On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 02:00:19 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"magnulus" > wrote ...
>
>> But breast milk is not nonvegan or nonvegeterian.
>
>I agree,

Then, breast milk is vegan, is it? Take away the double-
negative in "breast milk is *not* *non*vegan" and you're
left with, "breast milk is vegan".

>for the reason I stated above, breast milk is not really part of
>the "diet", any more than amniotic fluid.

Nonsense. Breast milk is the usual diet given to
sucklings.

di·et
n.
The usual food and drink of a person or animal.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=diet

Babies have a diet like any other animal does.

>> 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.
>

"Digger" > wrote
> 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.

Doesn't even depend on weaning, suckling may go on for quite some time even
after the animal has commenced it's normal diet, but breast milk, although
it's food, is in a food category all it's own, apart from "diet", which
really pertains to *other* food.

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 02:17:12 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote
>> 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.
>
>Doesn't even depend on weaning, suckling may go on for quite some time even
>after the animal has commenced it's normal diet, but breast milk, although
>it's food, is in a food category all it's own, apart from "diet", which
>really pertains to *other* food.

No. A diet, simply put, is the usual food and drink of
person or animal.

di·et
n.
The usual food and drink of a person or animal.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=diet

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 02:17:12 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote
>> 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.
>
>Doesn't even depend on weaning, suckling may go on for quite some time even
>after the animal has commenced it's normal diet, but breast milk, although
>it's food, is in a food category all it's own, apart from "diet", which
>really pertains to *other* food.

No. A diet, simply put, is the usual food and drink of
person or animal.

di·et
n.
The usual food and drink of a person or animal.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=diet

"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
>
> "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.

Bingo.

"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
> 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.

True.

>
> > Saying that vegetarians or vegans do not consume some animal products
is
> > false... they do.
>
> Elaborate please.

Well, a baby that would be raised vegan might consume breast milk if the
mother is capable of doing that (not all are, after all), and we have
established that breast milk is most certainly an animal product in the
strict sense. And of course, vegetarians consume animal products like
honey, eggs, and dairy products.

>
> > 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.

No... not anymore than if some car company calls their latest car the
"Tiburon", it becomes a carnivorous fish (Tiburon- Spanish word for
"shark").

Vegetarian has a meaning with which people who don't eat meat have
self-identified, a meater eater calling himself a vegetarian would be just
like calling a white guy who wears cork on his face an African-American.

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 05:44:07 -0400, "magnulus" > wrote:
>"Dutch" > wrote in message ...

>> > Saying that vegetarians or vegans do not consume some
>> >animal products is false... they do.
>>
>> Elaborate please.
>
> Well, a baby that would be raised vegan might consume breast milk

And while it's suckling it is not a vegan.

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 05:34:41 -0400, "magnulus" > wrote:
>"Dutch" > wrote in message ...
>> "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.
>
> Bingo.

Then why do you announce yourself as a vegetarian while
inwardly referring to another definition of vegetarian? Why
not be honest with yourself and others, and refer to yourself
as a meat eater like other meat eaters do. Why pretend you're
someone you aren't?

"Digger" > wrote in message ...
> 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 bare patch is recently-shifted earth, and it was taken early spring.

> >> 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.

Vegan, it isn't. Ethically obtained, it is.

> >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?

A female kid.

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 12:26:12 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote in message ...
>> 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 bare patch is recently-shifted earth, and it was taken early spring.

I was only kidding. Lovely looking birds btw, especially
the black and white one in the first photo and the
coloured one in the second.

>> >> 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.
>
>Vegan, it isn't. Ethically obtained, it is.

I totally agree.

>> >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?
>
>A female kid.

Females are does, so why not call them kiddoes, kiddo? ;-)

"Digger" > wrote in message ...
> On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 12:26:12 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >"Digger" > wrote in message ...
> >> 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 bare patch is recently-shifted earth, and it was taken early spring.
>
> I was only kidding. Lovely looking birds btw, especially
> the black and white one in the first photo and the
> coloured one in the second.

Aren't they just.

> >> >> 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.
> >
> >Vegan, it isn't. Ethically obtained, it is.
>
> I totally agree.

Sure? .

> >> >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?
> >
> >A female kid.
>
> Females are does, so why not call them kiddoes, kiddo? ;-)

Or nannette?

Digger > wrote in message >. ..
> On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 05:34:41 -0400, "magnulus" > wrote:
> >"Dutch" > wrote in message ...
> >> "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.
> >
> > Bingo.
>
> Then why do you announce yourself as a vegetarian while
> inwardly referring to another definition of vegetarian? Why
> not be honest with yourself and others, and refer to yourself
> as a meat eater like other meat eaters do. Why pretend you're
> someone you aren't?

That's a good question, Dreck. So why don't you answer it?

"Digger" > wrote

> On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 02:00:19 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>"magnulus" > wrote ...
>>
>>> But breast milk is not nonvegan or nonvegeterian.
>>
>>I agree,
>
> Then, breast milk is vegan, is it? Take away the double-
> negative in "breast milk is *not* *non*vegan" and you're
> left with, "breast milk is vegan".

