actually a good definition (if quite wordy- try explaining that to > >anybody when they ask you what a vegan is), but if you just changed "animal > >milk" to "nonhuman animal milk", it would be flawless. > > I'm afraid not, because making human milk an exception > to the rule leaves the way clear for any man to regard > himself as a vegan while nourishing himself on it. Vegan > mothers must start being content with the hard fact that > their suckling babe is neither a vegetarian or a vegan. > > There's nothing ugly or wrong in feeding a child naturally > with mothers milk and having a non-vegan in the family, > and those who want to assume there is and go so far as > to pretend that the milk they give it is a vegetarian food > are wrong and simply deluding themselves. Doesn't 'vegetarian' in the UK, simply mean those who abstain from meat, as in 'lacto-ovo-vegetarians', (whilst in the US, 'vegetarian' means what we call 'vegan')? Maybe we should just call nursing babies, of any species, 'lactarians'? (There's probably already an accepted definition, though  . |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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 |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
I really don't see the problem in saying simply, "No meat, fish, egg or dairy." Why nitpick and dive into pedantics? -- Jason |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 messagenews pcqm0dkbv0dhqn3727dp6i1jp1fa76fq0@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. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 16:00:08 +0100, "Richard" > wrote:
>"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. Not unless you were never breast fed. >I consume dairy products and >have done all my life. Vegans do not. I know they don't, and that's why it cannot be regarded as a vegan food source and answers the question in the subject line of this post. > Understand? Absolutely. >Of course milk is not a vegan food source! Thank you. >Of course it is a vegetarian food source. Only to those who want to include themselves alongside true vegetarians that abstain from all animal products. There aren't any vegetables in milk, but go ahead and call yourself a vegetarian if it's what you want to do. >Vegetarians have no problem with animal by-products such as milk. True vegetarians that feed exclusively on veg do have a problem with animal by-products and abstain from them wherever they can. Modern vegetarians such as the lacto-ovo or pesco type aren't so concerned.. >The animal is not killed for their production. Irrelevant. >> >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. No. I'm giving you an example of a suckling obligate carnivore that belies your rule that says "No meat = vegetarian." >During the time it is a baby the >lion can not eat vegetables or meat. Only milk Then, according to your rule; "No meat = vegetarian" a suckling obligate carnivore cub is a vegetarian. Can you see yet why your rule is unworkable and specious? > So therefore it is not a meat-eater, At least not in the true definition of the word, yet. >or a vegan Certainly not. >but a vegetarian by definition. No. I lion cub is not a vegetarian, and nor will it ever be. >In the future it will go on to assume a carnivorous diet in the wild. That's true, but to say it was once a vegetarian by virtue of it suckling from its mother is absurd. Lion cubs are not vegetarians. > If it >died before this happened, then it would never have eaten meat and it would >have died a vegetarian. No. Lion cubs are not vegetarians simply because they drink milk from their mother. You're very wrong on this. [..] >> Milk, whether it's from a lion or a human >> is animal fats and proteins, and therefore non-vegan by >> default. > >Exactly. Then we are in agreement and have answered the question contained in the subject title in this thread. Breast feeding cannot be considered vegan. [..] |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 15:13:13 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote in message ... >> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 22:57:03 -0400, "magnulus" > wrote: >> >"Digger" > wrote in message ... >> >> >> >> "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." >> >> http://www.vegsource.com/jo/essays/namegame.htm >> >> >> > >> > That's actually a good definition (if quite wordy- try explaining that to >> >anybody when they ask you what a vegan is), but if you just changed "animal >> >milk" to "nonhuman animal milk", it would be flawless. >> >> I'm afraid not, because making human milk an exception >> to the rule leaves the way clear for any man to regard >> himself as a vegan while nourishing himself on it. Vegan >> mothers must start being content with the hard fact that >> their suckling babe is neither a vegetarian or a vegan. >> >> There's nothing ugly or wrong in feeding a child naturally >> with mothers milk and having a non-vegan in the family, >> and those who want to assume there is and go so far as >> to pretend that the milk they give it is a vegetarian food >> are wrong and simply deluding themselves. > >Doesn't 'vegetarian' in the UK, simply mean those who >abstain from meat, as in 'lacto-ovo-vegetarians', (whilst in >the US, 'vegetarian' means what we call 'vegan')? I'm not sure. The term 'vegetarian' has become so lose now that one could nourish themselves almost entirely on animal products these days and still qualify as one. The ideal would be that vegetarians feed exclusively on vegetation while vegans do the same and abstain from animal derived products such as leather etc. >Maybe >we should just call nursing babies, of any species, 'lactarians'? I was hoping you'd come up with the correct definition. I haven't a clue what to call them, apart from non- vegetarians and non-vegans, but that seems to upset a lot of people. >(There's probably already an accepted definition, though .Googling ..... