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
  #46 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-10-2004, 03:13 PM
pearl
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Digger" wrote in message ...
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 22:57:03 -0400, "magnulus" wrote:
"Digger" wrote in message ...

"It applies to the practice of living on the products of the
plant kingdom to the exclusion of flesh, fish, fowl, eggs,
honey, animal milk and its derivatives, and encourages
the use of alternatives for all commodities derived wholly
or in part from animals."
http://www.vegsource.com/jo/essays/namegame.htm


That's actually a good definition (if quite wordy- try explaining that to
anybody when they ask you what a vegan is), but if you just changed "animal
milk" to "nonhuman animal milk", it would be flawless.


I'm afraid not, because making human milk an exception
to the rule leaves the way clear for any man to regard
himself as a vegan while nourishing himself on it. Vegan
mothers must start being content with the hard fact that
their suckling babe is neither a vegetarian or a vegan.

There's nothing ugly or wrong in feeding a child naturally
with mothers milk and having a non-vegan in the family,
and those who want to assume there is and go so far as
to pretend that the milk they give it is a vegetarian food
are wrong and simply deluding themselves.


Doesn't 'vegetarian' in the UK, simply mean those who
abstain from meat, as in 'lacto-ovo-vegetarians', (whilst in
the US, 'vegetarian' means what we call 'vegan')? Maybe
we should just call nursing babies, of any species, 'lactarians'?
(There's probably already an accepted definition, though .




  #47 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-10-2004, 04:00 PM
Richard
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Digger" wrote:

To me, the word vegetarian refers to a creature that does not presently

eat
meat.


And you would be wrong, as the demonstration using
a lion cub shows. The lion cub nourishes itself on its
mother's animal fats and proteins, and then goes on to
eat meat. It was never a vegetarian and never will be,
so this exception alone shows your rule to be flawed.


I am a vegetarian and have been all my life. I consume dairy products and
have done all my life. Vegans do not. Understand?

Of course milk is not a vegan food source! Of course it is a vegetarian food
source. Vegetarians have no problem with animal by-products such as milk.
The animal is not killed for their production.

The reason I say does not presently is because anyone can change at
any time if they choose so you can not emply a life choice.


A lion is an obligate carnivore. It cannot live on veg.


You are confusing potential with actuality. During the time it is a baby the
lion can not eat vegetables or meat. Only milk. So therefore it is not a
meat-eater, or a vegan but a vegetarian by definition.

In the future it will go on to assume a carnivorous diet in the wild. If it
died before this happened, then it would never have eaten meat and it would
have died a vegetarian. We are talking about the hear and now.

If you have a different definition fair enough, but I think mine is

fairly
commonly accepted.


Only by vegans hoping to broaden the definition so as to
include their child as a vegan. Those who acknowledge
the fact that the child is living off animal fats and proteins
give the better definition because it's the only accurate
one of the two.


Of course they are. That is what I have been telling you all along. What is
milk only an animal product?

Milk, whether it's from a lion or a human
is animal fats and proteins, and therefore non-vegan by
default.


Exactly. Why is this so hard to understand. It is not vegan, but is vegetari
an.

A vegetarian isn't defined by what they eat, but what they don't eat.


So, I'm a pavementarian, am I?

The term "vegetarian" comes from "vegetus", the latin for "enlivened",

and
has no connection, apart from a linguistic one, with vegetables.


Then you're simply trying to equivocate on the term to
support your assertion, which in itself is yet another
fallacy. Let's use the term "light" for example.

A feather is light.
What is light cannot be dark.
So a feather can not be dark.

The above argument commits this fallacy: The word
light is used in the sense of having little weight the
first time, but of having a bright colour the second
time. Since the middle term in this syllogism is actually
two different terms, equivocation is actually a kind of
the fallacy of four terms.

The fallacy of equivocation is often used with words
that have a strong emotional content and many meanings.
These meanings often coincide within proper context, but
the fallacious arguer does a semantic shift, slowly
changing the context as he goes in such a way to achieve
equivocation by equating distinct meanings of the word.

Equivocation is closely linked with the fallacy of amphiboly,
where amphiboly relies on a syntantic shift.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation


Vegetarians consume milk products. Simple. Vegans do not. Get it?

Who cares about vegetable, or grains, beans or whatever.


I do, and your statement above which asserts a person
can be a vegetarian without eating vegetables is wrong.


Is it that hard to comprehend that one who does not eat meat is a
vegetarian?

And what do you think milk is?


Milk is an animal product and therefore not a viable
vegan foodstuff.