The terms vegan and vegetarian, carnivore, herbivore, omnivore, describe
diets non-inclusive of/post-breast-feeding, it's implicit in the usage. This
discussion has degenerated into a pointless equivocation on terminology.

>>for the reason I stated above, breast milk is not really part of
>>the "diet", any more than amniotic fluid.
>
> Nonsense. Breast milk is the usual diet given to
> sucklings.
>
> di·et
> n.
> The usual food and drink of a person or animal.
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=diet

Breast milk is not the "usual" food of any animal specie. It is the food of
mammals for a short period of time *before* they develop the chewing and
digestive ability to eat their usual food, the food that will carry them
through life

> Babies have a diet like any other animal does.

A baby is not a type of animal, it is an animal in an infantile state.

[..]

"Digger" > wrote in message
news
> On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 02:17:12 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>"Digger" > wrote
>>> 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.
>>
>>Doesn't even depend on weaning, suckling may go on for quite some time
>>even
>>after the animal has commenced it's normal diet, but breast milk, although
>>it's food, is in a food category all it's own, apart from "diet", which
>>really pertains to *other* food.
>
> No. A diet, simply put, is the usual food and drink of
> person or animal.

The key word is usual. A baby is not a vegan, nor is it a non-vegan, since
it has not begun eating it's usual food, which commences when it begins to
consume it's "normal" diet.

As I said before, even a bovine is not a practising herbivore immediately.

>
> di·et
> n.
> The usual food and drink of a person or animal.
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=diet

"Digger" > wrote in message
...
> Then why do you announce yourself as a vegetarian while
> inwardly referring to another definition of vegetarian? Why
> not be honest with yourself and others, and refer to yourself
> as a meat eater like other meat eaters do. Why pretend you're
> someone you aren't?
>

Because I don't eat meat.

"Digger" > wrote in message
...
> Then why do you announce yourself as a vegetarian while
> inwardly referring to another definition of vegetarian? Why
> not be honest with yourself and others, and refer to yourself
> as a meat eater like other meat eaters do. Why pretend you're
> someone you aren't?
>

Because I don't eat meat.

"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
> The key word is usual. A baby is not a vegan, nor is it a non-vegan, since
> it has not begun eating it's usual food, which commences when it begins to
> consume it's "normal" diet.
>
> As I said before, even a bovine is not a practising herbivore immediately.

OK... but you wouldn't disagree a calf is going to grow up to be a
herbivore?

A baby that is being raised "vegetarian" or "vegan" by vegetarian/vegan
parents is such in the sense that the parents will raise it according to
their dietary or lifestyle preferences, and vegans as a self-described group
do not consider breast milk non-vegan.

Saying that a baby cannot be vegetarian is much like saying a baby cannot
be Buddhist, Christian, or atheist... it is true in a sense but hardly true
in the most general sense.

"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
> The key word is usual. A baby is not a vegan, nor is it a non-vegan, since
> it has not begun eating it's usual food, which commences when it begins to
> consume it's "normal" diet.
>
> As I said before, even a bovine is not a practising herbivore immediately.

OK... but you wouldn't disagree a calf is going to grow up to be a
herbivore?

A baby that is being raised "vegetarian" or "vegan" by vegetarian/vegan
parents is such in the sense that the parents will raise it according to
their dietary or lifestyle preferences, and vegans as a self-described group
do not consider breast milk non-vegan.

Saying that a baby cannot be vegetarian is much like saying a baby cannot
be Buddhist, Christian, or atheist... it is true in a sense but hardly true
in the most general sense.

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 02:41:55 -0400, "magnulus" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote in message ...
>>
>> Then why do you announce yourself as a vegetarian while
>> inwardly referring to another definition of vegetarian? Why
>> not be honest with yourself and others, and refer to yourself
>> as a meat eater like other meat eaters do. Why pretend you're
>> someone you aren't?
>>
>
> Because I don't eat meat.

That alone does not make one a vegetarian, especially
while eating animal products such as milk and eggs.
A vegetarian is usually thought of as someone whose
diet consists primarily or wholly of vegetables and
vegetable products, as stated in the dictionary.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=vegetarian

Milk and eggs aren't vegetarian, no matter how much
you equivocate on the term and try to hijack it.

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 02:41:55 -0400, "magnulus" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote in message ...
>>
>> Then why do you announce yourself as a vegetarian while
>> inwardly referring to another definition of vegetarian? Why
>> not be honest with yourself and others, and refer to yourself
>> as a meat eater like other meat eaters do. Why pretend you're
>> someone you aren't?
>>
>
> Because I don't eat meat.

That alone does not make one a vegetarian, especially
while eating animal products such as milk and eggs.
A vegetarian is usually thought of as someone whose
diet consists primarily or wholly of vegetables and
vegetable products, as stated in the dictionary.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=vegetarian

Milk and eggs aren't vegetarian, no matter how much
you equivocate on the term and try to hijack it.

