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 Search this Thread Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-10-2004, 10:43 PM
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"The Ghost of Pete Charest" [email protected]@hell wrote in message
news.com...
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 19:37:06 GMT, "John Coleman"
wrote the following in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian:


"Dutch" wrote in message
...
"John Coleman" wrote

8
So if I killed some animals to prevent them from destroying my crops,
there's no exploitation, so are vegans OK with that?


no, the reason that vegans seek to avoid exploitation is because it is

cruel
and cynical, so is killing - vegans do "veganic" agriculture


So "veganic" agriculture doesn't result in the death of any animals?


Just walking around doing nothing much results in the death of some tiny
animals. Veganic agriculture is agriculture free of animal products,
pesticides etc. See
http://www.veg-soc.org/html/articles...riculture.html - (Digger will
like this one as it has a definition like his definition of Veganism in it)

you raise that old false dilema fallacy again - read the definition, esp. my
emphasis added

"Today, the Society remains as determined as ever to promote vegan
lifestyles - that is, **ways of living that seek to exclude, as far as is
possible and practical**, all forms of exploitation of animals for food,
clothing or any other purpose."

If you or anyone else do not understand this simple English, please explain
how and why not! We simply try to avoid causing animal suffering and
exploitation where practical. We are perfectly well aware that it is
impossible to avoid killing animals altogether, even as you roll over in bed
you kill mites.

Even if I were to drop down dead now, I dare say I would crush many
invertibrates - but that does not make dropping dead unvegan either.

John



  #32 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-10-2004, 10:50 PM
Digger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 17:36:16 GMT, "John Coleman" wrote:
"Digger" wrote in message ...

Road kill is not vegan fare. You're very wrong on this point.


So where is your definition of vegan from?


[The definition of "veganism," which is accepted
as the decisive standard worldwide, is as follows:

Veganism is a way of living which excludes all
forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal
kingdom, and includes a reverence for life. It applies
to the practice of living on the products of the plant
kingdom to the exclusion of flesh, fish, fowl, eggs,
honey, animal milk and its derivatives, and encourages
the use of alternatives for all commodities derived
wholly or in part from animals.

In its Articles of Association, the legal documents of
the Society, a slightly different version is presented:

Veganism denotes a philosophy and way of living
which seeks to exclude - as far as is possible and
practical - all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to,
animals for food, clothing, or any other purpose; and
by extension, promotes the development and use of
animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans,
animals, and the environment.

Both interpretations begin by stating that veganism is
a "way of life," and "a philosophy." Neither emphasizes
diet over other aspects of compassionate living, because
in vegan practice no one area is more significant than
another;

**all are expected to be implemented simultaneously.**

In the second version, a disclaimer about practicality
has been inserted, revealing that the founders
acknowledged the impossibility of totally divesting
oneself of all animal products and derivatives in the
modern world. This phrase is also critical because
it helps practitioners understand that veganism is not
about personal perfection or "purity," but rather the
avoidance and elimination of exploitation of and cruelty
to animals. The first rendition mentions "reverence for
life," with no hierarchy of value given to the life to which
it is referring. Therefore, the statement is inclusive,
asserting that all life forms are equally deserving of
reverence.

**It also delineates the specific foods that are to be avoided,**

and both definitions encourage the use and development
of alternatives to animal commodities.] **my edit**
http://www.vegsource.com/jo/essays/namegame.htm

As you can see, meat is definitely OFF the menu.
Even your road kill.

I got mine from the Vegan Society
in England, the original home of veganism.

Here it is again

"Today, the Society remains as determined as ever to promote vegan
lifestyles - that is, ways of living that seek to exclude, as far as is
possible and practical, all forms of exploitation of animals for food,
clothing or any other purpose. "

If you can tell me how eating some roadkill is animal exploitation, I would
be interested to know.


You've missed out a huge swathe from the beginning
which covers meat quite clearly.

"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."

Road kill is meat and therefore not a vegan food, by
that definition and anyone else's definition who knows
anything about veganism.

I already rejected the dairy argument as cows are pretty clearly exploited.


I agree that cows are terribly exploited in the dairy
industry and want it shut down, but I'm not ready to
agree that milk cannot be sourced quite ethically
without any cruelty or exploitation involved. That
being so, according to your rule such milk qualifies
as vegan fare so long as it can be proved as described.

although you might be taking food away from predators -


Irrelevant.


not to predators

John


  #33 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-10-2004, 10:50 PM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"John Coleman" wrote

"Today, the Society remains as determined as ever to promote vegan
lifestyles - that is, **ways of living that seek to exclude, as far as is
possible and practical**, all forms of exploitation of animals for food,
clothing or any other purpose."