Yes. And? It is a vegetarian foodstuff.

Milk is nothing more than the transformed
blood of the cow. You seem to be confusing vegan with vegetarian.


Rather, you're moving the goalposts by trying to include
vegetarians when the subject of this thread and its
subject title involves vegans. Milk is not a vegan food
source.


I am not vegan. The only reason I got involved in this thread is becaus you
said and I quote:

"The baby, however, cannot be said to be a vegan or even a vegetarian while
it gains nourishment from animal derived products such as human breast
milk."

They are your words. You are wrong. Admit it. Vegetarians take milk, so why
would the breast milk of the mother be the exception? You don't make any
sense.

Vegetarians don't nourish themselves on animal fats
and proteins,


Em? Read above.


They don't, so it's no good denying the fact that milk is
an animal product, and therefore an non-vegan food.


Vegetarians do, vegans don't. You said it was non-vegetarian, you are wrong.
Its not that difficult to understand.

Its very simple. No meat = vegetarian.


Wrong. A lion cub feeding from its mother is not a vegetarian.


How can something that has never eaten meat and only ever consumed a
vegetarian lifestyle not be a vegetarian?

You're right, just don't talk about it.


Why don't you want me to point out the simple fact
that milk is an animal product and therefore a non-
vegan food?


Because I agree with you! Are you that dense? You said it was not
vegetarian, this is what I take exception too as it is completely false.

But it is by definition a vegetarian


No, it is neither a vegetarian or a vegan while nourishing
itself on animal fats and proteins.


Wrong. Vegetarians have no such problem with animal products like milk. You
seem confused and had better learn what a vegetarian is.

which is what this conversation is about.


So you keep saying, despite the subject title of this thread.


You said:

"The baby, however, cannot be said to be a vegan or even a vegetarian while
it gains nourishment from animal derived products such as human breast
milk."

You are wrong.

It seems to escaped your notice that affirming the
consequent, as you've done and I've so clearly
demonstrated, is specious. Affirming the consequent
in a conditional statement says nothing about the
truth of the antecedent, so using this line of arguing
to make your point is logically flawed. Lion cubs
aren't vegetarians, and the demonstration above which
concludes they are when based on your premises shows
that both the argument itself and the conclusion drawn
from it is false.


How can something that has never eaten meat and only ever consumed a
vegetarian lifestyle not be a vegetarian?

As above, you don't know what the word vegetarian means. You seem to be
thinking vegan.


As the subject title shows, yes. Milk, whether from a
lion, a cow or a human is not vegan fare, and nor is it
vegetable matter either. It's an animal product.


Of course it is not vegetable matter! It's an animal product. Vegetarians
don't just eat vegetables and most meat eaters don't just eat meat.

You seem to think that the word vegetarian is in some way related to
vegetables. Its time you did a tiny bit of research and understand that
there is no connection.

Richard


  #48 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-10-2004, 04:23 PM
Jason Dunn
 
Posts: n/a
Default


I really don't see the problem in saying simply, "No meat, fish, egg
or dairy." Why nitpick and dive into pedantics?



--
Jason
  #49 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-10-2004, 04:46 PM
Digger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 09:55:49 -0400, "C. James Strutz" wrote:
"Digger" wrote in message ...
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 13:52:34 -0400, "C. James Strutz" wrote:
"Digger" wrote in message ...
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 11:22:55 -0400, "C. James wrote:
"Digger" wrote in messagenews[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.


Will it tell me that relieving a mother of its milk is
inherently cruel and exploitative? If so, then it must
follow that relieving a human mother of her milk is
also cruel and just as exploitative, and thereby a
non-vegan product according to you.

You either don't know what they mean or you have questionable moral
judgement.


There's no need for you to start getting aggressive
and rude.

That being so, according to your
criteria which qualifies a foodstuff as valid vegan fare
so long as nothing has been exploited, you have no rational
basis on which to disqualify cows milk sourced from cows
that can be shown not to have suffered or been exploited.
Such a source for milk is possible, both in theory and in
practice, so now tell me why that milk is disqualified as
a valid vegan food item.


You're making a statement that "relieving [sic] a cow of its milk is
not inherently cruel or exploitative" and then you ask me to
rationalize why "that milk is disqualified as a valid vegan food
item". It's your rationalization, not mine.


It exactly your rationalisation, as shown by your earlier
comments regarding exploitation. If cows milk is to be
disqualified as vegan fare because procuring it exploits
the animal, you then have no rational basis on which to
exclude it if the animal can be shown not to have suffered
or been exploited. And, if cows milk is always said to
exploit the animal, then you cannot go on to claim that
using human milk isn't or can't be the same form of
exploitation. In short, you have no rational basis at all.