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 12:50:17 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote
>> On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 02:00:19 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>"magnulus" > wrote ...
>>>
>>>> But breast milk is not nonvegan or nonvegeterian.
>>>
>>>I agree,
>>
>> Then, breast milk is vegan, is it? Take away the double-
>> negative in "breast milk is *not* *non*vegan" and you're
>> left with, "breast milk is vegan".
>
>The terms vegan and vegetarian, carnivore, herbivore, omnivore, describe
>diets non-inclusive of/post-breast-feeding, it's implicit in the usage.

Stop trying to back pedal away from what you've
agreed to, Ditch. You've agreed that breast milk
is vegan. Why don't you admit you screwed up
or defend your new position on vegan milk?

>>>for the reason I stated above, breast milk is not really part of
>>>the "diet", any more than amniotic fluid.
>>
>> Nonsense. Breast milk is the usual diet given to
>> sucklings.
>>
>> di·et
>> n.
>> The usual food and drink of a person or animal.
>> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=diet
>
>Breast milk is not the "usual" food of any animal specie.

It certainly is while it's suckling. You screwed up on
this as well.

>> Babies have a diet like any other animal does.
>
>A baby is not a type of animal

It certainly is. That's three huge errors in one post.
Not bad, even going by your usual standards.

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 12:55:43 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote in message news
>> On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 02:17:12 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>"Digger" > wrote
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>Doesn't even depend on weaning, suckling may go on for quite
>>>some time even after the animal has commenced it's normal diet,
>>>but breast milk, although it's food, is in a food category all it's own,
>>>apart from "diet", whichreally pertains to *other* food.
>>
>> No. A diet, simply put, is the usual food and drink of
>> a person or animal.
>
>The key word is usual.

No, it isn't. You screwed up.

>A baby is not a vegan, nor is it a non-vegan,

It has to be one or the other, you stupid idiot. If
it is not non-vegan, then it is a vegan.

>> di·et
>> n.
>> The usual food and drink of a person or animal.
>>
>> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=diet

"Digger" > wrote

> 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.

Its perfectly clear that you are confused as to the issue as to what
vegetarianism is. Chicken soup is vegetarian, apart from the chicken in it.
Milk is acceptable. You seem to be highly unsure as to the difference
between vegans and vegetarians.

> >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.

I suppose I must conceed that if you think the term vegetarian in your mind
to mean something other than the standard definition found in dictionaries,
vegetarians themselves and promoted clearly by all the vegetarian
organisations then there is little point in my trying to argue with you to
use the actual definition. You could think vegetarians are people who drive
ambulances ambulance for a living, but if you don't care about the actual
meaning of the word, then there is little point in debating it.

> >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.

Great, so you know about the diets of said people.

> >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.

You're the first I've met. And you still think your definition is in some
way superior to that of vegetarians and the rest of the world. In your mind
I suppose it is, but in reality, there are actually common understanding of
words such as vegetarian. I defy you to prove to me that any quantity of
people do not see a vegetarian as someone who does not eat meat.

> > There are
> >many food categories such as grains, fruit, dairy products.
> >
> >Ovo-Lacto Vegetarian: same as VEGAN,
>
> No, he is not.

Ah, you are a troll. And I am bored. You broke the sentance "Ovo-Lacto
Vegetarian: same as VEGAN,but also eats eggs and milk products." to try and
make some sort of a point my misquoting. That is more than a little sad
isn't it? It is, by the way.

> > but also eats eggs and milk products.
>
> And there's your reason why.

Oh dear :-)

> >Exaclty! And these are the most common type of vegetarians.
>
> I'm sure they are, seeing as they're meat eaters anyway.

This is getting boring now. Most trolls actually use arguments and facts to
try and stir people.

> >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.

No, what is relevent is that it is classified as being 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.

No, it means that it IS, not that it must be.

> >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.

Using that special individual definition of the word you have in your mind
again?

> 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.

Your opinion, and it has no basis in reality or fact.

> >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.

Simple fact.

> 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 ...

Yes, made that from the very beginning.

> >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.

This is getting boring. Most trolls actually use arguments and facts to try
and stir people.

> >and has never fitted into any other category
> >would be called something other than what it presently is.
>
> It's a suckling.

Which by default is vegetarian. Vegetarian is a classification as well as a
lifestyle choice.

> >They are when they are,
>
> No, they are not.

I know you started off this conversation with the notion that vegetarians
didn't consume milk by definition, and as you realised that this assumption
was completely false on your part, instead of admitting you were wrong on
this point, you just continued to argue with your imagination, which
fortunately nobody in the real world has access to :-)

You are very emotional about the whole issue in general, especially since
you 'aren't a vegan or vegetarian yourself'. Needless to say you are doing
the cause of vegetarianism a lot of good work and I'm sure you know that.

Richard.

"Digger" > wrote
> On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 12:50:17 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>"Digger" > wrote
>>> On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 02:00:19 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>"magnulus" > wrote ...
>>>>
>>>>> But breast milk is not nonvegan or nonvegeterian.
>>>>
>>>>I agree,
>>>
>>> Then, breast milk is vegan, is it? Take away the double-
>>> negative in "breast milk is *not* *non*vegan" and you're
>>> left with, "breast milk is vegan".
>>
>>The terms vegan and vegetarian, carnivore, herbivore, omnivore, describe
>>diets non-inclusive of/post-breast-feeding, it's implicit in the usage.
>
> Stop trying to back pedal away from what you've
> agreed to, Ditch.

