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
  #61 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-10-2004, 09:58 AM
magnulus
 
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.


No. If a person were to exist on human breast milk, I think they would
qualify as vegan by vegans themselves, although it would be quite a bizarre
diet.

Again,the problem isn't that breast milk is intrinsicly nonvegan, the
problem is that Vegans who say they do not believe in the consumption of any
animal products for any reason, are lying. Vegans clearly believe in
consuming at least one animal product- breast milk from humans.



  #62 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-10-2004, 11:38 AM
pearl
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"BlueHeron" wrote in message ...

pearl wrote:
"Blue Heron" wrote in message news

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



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


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


I know,.. it's 'crazy'. I come across that all the time here in .. Ireland.
I work in the field of natural medicine, and am regularly advising clients
to adopt a vegetarian (fairly strict) diet.. but I often have to clarify what
"no meat" means, being invariably asked- "how about chicken and fish?"!

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


If you explain that prefer "rabbit & bird food", they might get the idea.

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


Stop! lol.

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

Cheers,

-- Blue


S'great to see you again, Blue. Cheers.


  #63 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-10-2004, 12:25 PM
Richard
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Digger" wrote

I am a vegetarian and have been all my life.


Not unless you were never breast fed.


Incorrect.

If we have no problem drinking the breast milk of other creatures, you
hardly have an issue with drinking ones mothers breast milk?

Ovo-Lacto Vegetarian: same as VEGAN, but also eats eggs and milk products.
This is the most 'popular' form of Vegetarianism.

http://www.ivu.org/faq/definitions.html

Of course milk is not a vegan food source!


Thank you.

Of course it is a vegetarian food source.


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


Once again, the word vegetarian has nothing to do with vegetables. There are
many food categories such as grains, fruit, dairy products.

Ovo-Lacto Vegetarian: same as VEGAN, but also eats eggs and milk products.
This is the most 'popular' form of Vegetarianism.

http://www.ivu.org/faq/definitions.html

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


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


Exaclty! And these are the most common type of vegetarians.

The animal is not killed for their production.


Irrelevant.


Not if that is the principal reason you use to make the choice.

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

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


You are confusing potential with actuality.


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


Yes, they do not eat meat. Vegetarian is someone who doesn't eat meat.
Different types of vegetarians break this down further. But the majority of
vegetarians just don't eat meat. For example I know many vegetarians who
keep cats with a vegetarian diet. Now you're not going to tell me that cats
are herbivores, yet they have never eaten meat so they can only be referred
to as vegetarian.

http://www.ivu.org/faq/definitions.html

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


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


No, see above.

So therefore it is not a meat-eater,


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


But if it is killed, or in the case of the cats above, never fed meat, then
it never will be! You're jumping the gun to describe it as anything other
than what it is presently.

or a vegan


Certainly not.


Naturally not.

but a vegetarian by definition.


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


I am using simple meaning. You will have to explain why a creature that fits
into the category of vegetarian and has never fitted into any other category
would be called something other than what it presently is. It makes no
sense.

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


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


They are when they are, and cease to be when they start eating meat.

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

would
have died a vegetarian.


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


Incorrect.

The majority of vegetarian drink milk.

If we have no problem drinking the breast milk of other creatures, you
hardly have an issue with drinking ones mothers breast milk?

Ovo-Lacto Vegetarian: same as VEGAN, but also eats eggs and milk products.
This is the most 'popular' form of Vegetarianism.

http://www.ivu.org/faq/definitions.html

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


Exactly.


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


Absolutely. I never disagreed with you in this point and did not enter the
discussion until I saw you generalise that it is not vegetarian to drink
milk, a fact that you can understand me refuting since it is blatent
misinformation and the majority of vegetarians drink milk.

Richard


  #64 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-10-2004, 01:53 PM
Digger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 14:49:24 -0400, "C. James Strutz" wrote:
"Digger" wrote in message ...

This will be my last post in this thread.


Is it because you can't defend your position regarding
what qualifies vegan foods, or is it because you can't
defend your position regarding what disqualifies them?

You are digging (no pun
intended) in your heals to support rationales that are nonsensical.


My argument is merely that milk, whether from a lion,
cow or woman cannot be said to be vegan fare because
it consists wholly of animal fats and proteins. There's
nothing nonsensical about that.

Your argument, on the other hand, is that milk, or any
other non-vegan fare is based *solely* on whether any
exploitation is involved, and here's your quote below to
prove it;

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

That being the case, your argument is nonsensical when
it comes to explaining why scavenged meat and eggs are
disqualified as valid vegan fare. What you're failing to
consider is that there's an extra qualifier to vegan fare,
and that qualifier is based on whether the food is animal-
based or not.

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


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


I'm being serious, not rude. If you can't understand the treatment
involved in exploiting dairy cows is not in their best interest (to
say the least) then your moral judgement must be called into question.


I've told you several times now that I find the dairy
industry inherently cruel and want it all be pulled
down because of it. You ignored that and then called
my moral judgment into question, and below this line
you're now saying I'm ignorant as well. That's being
unnecessarily aggressive and rude, especially while
I've been perfectly reasonable and polite throughout
this whole conversation.

Besides, I gave you the benefit of doubt by suggesting that you
consult a dictionary since ignorance can be the only other reasonable
explanation.


Your unnecessary and aggressive behaviour here isn't
called for. If you can't discuss these issues in a more
courteous way, then I'm afraid I'll have to ask you to
buckle up and prepare yourself for a long and bumpy
ride. Is that the way you want things to go, or are you
going to start behaving yourself?

Again, it's your rationalization and not mine.


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


Veganism is a personal choice. It's not something that can be imposed
in a realistic or meaningful way.