Look into artificial insemination, grain-feeding and
antibiotics, living conditions, what they do with new
born calves, and what they do to dairy cows who
stop producing. Then check your dictionary for "cruel"
and "exploit" and think about how they might apply to
dairy farming and milk production. You will see that it is
anything but "relief" for cows.


I've campaigned to close the dairy industry for years
now, and there's nothing you can tell me about it that
I don't already know.


Okay. I'll hold you to that statement.


You can.

so if your only objection to it as a valid
vegan food source is on the basis that it is, you must
then allow vegans to use diary products sourced from
animals which can be shown not to have been cruelly
treated or exploited.

You're concluding from flawed logic.


You disqualify foods as vegan fare if the person or animal
has been exploited while procuring it. That much is clear,
so you therefore have no rational basis, in theory or in practice,
on which to disqualify cows milk if it can be shown that the
animal never suffered or was exploited.


A calf sucking milk from it's mother isn't exploitation. It's the
natural way that a mother feeds her offspring. A human "relieving"
milk from a cow is exploitation


No, it is not. There are many instances where relieving a
cow of its milk is entirely ethical. The milk can be used to
feed her offspring if it's having problems trying to feed, for
example, so it's perfectly clear to see that milking a cow is
not inherently cruel or exploitative as you claim. That being
so, according to your criteria concerning exploitation as a
rule for identifying vegan fare, any leftovers from what
our hypothetic calf didn't finish will qualify as vegan fare.

particularly when she is part of an
automated factory process (as you claim to know from above).

The case in which human mothers feed their children
dairy milk is exploitation.

If exploitation is the sole reason for defining a food as
non-vegan, then what argument have you against those
who declare milk sourced from unexploited animals as
vegan fare?

And just how do you get milk from a cow without exploiting her?


In exactly the same way I would get milk from any
nursing mother with an excess of it. There's nothing
inherently cruel or exploitative in relieving a mother of
its milk.


You're not looking at the big picture


Rather, you're looking at the smaller picture when asserting
all cows milk to be inherently cruel and always exploitative.
It isn't. The diary industry as it stand is, and that's why I
want it all pulled down, but cows milk isn't always an
unethical source for food. It will never be a valid vegan
source of food, but that doesn't mean to say milk must
then be an unethical food source either.

(that you claim to know from
above). THINK about the factory farming, the antibiotics, the
artificial insemination, milking machines, etc. that goes into getting
cows to produce milk and tell me that's not exploiting.


I won't because it is, but that doesn't mean to say milk
can't be sourced ethically or by exploiting the animal.
If you do, then you must also acknowledge that human
milk can be unethically obtained and thereby not qualify
as proper vegan fare.

Also, it is on record that women can receive
2.30 for each pint they express.

It's exploitation.


Thank you. You've now excluded human milk as vegan
fare on the grounds of exploitation.


Don't you understand that a mother feeding her baby is NOT the same as
a woman drawing milk from herself to sell for profit?


The scenario you called exploitation was of a woman
expressing milk for other babies at 2.30 a pint, not
a mother feeding her own child. Now that you've
acknowledged human milk can be and is exploited you
have no basis on which to include it as proper vegan
fare if your rule of logic is to be consistent.

The former is
NOT exploitation while the latter IS exploitation. You are trying to
equate them and that is invalid.

Check out the 70000
hits on human milk banks from http://tinyurl.com/6dbs8
and see how many infants you've now disqualified as
being vegan, and all because of your criteria of
exploitation.


Again, it's your rationalization and not mine.


Yours. By disqualifying human milk gained exploitatively
as proper vegan fare, you've also disqualified all those
infants from being vegan.

What if some third-
World country were to take advantage of that market
and hold women in milk parlours to extract their milk
for a small wage; would that be vegan fare?

No.


Thank you.


I don't know why you're thanking me. It's exploitation.


And thereby, according to your rule, non-vegan. I'm
thanking you because you've effectively demonstrated
my point. Human milk, though not inherently cruel or
exploitative to procure is a non-vegan food if procured
in a cruel or exploitative way, according to you. That
being so, you have no rational basis on which to promote
it at the expense of other milks as vegan fare.

As you can see, exploitation is not the sole issue that
qualifies or disqualifies a food as vegan fare. Eggs,
for example, can be found on the ground, yet they
still don't qualify as a vegan foodstuff either, so your
basis for qualifying vegan foods on exploitation has
no grounds.