Stop trying to make an issue out of nothing Dreck.

> You've agreed that breast milk
> is vegan.

No I didn't, I said it's NOT non-vegan, it's also not vegan, it takes place
before these labels have any meaning.

> Why don't you admit you screwed up
> or defend your new position on vegan milk?

This is a non-issue. Breast milk is consistent with vegetarians, herbivores,
omnivores, and obligate carnivores.

>>>>for the reason I stated above, breast milk is not really part of
>>>>the "diet", any more than amniotic fluid.
>>>
>>> Nonsense. Breast milk is the usual diet given to
>>> sucklings.
>>> di·et
>>> n.
>>> The usual food and drink of a person or animal.
>>> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=diet
>>
>>Breast milk is not the "usual" food of any animal specie.
>
> It certainly is while it's suckling.

That doesn't make it "the usual food" of the species.

> You screwed up on
> this as well.

Notwithstanding your pathological need to make an argument out of nothing,
no I didn't.

>>> Babies have a diet like any other animal does.
>>
>>A baby is not a type of animal
>
> It certainly is.

Not in any sense relevant to this discussion.

> That's three huge errors in one post.
> Not bad, even going by your usual standards.

I see you've reverted to *your* usual snide habits Dreck. What happened to
the Digger who just a couple of days ago pleaded "There's no need for you to
start getting aggressive and rude."

Show some class and just say what is the salient point you are trying to
make in this thread, if you have one.

"Digger" > wrote
> On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 12:55:43 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
[..]

>>A baby is not a vegan, nor is it a non-vegan,
>
> It has to be one or the other, you stupid idiot. If
> it is not non-vegan, then it is a vegan.

Wrong, breast milk to an infant is neither vegan nor non-vegan, just as
embrionic fluid to an embryo is neither, because the terms do not apply
until post-suckling.

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 23:21:24 +0100, "Richard" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote
>
>> 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.
>
>Its perfectly clear that you are confused as to the issue as to what
>vegetarianism is.

Unfortunately for you and other vegetarians who try
to fool those around them into believing they abstain
from animal products when announcing themselves
as vegetarian, I do know the term and the term you
inwardly refer to when actually making that public
announcement. Rather than actually referring to the
dictionary's definition of vegetarian, commonly used
to describe a person whose diet consists primarily or
wholly of vegetables;

veg·e·tar·i·an
n.
One who practices vegetarianism.
A herbivore.

adj.
Of or relating to vegetarianism or vegetarians.
Consisting primarily or wholly of vegetables and
vegetable products: a vegetarian diet.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=vegetarian

you're in fact referring to a different definition of
the term that has nothing to do with vegetables at
all, and here's your acknowledgement of that.

"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."
Richard 14/10/2004

As you say, "This is a common misconception", and
you do your very best to take advantage of it whenever
announcing yourself as a vegetarian. Why don't you
just say you're lively, if that's what you really mean?

Has it never occurred to you that while pretenders
like yourself try to pass yourselves off as vegetarians
by hijacking the common term normally understood to
be associated with vegetables and a vegetarian diet,
real vegetarians like myself who DO abstain from
animal foods and derivatives now have to use another
term instead to disassociate ourselves from you?

>Chicken soup is vegetarian,

Not, it is not.

> apart from the chicken in it.

And there's you're reason why. Has it never occurred
to you that one can't call something chicken soup if it
has no chicken in it?

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 15:23:08 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote
>> On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 12:50:17 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>"Digger" > wrote
>>>> On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 02:00:19 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>"magnulus" > wrote ...
>>>>>
>>>>>> But breast milk is not nonvegan or nonvegeterian.
>>>>>
>>>>>I agree,
>>>>
>>>> Then, breast milk is vegan, is it? Take away the double-
>>>> negative in "breast milk is *not* *non*vegan" and you're
>>>> left with, "breast milk is vegan".
>>>
>>>The terms vegan and vegetarian, carnivore, herbivore, omnivore, describe
>>>diets non-inclusive of/post-breast-feeding, it's implicit in the usage.
>>
>> Stop trying to back pedal away from what you've
>> agreed to, Ditch.
>
>Stop trying to make an issue out of nothing

You agreed that breast milk is vegan, and it certainly isn't,
but now you're trying to back pedal from what you agreed
to. You're a dunce.

>> You've agreed that breast milk
>> is vegan.
>
>No I didn't, I said it's NOT non-vegan

Meaning it IS vegan, you imbecile. Take away the double
negative in "not non-vegan" and you're left with "vegan."

>> Why don't you admit you screwed up
>> or defend your new position on vegan milk?
>
>This is a non-issue.

Says you, but that's because you've been caught making
a huge error you're unwilling or incapable of admitting to.