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Digger wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:28:12 +0100, "Richard" > wrote: > > >>"Digger" > wrote: Good god Digger, you are the biggest troll a.f.v has seen in a while. Congratulations. Here is just to clear some things up, in case some newbies are reading this, or in case you honestly don't know what you are talking about: There are several differen types of Vegetarians: * Strict vegetarians avoid the consumption of all animal products (e.g., eggs, milk and cheese, honey). Today, strict vegetarians are commonly called vegans, though some reserve this term for those who additionally avoid usage of all kinds of animal products (e.g., leather, honey), not just food. * Ovo-lacto vegetarians eschew the eating of all meat, yet allow the consumption of animal products such as eggs and milk. Ovo-lacto vegetarians who are such for ethical reasons may additionally refuse to eat cheese made with animal-based enzymes, or eggs produced by factory farms. The term "vegetarian" is most commonly intended to mean "ovo-lacto vegetarian", particularly as "vegan" has gained acceptance as the term for stricter practice. * Lacto vegetarianism refers to the practice of eschewing all meat, yet allowing the consumption of milk and its derivatives, like cheese, butter or yogurt. * Similarly, ovo-vegetarians eat eggs in addition to their otherwise strictly vegetarian regimen. The use of the word "vegetarian" as used today was defined at the first meeting of the Vegetarian Society in 1847 in Ramsgate, England. The definition that they used was: "... a person who refuses to consume flesh of any kind". Prior to that time, vegetarians had often been called Pythagoreans, after an ancient sect that also abstained from meat (and beans). In North America, and most of Europe (afaik), the term "vegetarian" refers to an ovo-lacto vegetarian. Some links for you to follow up on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarian http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...tarian&x=0&y=0 http://www.google.ca/search?q=define:vegetarian And guys/girls, stop feeding the troll. -- Blue |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
pearl wrote:
> "Digger" > wrote in message ... > >>On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 22:57:03 -0400, "magnulus" > wrote: >> >>>"Digger" > wrote in message ... <snip> > Doesn't 'vegetarian' in the UK, simply mean those who > abstain from meat, as in 'lacto-ovo-vegetarians', (whilst in > the US, 'vegetarian' means what we call 'vegan')? Maybe > we should just call nursing babies, of any species, 'lactarians'? > (There's probably already an accepted definition, though .No, Digger is just trolling here. Vegetarian in both the UK and North America genereally refers to ovo lacto vegetarianism. Sometimes in North America (particularly in French Canada and the midwest) vegetarian is considered pisca/pollatarian, which makes it a pain in the ass, but never has it gone the other way, where vegetarian is considered vegan/strict-vegetarian. -- Blue |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 17:16:21 GMT, Blue Heron > wrote:
>Digger wrote: >> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:28:12 +0100, "Richard" > wrote: >> >> >>>"Digger" > wrote: > >Good god Digger, you are the biggest troll a.f.v has seen in a while. >Congratulations. > >Here is just to clear some things up, in case some newbies are reading >this, or in case you honestly don't know what you are talking about: > >There are several differen types of Vegetarians: Before you go on, you might like to look at the subject line of this thread to see that the focus is on whether human breast milk qualifies as proper *vegan* fare, rather than whether it falls under the sloppy, elastic definition of 'vegetarianism.' Being that human milk is an animal product consisting of animal fats and proteins, my conclusion is that it cannot be. > * Strict vegetarians avoid the consumption of all animal products >(e.g., eggs, milk and cheese, honey). Today, strict vegetarians are >commonly called vegans, though some reserve this term for those who >additionally avoid usage of all kinds of animal products (e.g., leather, >honey), not just food. > > * Ovo-lacto vegetarians eschew the eating of all meat, yet allow >the consumption of animal products such as eggs and milk. Ovo-lacto >vegetarians who are such for ethical reasons may additionally refuse to >eat cheese made with animal-based enzymes, or eggs produced by factory >farms. The term "vegetarian" is most commonly intended to mean >"ovo-lacto vegetarian", particularly as "vegan" has gained acceptance as >the term for stricter practice. > > * Lacto vegetarianism refers to the practice of eschewing all meat, >yet allowing the consumption of milk and its derivatives, like cheese, >butter or yogurt. > > * Similarly, ovo-vegetarians eat eggs in addition to their >otherwise strictly vegetarian regimen. > >The use of the word "vegetarian" as used today was defined at the first >meeting of the Vegetarian Society in 1847 in Ramsgate, England. The >definition that they used was: "... a person who refuses to consume >flesh of any kind". Prior to that time, vegetarians had often been >called Pythagoreans, after an ancient sect that also abstained from meat >(and beans). > >In North America, and most of Europe (afaik), the term "vegetarian" >refers to an ovo-lacto vegetarian. > >Some links for you to follow up on: > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarian >http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...tarian&x=0&y=0 >http://www.google.ca/search?q=define:vegetarian > >And guys/girls, stop feeding the troll. > >-- Blue |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Digger wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 17:16:21 GMT, Blue Heron > wrote: > > >>Digger wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:28:12 +0100, "Richard" > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>"Digger" > wrote: >> >>Good god Digger, you are the biggest troll a.f.v has seen in a while. >>Congratulations. >> >>Here is just to clear some things up, in case some newbies are