Eggs are a form of life whether you find them on the ground or take
them from a production farm. It's exploitation.


Not all eggs are fertilised. So what about them then?


You're still exploiting animals whether the egg is fertilized or not.


The egg was never alive, so nothing has been exploited there.
The hen that laid it doesn't even know of its existence after
leaving it in the hedgerow, so nothing's been exploited there
either. As nothing has been exploited, why doesn't that egg
qualify as proper vegan fare? Could it be that there's
something else that disqualifies it, such as the fact that it's
an animal product?

Will we soon be seeing recipes from Mr Falafel that
include non-fertilised eggs and human milk? Nothing
has been exploited by eating an unfertilised egg found
in a hedgerow, but we still don't regard that as vegan
fare, do we?


You're really trying to pick nits to prop yourself up...


There's no need to be rude. If non-fertilised eggs can be
sourced ethically as described above, why doesn't Mr.
Falafel include them in his vegan recipes? Could it be
that another component is there that disqualifies these
eggs, or do we just rely on your criteria concerning
exploitation?

You can't just blanket define anyone who
comsumes milk as non-vegan without considering the exploitation
issues.


You just did, and on the basis of exploitation, no less.


No I didn't. I have consistently said that getting milk from a mother
for any other purpose than natural feeding for her offspring is
exploitation.


And thereby disqualifying that expressed milk as a non-vegan
food source because of the exploitation involved in procuring
it, according to you. If that milk is gained by exploiting women,
as you asserted earlier, then the milk by dint of that exploitation
would no longer qualify as proper vegan fare. Did you check
out those 70000 hits on human milk banks? All non-vegan,
according to your rule.

Then you cannot exclude any diary product from the
list of vegan foods so long as it was produced without
cruelty and in a non-exploitative way.

I ask again, how do you get milk from a cow without exploiting her?


In theory and in practice, a cow can be relieved of
its milk without exploiting it.


You're being evasive. I asked you HOW and you tell me it can be done
"in theory and in practice". TELL ME HOW!


I've given you at least two examples already.
1) Helping a cow by relieving her of her heavy burden isn't
exploiting her if leaving her makes her suffer all the worse.
2) Drawing milk from her to feed her struggling calf wouldn't
be exploiting her or her calf.

There's just two examples where milk can be sourced without
exploiting cows, so to claim all cows milk is always inherently
exploitative with these two exceptions in mind would be false.

That being so,


There you go again basing your argument on false suppositions.


I've shown that they aren't false assumptions.

according
to your criteria of what constitutes vegan fare, milk
from such an animal would qualify.


BS...


Your criteria for excluding milk relies on whether the
female has been exploited while procuring it rather
than on the basis of it being an animal product. It must
now follow that cows milk qualifies so long as the cow
can be shown not to have been exploited.

While I'm at it, I'll ask you what you think the difference is

between
making love and prostition.


Another day - yeah?


Well, I'm trying to get you to understand the difference between
exploitation and not-exploitation.

I wonder if you can draw any
similarities...

Agree with it or not, there's your rational basis.

And it fails.

Only if you conclude from faulty information and logic.


If I'm wrong in saying your criteria for excluding certain
foods as valid vegan fare is based solely on exploitation,
what else would it be based on,


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


Then what of the meat sourced from animals that haven't
been exploited, such as those which die of old age, or even
road kill; would that meat qualify as vegan fare? If not, and
we both know it doesn't, then your rule for qualifying vegan
fare is wrong and inconsistent.

and how will you then
be able to include human milk onto that list?


Why do you keep trying to get me to rationalize your position to
include human milk as vegan?


That's not my position. My position is that milk does not
qualify as a vegan food source on the basis that it's an
animal product.
  #50 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-10-2004, 05:59 PM
Digger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 16:00:08 +0100, "Richard" wrote:

"Digger" wrote:

To me, the word vegetarian refers to a creature that
does not presently eat meat.


And you would be wrong, as the demonstration using
a lion cub shows. The lion cub nourishes itself on its
mother's animal fats and proteins, and then goes on to
eat meat. It was never a vegetarian and never will be,
so this exception alone shows your rule to be flawed.


I am a vegetarian and have been all my life.


Not unless you were never breast fed.

I consume dairy products and
have done all my life. Vegans do not.


I know they don't, and that's why it cannot be regarded as
a vegan food source and answers the question in the subject
line of this post.

Understand?


Absolutely.

Of course milk is not a vegan food source!


Thank you.

Of course it is a vegetarian food source.