>>>>>for the reason I stated above, breast milk is not really part of
>>>>>the "diet", any more than amniotic fluid.
>>>>
>>>> Nonsense. Breast milk is the usual diet given to
>>>> sucklings.
>>>> di·et
>>>> n.
>>>> The usual food and drink of a person or animal.
>>>> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=diet
>>>
>>>Breast milk is not the "usual" food of any animal specie.
>>
>> It certainly is while it's suckling.
>
>That doesn't make it "the usual food" of the species.

It makes it the usual food of the animal or person in
question. Milk is the usual diet of sucklings.

>> You screwed up on
>> this as well.
>
>Notwithstanding your pathological need to make an argument out of nothing,
>no I didn't.

You clearly did but can't bring yourself to admit it.

>>>> Babies have a diet like any other animal does.
>>>
>>>A baby is not a type of animal
>>
>> It certainly is.
>
>Not in any sense relevant to this discussion.

A baby is an animal in every sense of the word and
particularly relevant to this discussion. You screwed
up.

>> That's three huge errors in one post.
>> Not bad, even going by your usual standards.
>
>I see

And so do I.

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 15:30:01 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote
>> On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 12:55:43 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>[..]
>
>>>A baby is not a vegan, nor is it a non-vegan,
>>
>> It has to be one or the other, you stupid idiot. If
>> it is not non-vegan, then it is a vegan.
>
>Wrong

It's logically certain that if a baby or animal is not
non-vegan, then it is vegan, dummy. Take away the
double negative from "not non-vegan" and you're
left with "vegan." If a person is not non-female,
then she is a female. You screwed up, but can't
bring yourself to admit it. If you can't admit to an
error as clear as this one, then it should be of no
surprise to anyone that you'll never admit to any at
all.

"Digger" > wrote
> On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 15:23:08 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>"Digger" > wrote
>>> On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 12:50:17 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>"Digger" > wrote
>>>>> On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 02:00:19 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>"magnulus" > wrote ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But breast milk is not nonvegan or nonvegeterian.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I agree,
>>>>>
>>>>> Then, breast milk is vegan, is it? Take away the double-
>>>>> negative in "breast milk is *not* *non*vegan" and you're
>>>>> left with, "breast milk is vegan".
>>>>
>>>>The terms vegan and vegetarian, carnivore, herbivore, omnivore, describe
>>>>diets non-inclusive of/post-breast-feeding, it's implicit in the usage.
>>>
>>> Stop trying to back pedal away from what you've
>>> agreed to, Ditch.
>>
>>Stop trying to make an issue out of nothing
>
> You agreed that breast milk is vegan,

Nope, breast milk is consistent with both herbivorous and carnivorous
animals.

> and it certainly isn't,

I agree, the statement is nonsense.

> but now you're trying to back pedal from what you agreed
> to. You're a dunce.

And we get to your whole reason for existence on discussion groups. You get
to call someone a dunce and feel smart.

>>> You've agreed that breast milk
>>> is vegan.
>>
>>No I didn't, I said it's NOT non-vegan
>
> Meaning it IS vegan, you imbecile. Take away the double
> negative in "not non-vegan" and you're left with "vegan."

As always, you are mired in a self-created stew of equivocation, poor of
grasp of language and logic.

>>> Why don't you admit you screwed up
>>> or defend your new position on vegan milk?
>>
>>This is a non-issue.
>
> Says you, but that's because you've been caught making
> a huge error you're unwilling or incapable of admitting to.

No, breast milk is a non-issue on it's own (lack of) merit. It is consistent
with developed animals both herbivore and carnivore (vegan and non-vegan).
Breast milk is totally valueless as a topic here, just as you are valueless
as a participant.

>>>>>>for the reason I stated above, breast milk is not really part of
>>>>>>the "diet", any more than amniotic fluid.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nonsense. Breast milk is the usual diet given to
>>>>> sucklings.
>>>>> di·et
>>>>> n.
>>>>> The usual food and drink of a person or animal.
>>>>> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=diet
>>>>
>>>>Breast milk is not the "usual" food of any animal specie.
>>>
>>> It certainly is while it's suckling.
>>
>>That doesn't make it "the usual food" of the species.
>
> It makes it the usual food of the animal or person in
> question. Milk is the usual diet of sucklings.

Sucklings of all types, which makes it meaningless. If you claim it has
meaning then state it.

>>> You screwed up on
>>> this as well.
>>
>>Notwithstanding your pathological need to make an argument out of nothing,
>>no I didn't.
>
> You clearly did but can't bring yourself to admit it.

Admit that you are stirring up shit for the sake of it Nash. Admit that this
topic has no value.

>>>>> Babies have a diet like any other animal does.
>>>>
>>>>A baby is not a type of animal
>>>
>>> It certainly is.
>>
>>Not in any sense relevant to this discussion.
>
> A baby is an animal in every sense of the word and
> particularly relevant to this discussion. You screwed
> up.

So explain the relevance.

>>> That's three huge errors in one post.
>>> Not bad, even going by your usual standards.
>>
>>I see
>
> And so do I.

Yes I think you do, you see that I am on to your game.

a) You are attempting to make a valid issue where there isn't one.
b) You have offered no coherent reason why, and
c) You switch to ad hominems which is always plan B when you're losing.