reading >>this, or in case you honestly don't know what you are talking about: >> >>There are several differen types of Vegetarians: > > > Before you go on, you might like to look at the subject > line of this thread to see that the focus is on whether > human breast milk qualifies as proper *vegan* fare, > rather than whether it falls under the sloppy, elastic > definition of 'vegetarianism.' Being that human milk > is an animal product consisting of animal fats and > proteins, my conclusion is that it cannot be. Correct. However, you seem to be rather misguided with regards to your definitions of vegan and vegetarian, which involved you claiming several times that a) milk was not vegetarian, and b) babies could never be vegetarian. Now, based on the original definition of vegetarian, as well as the common use of it, you are wrong. I will leave the discussion of "is breastmilk for babies of the same speciece provided by the mother vegan or not" up to other people. If you are vegan, and you choose not to feed your baby your breastmilk based purely on the desire to be a "textbook" vegan, you should have your child removed from your care. There is no exploitation in feeding your own young the way nature intended, and it is, in fact, the only healthy thing to do. -- Blue |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 17:47:18 GMT, Blue Heron > wrote:
>Digger wrote: >> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 17:16:21 GMT, Blue Heron > wrote: >>>Digger wrote: >>>>On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:28:12 +0100, "Richard" > wrote: >>>>>"Digger" > wrote: >>> >>>Good god Digger, you are the biggest troll a.f.v has seen in a while. >>>Congratulations. >>> >>>Here is just to clear some things up, in case some newbies are reading >>>this, or in case you honestly don't know what you are talking about: >>> >>>There are several differen types of Vegetarians: >> >> Before you go on, you might like to look at the subject >> line of this thread to see that the focus is on whether >> human breast milk qualifies as proper *vegan* fare, >> rather than whether it falls under the sloppy, elastic >> definition of 'vegetarianism.' Being that human milk >> is an animal product consisting of animal fats and >> proteins, my conclusion is that it cannot be. > >Correct. Then why, according to you am I "the biggest troll a.f.v. has seen" while I've taken on and tackled the question in the subject line of this thread to reach a conclusion you agree with? > However, you seem to be rather misguided with regards to your >definitions of vegan and vegetarian, which involved you claiming several >times that a) milk was not vegetarian It's as vegetarian as chicken soup. >and b) babies could never be vegetarian. They aren't, so long as they nourish themselves on animal fats and proteins. >Now, based on the original definition of vegetarian, as well as the >common use of it, you are wrong. The common use of the term 'vegetarian' is so sloppy and meaningless that one can live almost entirely on animal flesh and derivatives similar to any other meat eater and still qualify as a vegetarian of some description. >I will leave the discussion of "is breastmilk for babies of the same >speciece provided by the mother vegan or not" up to other people. If >you are vegan, and you choose not to feed your baby your breastmilk >based purely on the desire to be a "textbook" vegan, you should have >your child removed from your care. There is no exploitation in feeding >your own young the way nature intended, and it is, in fact, the only >healthy thing to do. > >-- Blue |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Digger" > wrote in message ... This will be my last post in this thread. You are digging (no pun intended) in your heals to support rationales that are nonsensical. > >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. Besides, I gave you the benefit of doubt by suggesting that you consult a dictionary since ignorance can be the only other reasonable explanation. > >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. Since an infant is incapable of making that sort of decision on it own then it can't be vegan. > >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. In fact, I have repeatedly stated the opposite. Read carefully: exploited milk is not vegan fare. > >You're really trying to pick nits to prop yourself up... > > There's no need to be rude. I'm not being rude. You are (purposefully?) not seeing the big picture regarding exploitation and veganism. Instead, you are trying to find any little IMPOSSIBLE exception that might salvage your argument. > 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" 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. > >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... > >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. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Blue Heron" > wrote in message news
 > pearl wrote: > > "Digger" > wrote in message ... > > > >>On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 22:57:03 -0400, "magnulus" > wrote: > >> > >>>"Digger" > wrote in message ... > <snip> > > Doesn't 'vegetarian' in the UK, simply mean those who > > abstain from meat, as in 'lacto-ovo-vegetarians', (whilst in > > the US, 'vegetarian' means what we call 'vegan')? Maybe > > we should just call nursing babies, of any species, 'lactarians'? > > (There's probably already an accepted definition, though .> > No, Digger is just trolling here. Looking for a 'good' argument I think. .. :-| > Vegetarian in both the UK and North America genereally refers to ovo > lacto vegetarianism. Sometimes in North America (particularly in French > Canada and the midwest) vegetarian is considered pisca/pollatarian, > which makes it a pain in the ass, but never has it gone the other way, > where vegetarian is considered vegan/strict-vegetarian. I've somehow gathered otherwise. .. Thanks for the clarification. > -- Blue |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"C. James Strutz" > wrote in message ...