Only to those who want to include themselves alongside
true vegetarians that abstain from all animal products.
There aren't any vegetables in milk, but go ahead and
call yourself a vegetarian if it's what you want to do.

Vegetarians have no problem with animal by-products such as milk.


True vegetarians that feed exclusively on veg do have
a problem with animal by-products and abstain from
them wherever they can. Modern vegetarians such
as the lacto-ovo or pesco type aren't so concerned..

The animal is not killed for their production.


Irrelevant.

The reason I say does not presently is because anyone can change at
any time if they choose so you can not emply a life choice.


A lion is an obligate carnivore. It cannot live on veg.


You are confusing potential with actuality.


No. I'm giving you an example of a suckling obligate
carnivore that belies your rule that says
"No meat = vegetarian."

During the time it is a baby the
lion can not eat vegetables or meat. Only milk


Then, according to your rule; "No meat = vegetarian" a
suckling obligate carnivore cub is a vegetarian. Can
you see yet why your rule is unworkable and specious?

So therefore it is not a meat-eater,


At least not in the true definition of the word, yet.

or a vegan


Certainly not.

but a vegetarian by definition.


No. I lion cub is not a vegetarian, and nor will it ever be.

In the future it will go on to assume a carnivorous diet in the wild.


That's true, but to say it was once a vegetarian by virtue
of it suckling from its mother is absurd. Lion cubs are not
vegetarians.

If it
died before this happened, then it would never have eaten meat and it would
have died a vegetarian.


No. Lion cubs are not vegetarians simply because they
drink milk from their mother. You're very wrong on this.

[..]
Milk, whether it's from a lion or a human
is animal fats and proteins, and therefore non-vegan by
default.


Exactly.


Then we are in agreement and have answered the
question contained in the subject title in this thread.
Breast feeding cannot be considered vegan.

[..]


  #51 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-10-2004, 06:13 PM
Digger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 15:13:13 +0100, "pearl" wrote:

"Digger" wrote in message ...
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 22:57:03 -0400, "magnulus" wrote:
"Digger" wrote in message ...

"It applies to the practice of living on the products of the
plant kingdom to the exclusion of flesh, fish, fowl, eggs,
honey, animal milk and its derivatives, and encourages
the use of alternatives for all commodities derived wholly
or in part from animals."
http://www.vegsource.com/jo/essays/namegame.htm


That's actually a good definition (if quite wordy- try explaining that to
anybody when they ask you what a vegan is), but if you just changed "animal
milk" to "nonhuman animal milk", it would be flawless.


I'm afraid not, because making human milk an exception
to the rule leaves the way clear for any man to regard
himself as a vegan while nourishing himself on it. Vegan
mothers must start being content with the hard fact that
their suckling babe is neither a vegetarian or a vegan.

There's nothing ugly or wrong in feeding a child naturally
with mothers milk and having a non-vegan in the family,
and those who want to assume there is and go so far as
to pretend that the milk they give it is a vegetarian food
are wrong and simply deluding themselves.


Doesn't 'vegetarian' in the UK, simply mean those who
abstain from meat, as in 'lacto-ovo-vegetarians', (whilst in
the US, 'vegetarian' means what we call 'vegan')?


I'm not sure. The term 'vegetarian' has become so lose
now that one could nourish themselves almost entirely
on animal products these days and still qualify as one.

The ideal would be that vegetarians feed exclusively
on vegetation while vegans do the same and abstain
from animal derived products such as leather etc.

Maybe
we should just call nursing babies, of any species, 'lactarians'?


I was hoping you'd come up with the correct definition.
I haven't a clue what to call them, apart from non-
vegetarians and non-vegans, but that seems to upset
a lot of people.

(There's probably already an accepted definition, though .


Googling .....
  #52 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-10-2004, 06:16 PM
Blue Heron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Digger wrote:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:28:12 +0100, "Richard" wrote:


"Digger" wrote:


Good god Digger, you are the biggest troll a.f.v has seen in a while.
Congratulations.

Here is just to clear some things up, in case some newbies are reading
this, or in case you honestly don't know what you are talking about:

There are several differen types of Vegetarians:

* Strict vegetarians avoid the consumption of all animal products
(e.g., eggs, milk and cheese, honey). Today, strict vegetarians are
commonly called vegans, though some reserve this term for those who
additionally avoid usage of all kinds of animal products (e.g., leather,
honey), not just food.

* Ovo-lacto vegetarians eschew the eating of all meat, yet allow
the consumption of animal products such as eggs and milk. Ovo-lacto
vegetarians who are such for ethical reasons may additionally refuse to
eat cheese made with animal-based enzymes, or eggs produced by factory
farms. The term "vegetarian" is most commonly intended to mean
"ovo-lacto vegetarian", particularly as "vegan" has gained acceptance as
the term for stricter practice.