Conclusion, you are an angry old man who's only satisfaction derives from
stirring up conflict, commonly know as a troll.

"magnulus" > wrote
>
> "Dutch" > wrote

>> The key word is usual. A baby is not a vegan, nor is it a non-vegan,
>> since
>> it has not begun eating it's usual food, which commences when it begins
>> to
>> consume it's "normal" diet.
>>
>> As I said before, even a bovine is not a practising herbivore
>> immediately.
>
> OK... but you wouldn't disagree a calf is going to grow up to be a
> herbivore?

Of course not.

> A baby that is being raised "vegetarian" or "vegan" by vegetarian/vegan
> parents is such in the sense that the parents will raise it according to
> their dietary or lifestyle preferences,

It's a "vegetarian" or "vegan" by virtue of it's diet.

> and vegans as a self-described group
> do not consider breast milk non-vegan.

And so they should not, categorizing breast milk under any dietary regime
makes no sense. Dietary regimes by definition commence when animals begin to
obtain food from the "outside world", not nursing. This is all a red
herring.

"Digger" > wrote
> On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 02:41:55 -0400, "magnulus" >
> wrote:
>>"Digger" > wrote
>>>
>>> Then why do you announce yourself as a vegetarian while
>>> inwardly referring to another definition of vegetarian? Why
>>> not be honest with yourself and others, and refer to yourself
>>> as a meat eater like other meat eaters do. Why pretend you're
>>> someone you aren't?
>>>
>>
>> Because I don't eat meat.
>
> That alone does not make one a vegetarian,

Yes it does.

> especially
> while eating animal products such as milk and eggs.
> A vegetarian is usually thought of as someone whose
> diet consists primarily or wholly of vegetables and
> vegetable products, as stated in the dictionary.
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=vegetarian
>
> Milk and eggs aren't vegetarian, no matter how much
> you equivocate on the term and try to hijack it.

That's exactly what you are doing. You are attempting to hijack the word
vegetarian to mean the same as vegan. A vegan diet cannot include dairy
products, a vegetarian diet sometimes does. Read what you posted right
above, "vegetarian is usually thought of as someone whose diet consists
***primarily*** or wholly of vegetables.."

"Digger" > wrote

> Has it never occurred to you that while pretenders
> like yourself try to pass yourselves off as vegetarians
> by hijacking the common term normally understood to
> be associated with vegetables and a vegetarian diet,
> real vegetarians like myself who DO abstain from
> animal foods and derivatives now have to use another
> term instead to disassociate ourselves from you?

Ah you're vegan. I see.

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 11:52:18 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote
>> On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 15:23:08 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>"Digger" > wrote
>>>> On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 12:50:17 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>"Digger" > wrote
>>>>>> On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 02:00:19 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>"magnulus" > wrote ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But breast milk is not nonvegan or nonvegeterian.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I agree,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then, breast milk is vegan, is it? Take away the double-
>>>>>> negative in "breast milk is *not* *non*vegan" and you're
>>>>>> left with, "breast milk is vegan".
>>>>>
>>>>>The terms vegan and vegetarian, carnivore, herbivore, omnivore, describe
>>>>>diets non-inclusive of/post-breast-feeding, it's implicit in the usage.
>>>>
>>>> Stop trying to back pedal away from what you've
>>>> agreed to, Ditch.
>>>
>>>Stop trying to make an issue out of nothing
>>
>> You agreed that breast milk is vegan,
>
>Nope

When agreeing with magnulus that breast milk is
not non-vegan right at the top of this post, you are
in fact agreeing that it IS vegan. If breast milk is
not non-vegan, then it is logically certain to be
vegan once the double negative is taken away.

If a beer is not non-alcoholic, then it is alcoholic.
If a man is not non-violent, then he is violent.
If a man is not non-armed, then he is armed.

You claim to have been a policeman. What if your
control centre were to advise you that the man you
have to arrest was seen drinking something not non-
alcoholic, was not non-violent, and was not non-
armed, would you then conclude he was sober,
passive and unarmed, you stupid imbecile? Are you
sure you weren't lying when you said you were once
a policeman?

>>>No I didn't, I said it's NOT non-vegan
>>
>> Meaning it IS vegan, you imbecile. Take away the double
>> negative in "not non-vegan" and you're left with "vegan."
>
>As always, you are mired in a self-created stew of equivocation, poor of
>grasp of language and logic.

Why can't you get it through your stupid head that
when you describe something as not non-vegan, it
must then logically be vegan? How many different
ways must I explain it to you before it sinks in?

If a floor is not non-slippery, then it is slippery.
If a drink is not non-sweetened, then it is sweetened.
If a liquid is not non-corrosive, then it is corrosive.
If breast milk is not non-vegan, then it is vegan.

Has it sunk in yet, stupid?