> there are NO eggs that are sourced ethically. I'd have to disagree with that. These are 'my' chickens; http://www.iol.ie/~creature/vicious.html (the 'commentary' is obviously sarcasm). They'll lay eggs, and leave them. > The problem with this is that you can't source any food from animals > without exploiting them in some way. I hand-raised a nanny goat, who quite happily provides milk. Her kid is grown and still with her- weaned in her own time. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
pearl wrote: > "Blue Heron" > wrote in message news
>>>pearl wrote: <snip> >>>Doesn't 'vegetarian' in the UK, simply mean those who >>>abstain from meat, as in 'lacto-ovo-vegetarians', (whilst in >>>the US, 'vegetarian' means what we call 'vegan')? Maybe >>>we should just call nursing babies, of any species, 'lactarians'? >>>(There's probably already an accepted definition, though .<snip> >>Vegetarian in both the UK and North America genereally refers to ovo >>lacto vegetarianism. Sometimes in North America (particularly in French >>Canada and the midwest) vegetarian is considered pisca/pollatarian, >>which makes it a pain in the ass, but never has it gone the other way, >>where vegetarian is considered vegan/strict-vegetarian. > > > I've somehow gathered otherwise. .. Thanks for the clarification. If only it were so! Then I wouldn't have to deal with the "Would you like some of xxxx, we made it just for you!" followed by the "What do you mean that you don't eat fish/chicken?" Curse the Catholic definition of "meat". I still haven't been able to make it 100% clear to my in-laws who live in back-water Quebec that I am a "vegetalien". I don't think that they know the word. To add to the trouble, they don't like it when my wife and I cook in their kitchen (I think that they don't like to feel like their guests are having to take care of themselves or something of that ilk...). Even worse then that is trying to get my step-mother-in-law (how is that for a title?) to try the food that I cook. It's usually too "ethnic" for her *sigh*. I do understand that in parts of India and the Mediterranean "vegetarian" usually refers to lacto vegetarianism, as eggs are generally not consumed by vegetarians there. Yeesh. Look at that mini rant? Where, or where did it come from? :P Cheers, -- Blue |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Digger" > wrote in message ... > On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 22:57:03 -0400, "magnulus" > wrote: > >"Digger" > wrote in message ... > >> > >> "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." > >> http://www.vegsource.com/jo/essays/namegame.htm > >> > > > > That's actually a good definition (if quite wordy- try explaining that to > >anybody when they ask you what a vegan is), but if you just changed "animal > >milk" to "nonhuman animal milk", it would be flawless. > > I'm afraid not, because making human milk an exception > to the rule leaves the way clear for any man to regard > himself as a vegan while nourishing himself on it. No. If a person were to exist on human breast milk, I think they would qualify as vegan by vegans themselves, although it would be quite a bizarre diet. Again,the problem isn't that breast milk is intrinsicly nonvegan, the problem is that Vegans who say they do not believe in the consumption of any animal products for any reason, are lying. Vegans clearly believe in consuming at least one animal product- breast milk from humans. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"BlueHeron" > wrote in message ...
> > pearl wrote: > > "Blue Heron" > wrote in message news <..> > <snip> > >>Vegetarian in both the UK and North America genereally refers to ovo > >>lacto vegetarianism. Sometimes in North America (particularly in French > >>Canada and the midwest) vegetarian is considered pisca/pollatarian, > >>which makes it a pain in the ass, but never has it gone the other way, > >>where vegetarian is considered vegan/strict-vegetarian. > > > > > > I've somehow gathered otherwise. .. Thanks for the clarification. > > If only it were so! Then I wouldn't have to deal with the "Would you > like some of xxxx, we made it just for you!" followed by the "What do > you mean that you don't eat fish/chicken?" Curse the Catholic > definition of "meat". I know,.. it's 'crazy'. I come across that all the time here in .. Ireland. I work in the field of natural medicine, and am regularly advising clients to adopt a vegetarian (fairly strict) diet.. but I often have to clarify what "no meat" means, being invariably asked- "how about chicken and fish?"! > I still haven't been able to make it 100% clear to my in-laws who live > in back-water Quebec that I am a "vegetalien". I don't think that they > know the word. To add to the trouble, they don't like it when my wife > and I cook in their kitchen (I think that they don't like to feel like > their guests are having to take care of themselves or something of that > ilk...). Even worse then that is trying to get my step-mother-in-law > (how is that for a title?) to try the food that I cook. It's usually > too "ethnic" for her *sigh*. If you explain that prefer "rabbit & bird food", they might get the idea. > I do understand that in parts of India and the Mediterranean > "vegetarian" usually refers to lacto vegetarianism, as eggs are > generally not consumed by vegetarians there. Stop! lol. > Yeesh. Look at that mini rant? Where, or where did it come from? :P > > Cheers, > > -- Blue S'great to see you again, Blue. Cheers.  |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Digger" > wrote