* Lacto vegetarianism refers to the practice of eschewing all meat,
yet allowing the consumption of milk and its derivatives, like cheese,
butter or yogurt.

* Similarly, ovo-vegetarians eat eggs in addition to their
otherwise strictly vegetarian regimen.

The use of the word "vegetarian" as used today was defined at the first
meeting of the Vegetarian Society in 1847 in Ramsgate, England. The
definition that they used was: "... a person who refuses to consume
flesh of any kind". Prior to that time, vegetarians had often been
called Pythagoreans, after an ancient sect that also abstained from meat
(and beans).

In North America, and most of Europe (afaik), the term "vegetarian"
refers to an ovo-lacto vegetarian.

Some links for you to follow up on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarian
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...tarian&x=0&y=0
http://www.google.ca/search?q=define:vegetarian

And guys/girls, stop feeding the troll.

-- Blue
  #53 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-10-2004, 06:25 PM
Blue Heron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

pearl wrote:
"Digger" wrote in message ...

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 22:57:03 -0400, "magnulus" wrote:

"Digger" wrote in message ...

snip
Doesn't 'vegetarian' in the UK, simply mean those who
abstain from meat, as in 'lacto-ovo-vegetarians', (whilst in
the US, 'vegetarian' means what we call 'vegan')? Maybe
we should just call nursing babies, of any species, 'lactarians'?
(There's probably already an accepted definition, though .


No, Digger is just trolling here.

Vegetarian in both the UK and North America genereally refers to ovo
lacto vegetarianism. Sometimes in North America (particularly in French
Canada and the midwest) vegetarian is considered pisca/pollatarian,
which makes it a pain in the ass, but never has it gone the other way,
where vegetarian is considered vegan/strict-vegetarian.

-- Blue
  #54 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-10-2004, 06:30 PM
Digger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 17:16:21 GMT, Blue Heron wrote:

Digger wrote:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:28:12 +0100, "Richard" wrote:


"Digger" wrote:


Good god Digger, you are the biggest troll a.f.v has seen in a while.
Congratulations.

Here is just to clear some things up, in case some newbies are reading
this, or in case you honestly don't know what you are talking about:

There are several differen types of Vegetarians:


Before you go on, you might like to look at the subject
line of this thread to see that the focus is on whether
human breast milk qualifies as proper *vegan* fare,
rather than whether it falls under the sloppy, elastic
definition of 'vegetarianism.' Being that human milk
is an animal product consisting of animal fats and
proteins, my conclusion is that it cannot be.


* Strict vegetarians avoid the consumption of all animal products
(e.g., eggs, milk and cheese, honey). Today, strict vegetarians are
commonly called vegans, though some reserve this term for those who
additionally avoid usage of all kinds of animal products (e.g., leather,
honey), not just food.

* Ovo-lacto vegetarians eschew the eating of all meat, yet allow
the consumption of animal products such as eggs and milk. Ovo-lacto
vegetarians who are such for ethical reasons may additionally refuse to
eat cheese made with animal-based enzymes, or eggs produced by factory
farms. The term "vegetarian" is most commonly intended to mean
"ovo-lacto vegetarian", particularly as "vegan" has gained acceptance as
the term for stricter practice.

* Lacto vegetarianism refers to the practice of eschewing all meat,
yet allowing the consumption of milk and its derivatives, like cheese,
butter or yogurt.

* Similarly, ovo-vegetarians eat eggs in addition to their
otherwise strictly vegetarian regimen.

The use of the word "vegetarian" as used today was defined at the first
meeting of the Vegetarian Society in 1847 in Ramsgate, England. The
definition that they used was: "... a person who refuses to consume
flesh of any kind". Prior to that time, vegetarians had often been
called Pythagoreans, after an ancient sect that also abstained from meat
(and beans).

In North America, and most of Europe (afaik), the term "vegetarian"
refers to an ovo-lacto vegetarian.

Some links for you to follow up on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarian
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...tarian&x=0&y=0
http://www.google.ca/search?q=define:vegetarian

And guys/girls, stop feeding the troll.

-- Blue


  #55 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-10-2004, 06:47 PM
Blue Heron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Digger wrote:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 17:16:21 GMT, Blue Heron wrote:


Digger wrote:

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:28:12 +0100, "Richard" wrote:



"Digger" wrote:


Good god Digger, you are the biggest troll a.f.v has seen in a while.
Congratulations.