>>>> Why don't you admit you screwed up
>>>> or defend your new position on vegan milk?
>>>
>>>This is a non-issue.
>>
>> Says you, but that's because you've been caught making
>> a huge error you're unwilling or incapable of admitting to.
>
>No

Your only reason for insisting this is now a non-issue is
because you've made a huge error and would prefer to
avoid admitting it. It is not a non-issue. It shows that you
are incurably stupid and cannot concede when shown to
be wrong. If you can't admit to being wrong on something
as obvious and as simple as this, then it's certain you will
never admit you're wrong on anything, even while the
evidence of your error is shown to you in clear detail.
You're a complete dunce.

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 11:52:18 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote
>> On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 15:23:08 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>"Digger" > wrote
>>>> On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 12:50:17 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>"Digger" > wrote
>>>>>> On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 02:00:19 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>"magnulus" > wrote ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But breast milk is not nonvegan or nonvegeterian.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I agree,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then, breast milk is vegan, is it? Take away the double-
>>>>>> negative in "breast milk is *not* *non*vegan" and you're
>>>>>> left with, "breast milk is vegan".
>>>>>
>>>>>The terms vegan and vegetarian, carnivore, herbivore, omnivore, describe
>>>>>diets non-inclusive of/post-breast-feeding, it's implicit in the usage.
>>>>
>>>> Stop trying to back pedal away from what you've
>>>> agreed to, Ditch.
>>>
>>>Stop trying to make an issue out of nothing
>>
>> You agreed that breast milk is vegan,
>
>Nope

When agreeing with magnulus that breast milk is
not non-vegan right at the top of this post, you are
in fact agreeing that it IS vegan. If breast milk is
not non-vegan, then it is logically certain to be
vegan once the double negative is taken away.

If a beer is not non-alcoholic, then it is alcoholic.
If a man is not non-violent, then he is violent.
If a man is not non-armed, then he is armed.

You claim to have been a policeman. What if your
control centre were to advise you that the man you
have to arrest was seen drinking something not non-
alcoholic, was not non-violent, and was not non-
armed, would you then conclude he was sober,
passive and unarmed, you stupid imbecile? Are you
sure you weren't lying when you said you were once
a policeman?

>>>No I didn't, I said it's NOT non-vegan
>>
>> Meaning it IS vegan, you imbecile. Take away the double
>> negative in "not non-vegan" and you're left with "vegan."
>
>As always, you are mired in a self-created stew of equivocation, poor of
>grasp of language and logic.

Why can't you get it through your stupid head that
when you describe something as not non-vegan, it
must then logically be vegan? How many different
ways must I explain it to you before it sinks in?

If a floor is not non-slippery, then it is slippery.
If a drink is not non-sweetened, then it is sweetened.
If a liquid is not non-corrosive, then it is corrosive.
If breast milk is not non-vegan, then it is vegan.

Has it sunk in yet, stupid?

>>>> Why don't you admit you screwed up
>>>> or defend your new position on vegan milk?
>>>
>>>This is a non-issue.
>>
>> Says you, but that's because you've been caught making
>> a huge error you're unwilling or incapable of admitting to.
>
>No

Your only reason for insisting this is now a non-issue is
because you've made a huge error and would prefer to
avoid admitting it. It is not a non-issue. It shows that you
are incurably stupid and cannot concede when shown to
be wrong. If you can't admit to being wrong on something
as obvious and as simple as this, then it's certain you will
never admit you're wrong on anything, even while the
evidence of your error is shown to you in clear detail.
You're a complete dunce.

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 12:09:09 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote
>> On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 02:41:55 -0400, "magnulus" > wrote:
>>>"Digger" > wrote
>>>>
>>>> Then why do you announce yourself as a vegetarian while
>>>> inwardly referring to another definition of vegetarian? Why
>>>> not be honest with yourself and others, and refer to yourself
>>>> as a meat eater like other meat eaters do. Why pretend you're
>>>> someone you aren't?
>>>
>>> Because I don't eat meat.
>>
>> That alone does not make one a vegetarian,
>
>Yes it does.

It cannot, since suckling lion cubs don't eat meat,
and they're certainly not vegetarians because of
that, dummy.

>> especially
>> while eating animal products such as milk and eggs.
>> A vegetarian is usually thought of as someone whose
>> diet consists primarily or wholly of vegetables and
>> vegetable products, as stated in the dictionary.
>> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=vegetarian

If you have to jump into the middle of a paragraph
to refute it, at least have the decency to explain why
you're refuting it instead of just leaving three words
contesting it.

>> Milk and eggs aren't vegetarian, no matter how much
>> you equivocate on the term and try to hijack it.
>
>That's exactly what you are doing. You are attempting to hijack the word
>vegetarian to mean the same as vegan.

A vegetarian is someone whose diet consists primarily
or wholly of vegetables and vegetable products, as
stated in the dictionary.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=vegeta
A vegan is someone whose diet is the same as that of
a vegetarian but also excludes animal products from
other areas of his lifestyle as well, such as leather, fur
and certain types of glue, etc.

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 12:09:09 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote
>> On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 02:41:55 -0400, "magnulus" > wrote:
>>>"Digger" > wrote
>>>>
>>>> Then why do you announce yourself as a vegetarian while
>>>> inwardly referring to another definition of vegetarian? Why
>>>> not be honest with yourself and others, and refer to yourself
>>>> as a meat eater like other meat eaters do. Why pretend you're
>>>> someone you aren't?
>>>
>>> Because I don't eat meat.
>>
>> That alone does not make one a vegetarian,
>
>Yes it does.