If you or anyone else do not understand this simple English, please
explain
how and why not! We simply try to avoid causing animal suffering and
exploitation where practical.


Fine, then a person who hunts and fishes instead of importing commercially
farmed produce, and thus reduces the overall impact of his diet, is a vegan?


  #34 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-10-2004, 12:03 AM
pearl
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Do what you think and say what you feel because
those who mind don't matter, and those who matter
don't mind.~Richard Bach~




  #35 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-10-2004, 12:12 AM
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"John Coleman" wrote in message
news

"The Ghost of Pete Charest" [email protected]@hell wrote in message
news.com...
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 19:37:06 GMT, "John Coleman"
wrote the following in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian:


"Dutch" wrote in message
...
"John Coleman" wrote
8
So if I killed some animals to prevent them from destroying my crops,
there's no exploitation, so are vegans OK with that?

no, the reason that vegans seek to avoid exploitation is because it is

cruel
and cynical, so is killing - vegans do "veganic" agriculture


So "veganic" agriculture doesn't result in the death of any animals?


Just walking around doing nothing much results in the death of some tiny
animals. Veganic agriculture is agriculture free of animal products,
pesticides etc. See
http://www.veg-soc.org/html/articles...riculture.html - (Digger will
like this one as it has a definition like his definition of Veganism in

it)

you raise that old false dilema fallacy again - read the definition, esp.

my
emphasis added

"Today, the Society remains as determined as ever to promote vegan
lifestyles - that is, **ways of living that seek to exclude, as far as is
possible and practical**, all forms of exploitation of animals for food,
clothing or any other purpose."

=============
No, they aren't. Especially since they maintain websites. It's all about
conning your money....



If you or anyone else do not understand this simple English, please

explain
how and why not! We simply try to avoid causing animal suffering and
exploitation where practical.

=====================
No, you don't. Here are are proving that fact yet again, killer. You are
here contributing to the unnecessary death and suffering of animals for no
more reason than your entertainment.


We are perfectly well aware that it is
impossible to avoid killing animals altogether, even as you roll over in

bed
you kill mites.

Even if I were to drop down dead now, I dare say I would crush many
invertibrates - but that does not make dropping dead unvegan either.

================
Posting to usenet is still unvegan. But then usenet vegans arern't really
vegan anyway, hypocrite.



John






  #36 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-10-2004, 02:00 AM
Richard
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Digger" wrote:

What do you mean not vegetarian? A vegetarian doesn't eat the meat of
animals? If the baby doesn't eat the meat of animals, then it is

vegetarian.

Does that logic apply to suckling lion cubs as well?


Well they don't need meat to live in the early stages so sure.

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.

You could be a vegetarian without
eating vegetables.


No, you couldn't.


Yes you could. I wouldn't recomend it though.

Do you have even the slightest idea as to what a
vegetarian is?


Some.


A person who eats no meat can be called vegetarian.

Of course the baby is vegetarian.


No, it is not.


Denying it don't make it so.

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. A baby is vegetarian
because it eats no meat. If you think it is not, then at what point does it
become a vegetarian or a meat eater?


  #37 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-10-2004, 03:53 AM
magnulus
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Digger" wrote in message
...
The focus is on diet and what qualifies as a vegan source
of nourishment.


Wrong... wool hats are "not vegan". Neither is leather. Yet neither have
anything to do with diet. One of them, wool, has very little to do with
killing animals.


  #38 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-10-2004, 03:57 AM
magnulus
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


  #39 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-10-2004, 11:12 AM
Digger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 02:00:28 +0100, "Richard" wrote:

"Digger" wrote:

What do you mean not vegetarian? A vegetarian doesn't eat the meat of
animals? If the baby doesn't eat the meat of animals, then it is

vegetarian.

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..

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.

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.

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.

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.
Vegetarians don't nourish themselves on animal fats
and proteins, so while a baby does, it cannot be
described as a vegetarian anymore than you could
describe a lion cub as one.

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?

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

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.

  #40 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-10-2004, 11:49 AM
Digger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.


  #41 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-10-2004, 11:53 AM
Digger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.


  #42 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-10-2004, 12:28 PM
Richard
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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.


  #43 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-10-2004, 02:16 PM
Digger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

  #44 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-10-2004, 02:18 PM
Digger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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?
  #45 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-10-2004, 02:55 PM
C. James Strutz
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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[email protected] .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?





Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dan Congs considered bitter? Rainy Tea 5 11-10-2008 03:49 AM
Have You Considered Raccoon...??? Gregory Morrow[_34_] General Cooking 1 18-01-2008 03:27 PM
why is breast feeding considered vegan? magnulus Vegan 42 07-11-2004 04:48 AM
Why is fried food considered unhealthy? Saerah General Cooking 46 31-07-2004 08:11 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:19 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017