Here is just to clear some things up, in case some newbies are reading
this, or in case you honestly don't know what you are talking about:

There are several differen types of Vegetarians:



Before you go on, you might like to look at the subject
line of this thread to see that the focus is on whether
human breast milk qualifies as proper *vegan* fare,
rather than whether it falls under the sloppy, elastic
definition of 'vegetarianism.' Being that human milk
is an animal product consisting of animal fats and
proteins, my conclusion is that it cannot be.


Correct. However, you seem to be rather misguided with regards to your
definitions of vegan and vegetarian, which involved you claiming several
times that a) milk was not vegetarian, and b) babies could never be
vegetarian.

Now, based on the original definition of vegetarian, as well as the
common use of it, you are wrong.

I will leave the discussion of "is breastmilk for babies of the same
speciece provided by the mother vegan or not" up to other people. If
you are vegan, and you choose not to feed your baby your breastmilk
based purely on the desire to be a "textbook" vegan, you should have
your child removed from your care. There is no exploitation in feeding
your own young the way nature intended, and it is, in fact, the only
healthy thing to do.

-- Blue


  #56 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-10-2004, 07:04 PM
Digger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 17:47:18 GMT, Blue Heron wrote:
Digger wrote:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 17:16:21 GMT, Blue Heron wrote:
Digger wrote:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:28:12 +0100, "Richard" wrote:
"Digger" wrote:

Good god Digger, you are the biggest troll a.f.v has seen in a while.
Congratulations.

Here is just to clear some things up, in case some newbies are reading
this, or in case you honestly don't know what you are talking about:

There are several differen types of Vegetarians:


Before you go on, you might like to look at the subject
line of this thread to see that the focus is on whether
human breast milk qualifies as proper *vegan* fare,
rather than whether it falls under the sloppy, elastic
definition of 'vegetarianism.' Being that human milk
is an animal product consisting of animal fats and
proteins, my conclusion is that it cannot be.


Correct.


Then why, according to you am I "the biggest troll a.f.v.
has seen" while I've taken on and tackled the question in
the subject line of this thread to reach a conclusion you
agree with?

However, you seem to be rather misguided with regards to your
definitions of vegan and vegetarian, which involved you claiming several
times that a) milk was not vegetarian


It's as vegetarian as chicken soup.

and b) babies could never be vegetarian.


They aren't, so long as they nourish themselves on animal
fats and proteins.

Now, based on the original definition of vegetarian, as well as the
common use of it, you are wrong.


The common use of the term 'vegetarian' is so sloppy
and meaningless that one can live almost entirely on
animal flesh and derivatives similar to any other meat
eater and still qualify as a vegetarian of some description.

I will leave the discussion of "is breastmilk for babies of the same
speciece provided by the mother vegan or not" up to other people. If
you are vegan, and you choose not to feed your baby your breastmilk
based purely on the desire to be a "textbook" vegan, you should have
your child removed from your care. There is no exploitation in feeding
your own young the way nature intended, and it is, in fact, the only
healthy thing to do.

-- Blue


  #57 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-10-2004, 07:49 PM
C. James Strutz
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Digger" wrote in message
...

This will be my last post in this thread. You are digging (no pun
intended) in your heals to support rationales that are nonsensical.

You either don't know what they mean or you have questionable moral
judgement.


There's no need for you to start getting aggressive
and rude.


I'm being serious, not rude. If you can't understand the treatment
involved in exploiting dairy cows is not in their best interest (to
say the least) then your moral judgement must be called into question.
Besides, I gave you the benefit of doubt by suggesting that you
consult a dictionary since ignorance can be the only other reasonable
explanation.

Again, it's your rationalization and not mine.


Yours. By disqualifying human milk gained exploitatively
as proper vegan fare, you've also disqualified all those
infants from being vegan.


Veganism is a personal choice. It's not something that can be imposed
in a realistic or meaningful way. Since an infant is incapable of
making that sort of decision on it own then it can't be vegan.

I don't know why you're thanking me. It's exploitation.


And thereby, according to your rule, non-vegan. I'm
thanking you because you've effectively demonstrated
my point. Human milk, though not inherently cruel or
exploitative to procure is a non-vegan food if procured
in a cruel or exploitative way, according to you. That
being so, you have no rational basis on which to promote
it at the expense of other milks as vegan fare.


I did not "promote [exploited milk] at the expense of other milks as
vegan fare". Nowhere have I said that. In fact, I have repeatedly
stated the opposite. Read carefully: exploited milk is not vegan fare.