It cannot, since suckling lion cubs don't eat meat,
and they're certainly not vegetarians because of
that, dummy.

>> especially
>> while eating animal products such as milk and eggs.
>> A vegetarian is usually thought of as someone whose
>> diet consists primarily or wholly of vegetables and
>> vegetable products, as stated in the dictionary.
>> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=vegetarian

If you have to jump into the middle of a paragraph
to refute it, at least have the decency to explain why
you're refuting it instead of just leaving three words
contesting it.

>> Milk and eggs aren't vegetarian, no matter how much
>> you equivocate on the term and try to hijack it.
>
>That's exactly what you are doing. You are attempting to hijack the word
>vegetarian to mean the same as vegan.

A vegetarian is someone whose diet consists primarily
or wholly of vegetables and vegetable products, as
stated in the dictionary.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=vegeta
A vegan is someone whose diet is the same as that of
a vegetarian but also excludes animal products from
other areas of his lifestyle as well, such as leather, fur
and certain types of glue, etc.

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 23:37:02 +0100, "Richard" > wrote:

>"Digger" > wrote
>
>> Has it never occurred to you that while pretenders
>> like yourself try to pass yourselves off as vegetarians
>> by hijacking the common term normally understood to
>> be associated with vegetables and a vegetarian diet,
>> real vegetarians like myself who DO abstain from
>> animal foods and derivatives now have to use another
>> term instead to disassociate ourselves from you?
>
>Ah you're vegan. I see.

Why don't you explain why you try to fool people into
thinking you're a vegetarian whose diet consists primarily
or wholly of vegetables when announcing yourself as a
vegetarian? You've admitted you inwardly refer to a
completely different definition of the term 'vegetarian'
when making this announcement which has nothing to do
with vegetables at all, and here's your acknowledgement
of that.

"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."
Richard 14/10/2004

As you say, "This is a common misconception", and
you do your very best to take advantage of it whenever
announcing yourself as a vegetarian. Why don't you
just say you're lively, if that's what you really mean?

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 23:37:02 +0100, "Richard" > wrote:

>"Digger" > wrote
>
>> Has it never occurred to you that while pretenders
>> like yourself try to pass yourselves off as vegetarians
>> by hijacking the common term normally understood to
>> be associated with vegetables and a vegetarian diet,
>> real vegetarians like myself who DO abstain from
>> animal foods and derivatives now have to use another
>> term instead to disassociate ourselves from you?
>
>Ah you're vegan. I see.

Why don't you explain why you try to fool people into
thinking you're a vegetarian whose diet consists primarily
or wholly of vegetables when announcing yourself as a
vegetarian? You've admitted you inwardly refer to a
completely different definition of the term 'vegetarian'
when making this announcement which has nothing to do
with vegetables at all, and here's your acknowledgement
of that.

"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."
Richard 14/10/2004

As you say, "This is a common misconception", and
you do your very best to take advantage of it whenever
announcing yourself as a vegetarian. Why don't you
just say you're lively, if that's what you really mean?

Maybe where you live the definition is considered different, but vegetarians
are considered to be the same as everyone else except they don't eat meat.

They don't just eat vegetables, thats the point. They also eat grains,
beans, fruit, dairy.

My point is that the word vegetarian could be substituted for the word
grainarian if it had anything to do with the word vegetable.

It doesn't, apart from sounding similar.

"Digger" > wrote

> Why don't you explain why you try to fool people into
> thinking you're a vegetarian whose diet consists primarily
> or wholly of vegetables when announcing yourself as a
> vegetarian? You've admitted you inwardly refer to a
> completely different definition of the term 'vegetarian'
> when making this announcement which has nothing to do
> with vegetables at all, and here's your acknowledgement
> of that.
>
> "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."
> Richard 14/10/2004
>
> As you say, "This is a common misconception", and
> you do your very best to take advantage of it whenever
> announcing yourself as a vegetarian. Why don't you
> just say you're lively, if that's what you really mean?

Maybe where you live the definition is considered different, but vegetarians
are considered to be the same as everyone else except they don't eat meat.

They don't just eat vegetables, thats the point. They also eat grains,
beans, fruit, dairy.

My point is that the word vegetarian could be substituted for the word
grainarian if it had anything to do with the word vegetable.

It doesn't, apart from sounding similar.

"Digger" > wrote

> Why don't you explain why you try to fool people into
> thinking you're a vegetarian whose diet consists primarily
> or wholly of vegetables when announcing yourself as a
> vegetarian? You've admitted you inwardly refer to a
> completely different definition of the term 'vegetarian'
> when making this announcement which has nothing to do
> with vegetables at all, and here's your acknowledgement
> of that.
>
> "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."
> Richard 14/10/2004
>
> As you say, "This is a common misconception", and
> you do your very best to take advantage of it whenever
> announcing yourself as a vegetarian. Why don't you
> just say you're lively, if that's what you really mean?