> >I am a vegetarian and have been all my life. > > Not unless you were never breast fed. Incorrect. If we have no problem drinking the breast milk of other creatures, you hardly have an issue with drinking ones mothers breast milk? Ovo-Lacto Vegetarian: same as VEGAN, but also eats eggs and milk products. This is the most 'popular' form of Vegetarianism. http://www.ivu.org/faq/definitions.html > >Of course milk is not a vegan food source! > > Thank you. > > >Of course it is a vegetarian food source. > > Only to those who want to include themselves alongside > true vegetarians that abstain from all animal products. > There aren't any vegetables in milk, but go ahead and > call yourself a vegetarian if it's what you want to do. Once again, the word vegetarian has nothing to do with vegetables. There are many food categories such as grains, fruit, dairy products. Ovo-Lacto Vegetarian: same as VEGAN, but also eats eggs and milk products. This is the most 'popular' form of Vegetarianism. http://www.ivu.org/faq/definitions.html > >Vegetarians have no problem with animal by-products such as milk. > > True vegetarians that feed exclusively on veg do have > a problem with animal by-products and abstain from > them wherever they can. Modern vegetarians such > as the lacto-ovo or pesco type aren't so concerned.. Exaclty! And these are the most common type of vegetarians. > >The animal is not killed for their production. > > Irrelevant. Not if that is the principal reason you use to make the choice. > >> >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. > > No. I'm giving you an example of a suckling obligate > carnivore that belies your rule that says > "No meat = vegetarian." Yes, they do not eat meat. Vegetarian is someone who doesn't eat meat. Different types of vegetarians break this down further. But the majority of vegetarians just don't eat meat. For example I know many vegetarians who keep cats with a vegetarian diet. Now you're not going to tell me that cats are herbivores, yet they have never eaten meat so they can only be referred to as vegetarian. http://www.ivu.org/faq/definitions.html > >During the time it is a baby the > >lion can not eat vegetables or meat. Only milk > > Then, according to your rule; "No meat = vegetarian" a > suckling obligate carnivore cub is a vegetarian. Can > you see yet why your rule is unworkable and specious? No, see above. > > So therefore it is not a meat-eater, > > At least not in the true definition of the word, yet. But if it is killed, or in the case of the cats above, never fed meat, then it never will be! You're jumping the gun to describe it as anything other than what it is presently. > >or a vegan > > Certainly not. Naturally not. > >but a vegetarian by definition. > > No. I lion cub is not a vegetarian, and nor will it ever be. I am using simple meaning. You will have to explain why a creature that fits into the category of vegetarian and has never fitted into any other category would be called something other than what it presently is. It makes no sense. > >In the future it will go on to assume a carnivorous diet in the wild. > > That's true, but to say it was once a vegetarian by virtue > of it suckling from its mother is absurd. Lion cubs are not > vegetarians. They are when they are, and cease to be when they start eating meat. > > If it > >died before this happened, then it would never have eaten meat and it would > >have died a vegetarian. > > No. Lion cubs are not vegetarians simply because they > drink milk from their mother. You're very wrong on this. Incorrect. The majority of vegetarian drink milk. If we have no problem drinking the breast milk of other creatures, you hardly have an issue with drinking ones mothers breast milk? Ovo-Lacto Vegetarian: same as VEGAN, but also eats eggs and milk products. This is the most 'popular' form of Vegetarianism. http://www.ivu.org/faq/definitions.html > >> Milk, whether it's from a lion or a human > >> is animal fats and proteins, and therefore non-vegan by > >> default. > > > >Exactly. > > Then we are in agreement and have answered the > question contained in the subject title in this thread. > Breast feeding cannot be considered vegan. Absolutely. I never disagreed with you in this point and did not enter the discussion until I saw you generalise that it is not vegetarian to drink milk, a fact that you can understand me refuting since it is blatent misinformation and the majority of vegetarians drink milk. Richard |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:25:06 +0100, "Richard" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote > >> >I am a vegetarian and have been all my life. >> >> Not unless you were never breast fed. > >Incorrect. Human milk, like any other milk is as vegetarian as chicken soup. You're deluding yourself if you think you're a vegetarian while drinking it. The only means by which you can regard or announce yourself as a vegetarian is to equivocate on the term and then rely on others not knowing what context you're referring to. Good luck with that, but bear in mind that not everyone will be easily fooled. >If we have no problem drinking the breast milk of other creatures, you >hardly have an issue with drinking ones mothers breast milk? I do if I'm told that milk is a vegetarian food sourced from lions, and that lion cubs are vegetarians simply because you deem milk to be vegetarian. >Ovo-Lacto Vegetarian: same as VEGAN, but also eats eggs and milk products. >This is the most 'popular' form of Vegetarianism. > >http://www.ivu.org/faq/definitions.html I already know how watered down and meaningless the term 'vegetarian' is, thank you. >> >Of course milk is not a vegan food source! >> >> Thank you. >> >> >Of course it is a vegetarian food source. >> >> Only to those who want to include themselves alongside >> true vegetarians that abstain from all animal products. >> There aren't any vegetables in milk, but go ahead and >> call yourself a vegetarian if it's what you want to do. > >Once again, the word vegetarian has nothing to do with vegetables. And once again, the only means by which you can regard or announce yourself as a vegetarian is to equivocate on the term and rely on others not knowing what context you're referring to. > There are >many food categories such as grains, fruit, dairy products. > >Ovo-Lacto Vegetarian: same as VEGAN, No, he is not. > but also eats eggs and milk products. And there's your reason why. >This is the most 'popular' form of Vegetarianism. > >http://www.ivu.org/faq/definitions.html > >> >Vegetarians have no problem with animal by-products such as milk. >> >> True vegetarians that feed exclusively on veg do have >> a problem with animal by-products and abstain from >> them wherever they can. Modern vegetarians such >> as the lacto-ovo or pesco type aren't so concerned.. > >Exaclty! And these are the most common type of vegetarians. I'm sure they are, seeing as they're meat eaters anyway. >> >The animal is not killed for their production. >> >> Irrelevant. > >Not if that is the principal reason you use to make the choice. It's irrelevant to your comment preceding that where you mentioned, "Vegetarians