You're really trying to pick nits to prop yourself up...


There's no need to be rude.


I'm not being rude. You are (purposefully?) not seeing the big picture
regarding exploitation and veganism. Instead, you are trying to find
any little IMPOSSIBLE exception that might salvage your argument.

If non-fertilised eggs can be
sourced ethically as described above, why doesn't Mr.
Falafel include them in his vegan recipes? Could it be
that another component is there that disqualifies these
eggs, or do we just rely on your criteria concerning
exploitation?


You will never find "non-fertilized eggs that have been sourced
ethically" as an ingredient in any of Mr. Falafel's recipes. As much
as you want to deny it, there are NO eggs that are sourced ethically.

No, you would be RIGHT in saying that "vegan fare is based solely

on
exploitation", or rather non-exploitation.


Then what of the meat sourced from animals that haven't
been exploited, such as those which die of old age, or even
road kill; would that meat qualify as vegan fare? If not, and
we both know it doesn't, then your rule for qualifying vegan
fare is wrong and inconsistent.


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

Why do you keep trying to get me to rationalize your position to
include human milk as vegan?


That's not my position. My position is that milk does not
qualify as a vegan food source on the basis that it's an
animal product.


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



  #58 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-10-2004, 10:22 PM
pearl
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Blue Heron" wrote in message news
pearl wrote:
"Digger" wrote in message ...

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 22:57:03 -0400, "magnulus" wrote:

"Digger" wrote in message ...

snip
Doesn't 'vegetarian' in the UK, simply mean those who
abstain from meat, as in 'lacto-ovo-vegetarians', (whilst in
the US, 'vegetarian' means what we call 'vegan')? Maybe
we should just call nursing babies, of any species, 'lactarians'?
(There's probably already an accepted definition, though .


No, Digger is just trolling here.


Looking for a 'good' argument I think. .. :-|

Vegetarian in both the UK and North America genereally refers to ovo
lacto vegetarianism. Sometimes in North America (particularly in French
Canada and the midwest) vegetarian is considered pisca/pollatarian,
which makes it a pain in the ass, but never has it gone the other way,
where vegetarian is considered vegan/strict-vegetarian.


I've somehow gathered otherwise. .. Thanks for the clarification.

-- Blue



  #59 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-10-2004, 10:40 PM
pearl
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"C. James Strutz" wrote in message ...

there are NO eggs that are sourced ethically.


I'd have to disagree with that. These are 'my' chickens;
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/vicious.html (the 'commentary'
is obviously sarcasm). They'll lay eggs, and leave them.

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


I hand-raised a nanny goat, who quite happily provides milk.
Her kid is grown and still with her- weaned in her own time.




  #60 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-10-2004, 04:36 AM
BlueHeron
 
Posts: n/a
Default



pearl wrote:
"Blue Heron" wrote in message news
pearl wrote:

snip
Doesn't 'vegetarian' in the UK, simply mean those who
abstain from meat, as in 'lacto-ovo-vegetarians', (whilst in
the US, 'vegetarian' means what we call 'vegan')? Maybe
we should just call nursing babies, of any species, 'lactarians'?
(There's probably already an accepted definition, though .

snip
Vegetarian in both the UK and North America genereally refers to ovo
lacto vegetarianism. Sometimes in North America (particularly in French
Canada and the midwest) vegetarian is considered pisca/pollatarian,
which makes it a pain in the ass, but never has it gone the other way,
where vegetarian is considered vegan/strict-vegetarian.



I've somehow gathered otherwise. .. Thanks for the clarification.


If only it were so! Then I wouldn't have to deal with the "Would you
like some of xxxx, we made it just for you!" followed by the "What do
you mean that you don't eat fish/chicken?" Curse the Catholic
definition of "meat".

I still haven't been able to make it 100% clear to my in-laws who live
in back-water Quebec that I am a "vegetalien". I don't think that they
know the word. To add to the trouble, they don't like it when my wife
and I cook in their kitchen (I think that they don't like to feel like
their guests are having to take care of themselves or something of that
ilk...). Even worse then that is trying to get my step-mother-in-law
(how is that for a title?) to try the food that I cook. It's usually
too "ethnic" for her *sigh*.

I do understand that in parts of India and the Mediterranean
"vegetarian" usually refers to lacto vegetarianism, as eggs are
generally not consumed by vegetarians there.

Yeesh. Look at that mini rant? Where, or where did it come from? :P

Cheers,

-- Blue


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 02:27 PM
why is breast feeding considered vegan? magnulus Vegan 42 07-11-2004 03:48 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 11:31 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