have no problem with animal by- products such as milk." That the animal is not killed when providing milk is irrelevant to whether milk can be deemed vegetarian. >> >> >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. >> >> No. I'm giving you an example of a suckling obligate >> carnivore that belies your rule that says >> "No meat = vegetarian." > >Yes, they do not eat meat. That doesn't necessarily mean that it must then be a vegetarian, simply because it doesn't eat meat. You're affirming the consequent. >Vegetarian is someone who doesn't eat meat. That's partly true, but since suckling lion cubs are not vegetarians, your rule of logic which asserts "No meat = vegetarian." is clearly false. >Different types of vegetarians break this down further. But the majority of >vegetarians just don't eat meat. For example I know many vegetarians who >keep cats with a vegetarian diet. Now you're not going to tell me that cats >are herbivores, yet they have never eaten meat so they can only be referred >to as vegetarian. > >http://www.ivu.org/faq/definitions.html > >> >During the time it is a baby the >> >lion can not eat vegetables or meat. Only milk >> >> Then, according to your rule; "No meat = vegetarian" a >> suckling obligate carnivore cub is a vegetarian. Can >> you see yet why your rule is unworkable and specious? > >No, You should do, because it's absolutely certain that a suckling lion cub is not and cannot be described as a vegetarian, so that example alone shows your rule is unworkable and wrong. >see above. > >> > So therefore it is not a meat-eater, >> >> At least not in the true definition of the word, yet. > >But if it is killed, or in the case of the cats above, never fed meat, then >it never will be! It's true to say it will never eat meat, but that doesn't mean to say it's a vegetarian because of that and the fact it was suckling milk from its mother. >> No. I lion cub is not a vegetarian, and nor will it ever be. > >I am using simple meaning. No, you're not, and as a result you've tied yourself up so tightly that you now have to make the claim that a lion cub is a vegetarian. Way to go ... >You will have to explain why a creature that fits >into the category of vegetarian Lion cubs do not fit into the category of vegetarians. They, like all other mammals dependent on milk are sucklings. >and has never fitted into any other category >would be called something other than what it presently is. It's a suckling. >> >In the future it will go on to assume a carnivorous diet in the wild. >> >> That's true, but to say it was once a vegetarian by virtue >> of it suckling from its mother is absurd. Lion cubs are not >> vegetarians. > >They are when they are, No, they are not. >> >> Milk, whether it's from a lion or a human >> >> is animal fats and proteins, and therefore non-vegan by >> >> default. >> > >> >Exactly. >> >> Then we are in agreement and have answered the >> question contained in the subject title in this thread. >> Breast feeding cannot be considered vegan. > >Absolutely. Thank you. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 04:58:06 -0400, "magnulus" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote in message ... >> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 22:57:03 -0400, "magnulus" > wrote: >> >"Digger" > wrote in message ... >> >> >> >> "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." >> >> http://www.vegsource.com/jo/essays/namegame.htm >> >> >> > >> > That's actually a good definition (if quite wordy- try explaining >> > that to anybody when they ask you what a vegan is), but if you >> > just changed "animal milk" to "nonhuman animal milk", it would >> > be flawless. >> >> I'm afraid not, because making human milk an exception >> to the rule leaves the way clear for any man to regard >> himself as a vegan while nourishing himself on it. > > No. If a person were to exist on human breast milk, I think they would >qualify as vegan by vegans themselves No. They would not be classed as vegans for the simple fact that vegans don't nourish themselves on milk. > although it would be quite a bizarre diet. I agree that it would be a bizarre diet, but it's not totally inconceivable to understand that an AIDS victim might follow it if it were shown to be beneficial to his condition, for one example. > Again,the problem isn't that breast milk is intrinsicly nonvegan, the >problem is that Vegans who say they do not believe in the consumption of any >animal products for any reason, are lying. Vegans clearly believe in >consuming at least one animal product- breast milk from humans. Rather, I would say that the very few are slightly misguided as to what constitutes vegan fare, and as a result wrongly insist that their suckling babies are vegans. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 22:40:29 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>"C. James Strutz" > wrote in message ... > >> there are NO eggs that are sourced ethically. > >I'd have to disagree with that. These are 'my' chickens; >http://www.iol.ie/~creature/vicious.html (the 'commentary' >is obviously sarcasm). They'll lay eggs, and leave them. Probably the most sickening example of overgrazing I've ever seen! ;-) >> The problem with this is that you can't source any food from animals >> without exploiting them in some way. > >I hand-raised a nanny goat, who quite happily provides milk. Perfectly ethical to drink, in my opinion, even though I believe it's not a vegan food item. >Her kid is grown and still with her- weaned in her own time. Now you've done it! What's a female kid called: a kiddoe or something? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
pearl wrote:
> "BlueHeron" > wrote in message ... > >>pearl wrote: >> >>>"Blue Heron" > wrote in message news <snip> > If you explain that prefer "rabbit & bird food", they might get the idea. Hum... it's a thought. What has actually helped quite a bit is that two of their close friends, who actually live in Montreal (closer to us), are very open about their food, and like to experiment with vegetarian fare. They have doing the hard work of educating my in-laws for me! > >>I do understand that in parts of India and the Mediterranean >>"vegetarian" usually refers to lacto vegetarianism, as eggs are >>generally not consumed by vegetarians there. > > > Stop! lol. <grin> <snip> > S'great to see you again, Blue. Cheers. Thanks!I even have some recipes for a.f.v. Crazy, I know! Maybe we can get this newgroup turned around again! -- Blue |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Digger" > wrote in message ... > > No. They would not be classed as vegans for the simple > fact that vegans don't nourish themselves on milk. > Clearly they do... my purpose starting the thread was not to argue what is a true vegan, or that vegans by nature are hypocrites... it was to argue that the definition of veganism often put forward, that vegans are simply people who avoid animal products in their diet, clothing, and lifestyle, is highly flawed. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Digger" > wrote in message ... > > The ideal would be that vegetarians feed exclusively > on vegetation while vegans do the same and abstain > from animal derived products such as leather etc. This is a false defenition. Vegetarian comes from the Latin "vegetus" (vigorous, energetic), which doesn't mean "vegetable". It reffers instead to the original intent of the vegetarian diet in the West, a "pure" diet free of meat that would confer health properties (ancient vegetarians such as Pythagoras or Ovid didn't call their diet/lifestyle "vegetarian"). Milk products, honey, and eggs have been accepted as vegetarian food for a long time, and vegetarians might even wear wool, a few leather... in India vegetarians sometimes use leather derived from dead cows (ones that have died of natural causes). Chinese Buddhist "vegetarians" sometimes east bivalve molluscs if they live near the ocean, though this would not be in accordance with the Western idea of vegetarianism. The Chinese Buddhists eat the molluscs because of tradition, they don't consider the bivalve molluscs to be feeling animals in the usual sense. Of course, some Buddhists don't eat garlic, either. Not everything vegetarians eat is "plant" based in the biological sense. Fungi such as mushrooms, Quorn, miso (Aspergillus oryzae), nutritional yeast, are definitely not plants in the biological sense. Most seaweeds vegetarians/macriobitcs would eat are actually not plants, either- they belong to an entirely different kingdom of eurkariotic life: Protista, and they are actually far older than plants. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 11:51:42 -0400, "magnulus" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote in message ... >> >> No. They would not be classed as vegans for the simple >> fact that vegans don't nourish themselves on milk. > > Clearly they do... Clearly, they do not. > my purpose starting the thread was not to argue what >is a true vegan, or that vegans by nature are hypocrites... it was to argue >that the definition of veganism often put forward, that vegans are simply >people who avoid animal products in their diet, clothing, and lifestyle, is >highly flawed. Rather, your conception of a vegan is flawed. Suckling babies aren't vegans, so the definition of a vegan as a person that doesn't drink milk remains the same and isn't flawed, despite your misconception. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:21:14 -0400, "magnulus" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote in message ... >> >> The ideal would be that vegetarians feed exclusively >> on vegetation while vegans do the same and abstain >> from animal derived products such as leather etc. > > This is a false defenition. No. it is not. >Vegetarian comes from the Latin "vegetus" >(vigorous, energetic), which doesn't mean "vegetable". Then, to regard or announce oneself as a vegetarian, all one need do is equivocate on the term and hope no one realises they aren't trying to fool others when inwardly referring to a definition of vegetarianism normally associated with eating veg. Good luck with that, but you won't fool everyone using that kind of equivocation. Not unless you're only trying to fool yourself, that is. It reffers instead >to the original intent of the vegetarian diet in the West, a "pure" diet >free of meat that would confer health properties (ancient vegetarians such >as Pythagoras or Ovid didn't call their diet/lifestyle "vegetarian"). Milk >products, honey, and eggs have been accepted as vegetarian food for a long >time, and vegetarians might even wear wool, a few leather... in India >vegetarians sometimes use leather derived from dead cows (ones that have >died of natural causes). > > Chinese Buddhist "vegetarians" sometimes east bivalve molluscs if they >live near the ocean, though this would not be in accordance with the Western >idea of vegetarianism. The Chinese Buddhists eat the molluscs because of >tradition, they don't consider the bivalve molluscs to be feeling animals in >the usual sense. Of course, some Buddhists don't eat garlic, either. > > Not everything vegetarians eat is "plant" based in the biological sense. >Fungi such as mushrooms, Quorn, miso (Aspergillus oryzae), nutritional >yeast, are definitely not plants in the biological sense. Most seaweeds >vegetarians/macriobitcs would eat are actually not plants, either- they >belong to an entirely different kingdom of eurkariotic life: Protista, and >they are actually far older than plants. > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Correction *
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 23:00:51 +0100, Digger > wrote: >On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:21:14 -0400, "magnulus" > wrote: >>"Digger" > wrote in message ... >>> >>> The ideal would be that vegetarians feed exclusively >>> on vegetation while vegans do the same and abstain >>> from animal derived products such as leather etc. >> >> This is a false defenition. > >No. it is not. > >>Vegetarian comes from the Latin "vegetus" >>(vigorous, energetic), which doesn't mean "vegetable". > >Then, to regard or announce oneself as a vegetarian, >all one need do is equivocate on the term and hope >no one realises they aren't trying to fool others when >inwardly referring to a definition of vegetarianism * not >normally associated with eating veg. Good luck with >that, but you won't fool everyone using that kind of >equivocation. Not unless you're only trying to fool >yourself, that is. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Digger" > wrote [..] > Rather, your conception of a vegan is flawed. Suckling > babies aren't vegans, so the definition of a vegan as a > person that doesn't drink milk remains the same and isn't > flawed, despite your misconception. The one interesting fact coming from this debate is that, contrary to what some vegans try to portray, no human is born a natural vegan, the first natural human food is primarily animal fat and protein. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Dutch" > wrote in message ... > The one interesting fact coming from this debate is that, contrary to what > some vegans try to portray, no human is born a natural vegan, the first > natural human food is primarily animal fat and protein. Human breast milk is only 5 percent protein. Saying that vegetarians or vegans do not consume some animal products is false... they do. But breast milk is not nonvegan or nonvegeterian. The simple fact is the word "vegetarian" does not mean a person exists exclusively by eating plants or vegetables- the root of the word "vegetarian" means "lively, vigorous"- not vegetable. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Digger" > wrote in message ... > >Vegetarian comes from the Latin "vegetus" > >(vigorous, energetic), which doesn't mean "vegetable". > > Then, to regard or announce oneself as a vegetarian, > all one need do is equivocate on the term and hope > no one realises they aren't trying to fool others when > inwardly referring to a definition of vegetarianism The word "vegetarian" doesn't come from the word "vegetable", although both words have similar origins in Latin. Just because a food is not a vegetable, doesn't mean it isn't necessarily vegetarian. Vegetarianism is the US, and to a certain extent, in Britain, was started mostly as a health movement, by such people as Kellog and early Seventh Day Adventists. They believed that meat was polluting to the body, and hence, was not really a life-giving food. So they chose the name "vegetarian" to reffer to the life-giving, energy producing properties of their diet. They could have well called themselves holerians (from Latin holus - herb, vegetable) if they wanted to emphasize their depedence on greens, but they did not. Some people before then did not eat meat out of conscience (Pythagoras, Ovid, Tolstoy, etc.), but they did not call themselves vegetarians. As years passed, and the influence of Indian/Buddhist vegetarianism and religious beliefs and the animal welfare and animal rights movement, vegetarianism became assosciated more with an ethical choice not to eat animals. But even today many vgetarians find the health or environmental rationale for their diet the most compelling. The name "vegan" is truely a synthetic name and was created in England in 1944 by a group of vegetarians who did not eat eggs or dairy products and wanted to avoid the consumption of (nonhuman) animal products. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 02:28:30 -0400, "magnulus" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote in message ... >> > >> >Vegetarian comes from the Latin "vegetus" >> >(vigorous, energetic), which doesn't mean "vegetable". >> >> Then, to regard or announce oneself as a vegetarian, >> all one need do is equivocate on the term and hope >> no one realises they aren't trying to fool others when >> inwardly referring to a definition of vegetarianism > > The word "vegetarian" doesn't come from the word "vegetable", although >both words have similar origins in Latin. Just because a food is not a >vegetable, doesn't mean it isn't necessarily vegetarian. Then, just as I wrote earlier but which you obviously chose to ignore, to regard or announce oneself as a vegetarian, all one need do is equivocate on the term and hope no one realises they're in fact using the term to define themselves as something other than what people usually regard as vegetarians that feed on vegetation rather than animal foodstuff. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"magnulus" > wrote ... > > "Dutch" > wrote >> The one interesting fact coming from this debate is that, contrary to >> what >> some vegans try to portray, no human is born a natural vegan, the first >> natural human food is primarily animal fat and protein. > > Human breast milk is only 5 percent protein. That's not very clever, a more pertinent response to my observation is that all mammals, even total herbivores, begin by surviving on breast milk. > Saying that vegetarians or vegans do not consume some animal products is > false... they do. Elaborate please. > But breast milk is not nonvegan or nonvegeterian. I agree, for the reason I stated above, breast milk is not really part of the "diet", any more than amniotic fluid. > The > simple fact is the word "vegetarian" does not mean a person exists > exclusively by eating plants or vegetables- the root of the word > "vegetarian" means "lively, vigorous"- not vegetable. So as long as I'm lively I can call myself a vegetarian? Interesting idea. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 18:50:59 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >"Digger" > wrote >[..] > >> Rather, your conception of a vegan is flawed. Suckling >> babies aren't vegans, so the definition of a vegan as a >> person that doesn't drink milk remains the same and isn't >> flawed, despite your misconception. > >The one interesting fact coming from this debate is that, contrary to what >some vegans try to portray, no human is born a natural vegan, the first >natural human food is primarily animal fat and protein. That's very true. Another interesting fact is that sucklings; suck·ling; n. A young mammal that has not been weaned. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=suckling once weaned can be either obligate carnivores or animals that feed exclusively on vegetation. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"magnulus" > wrote > The word "vegetarian" doesn't come from the word "vegetable", although > both words have similar origins in Latin. Just because a food is not a > vegetable, doesn't mean it isn't necessarily vegetarian. The most widely understood meaning of vegetarian is a person who does not eat meat. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Dan Congs considered bitter? | Tea | |||
| Have You Considered Raccoon...??? | General Cooking | |||
| why is breast feeding considered vegan? | Vegan | |||
| Why is fried food considered unhealthy? | General Cooking | |||
Linear Mode