No one is saying it can, but when disqualifying human
milk on the grounds of exploitation you automatically
disqualify all infants currently receiving expressed milk
as vegans too. I've no problem with disqualifying all
suckling infants on the basis that what they feed on is
an animal product, but you seem to be of the opinion
that, if a child nourishes herself directly from her mother,
then she is nourishing herself in the proper vegan way on
vegan fare, but if that child were to nourish herself from
the expressed milk of others, then she would be nourishing
herself on non-vegan fare because of the possibility of
exploitation involved in procuring it.

Since an infant is incapable of
making that sort of decision on it own then it can't be vegan.


I disagree, since I've brought up four vegans (3 lapsed)
and have a vegan grandson of 5. Neither my children or
my grandson were at an age where they could make that
kind of decision for themselves, yet I believe they were
still vegan by dint of their diet and lifestyle nevertheless.

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


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


I did not "promote [exploited milk] at the expense of other milks as
vegan fare". Nowhere have I said that.


I haven't claimed that you have. If you read my paragraph
again you'll see that I'm referring to human milk. I then go
on to explain that though it isn't inherently exploitative to
procure, it can be and is procured exploitatively in some
circumstances, just like any other milk. That being so, you
have no basis on which to promote it (human milk) at the
expense of other milks if exploitation is your only guide,
since both can be and are procured exploitatively.

In fact, I have repeatedly
stated the opposite. Read carefully: exploited milk is not vegan fare.


I agree that it isn't, but on the basis that it's an animal
product rather than on the basis of exploitation. If milk
is disqualified on the basis of exploitation, then you have
no rational basis on which to disqualify cows milk if that
animal can be shown not to have been exploited, so not
only does your rule allow cows milk, it disqualifies human
milk as well.

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


You will never find "non-fertilized eggs that have been sourced
ethically"


You're quite wrong, and I think you know it, so who's
the one digging their heels in out of the two of us? Such
eggs can be and are sourced perfectly ethically without
any exploitation involved at all. That being so, according
to your criteria which qualifies vegan fare on the grounds
of exploitation, eggs sourced from hens which haven't
been exploited must qualify as vegan fare. So, back to
the question which you failed to answer; Could it be
that another component exists which disqualifies these
eggs, or do we just rely on your criteria concerning
exploitation?
"No, you would be RIGHT in saying that "vegan fare is
based solely on exploitation", or rather non-exploitation."

as an ingredient in any of Mr. Falafel's recipes. As much
as you want to deny it, there are NO eggs that are sourced ethically.


I disagree and have shown you are very wrong.

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


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


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


I'm not saying one can, but your criteria certainly allows
it because the animal hasn't been exploited. Your claim
is that vegan is fare is based solely on whether the
animal has been exploited;
"No, you would be RIGHT in saying that "vegan fare is
based solely on exploitation", or rather non-exploitation.
and that necessarily means non-exploited animals such
as road kill qualify are valid sources for vegan food. Road
kill isn't a valid source for vegan food, and the reason
for that has nothing to do with concerns about exploitation.
It's to do with the fact that road kill is an animal. Vegans
don't eat them or their derivatives.

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


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


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


1) Scavenged meat from road kill doesn't exploit the animal.
2) Eating one's pet dog after finding it dead doesn't exploit it.
3) Eating scavenged unfertilised eggs doesn't exploit anything.
4) Eating a dead fish found in a canal doesn't exploit it.
5) Milking a cow doesn't exploit her.
6) Milking the wife doesn't exploit her,

The list is probably a lot longer than that, and according to
your rule which qualifies vegan fare solely on the basis
of exploitation, or even the lack of it, those items qualify.

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

In fact, according to your rule, all one need do to qualify
their animal wares as vegan food is to prove that the
animal in question hadn't been exploited. While you ignore
the essential component which disqualifies foodstuffs,
namely, that it is an animal product, you automatically
leave the way clear for all meats to be included as valid
sources of vegan food.
  #65 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-10-2004, 02:43 PM
Digger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:25:06 +0100, "Richard" wrote:

"Digger" wrote

I am a vegetarian and have been all my life.


Not unless you were never breast fed.


Incorrect.


Human milk, like any other milk is as vegetarian
as chicken soup. You're deluding yourself if you
think you're a vegetarian while drinking it. The
only means by which you can regard or announce
yourself as a vegetarian is to equivocate on the
term and then rely on others not knowing what
context you're referring to. Good luck with that,
but bear in mind that not everyone will be easily
fooled.

If we have no problem drinking the breast milk of other creatures, you
hardly have an issue with drinking ones mothers breast milk?


I do if I'm told that milk is a vegetarian food sourced
from lions, and that lion cubs are vegetarians simply
because you deem milk to be vegetarian.

Ovo-Lacto Vegetarian: same as VEGAN, but also eats eggs and milk products.
This is the most 'popular' form of Vegetarianism.

http://www.ivu.org/faq/definitions.html


I already know how watered down and meaningless
the term 'vegetarian' is, thank you.

Of course milk is not a vegan food source!


Thank you.

Of course it is a vegetarian food source.


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


Once again, the word vegetarian has nothing to do with vegetables.


And once again, the only means by which you can
regard or announce yourself as a vegetarian is to
equivocate on the term and rely on others not knowing
what context you're referring to.

There are
many food categories such as grains, fruit, dairy products.

Ovo-Lacto Vegetarian: same as VEGAN,


No, he is not.

but also eats eggs and milk products.


And there's your reason why.

This is the most 'popular' form of Vegetarianism.

http://www.ivu.org/faq/definitions.html

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


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


Exaclty! And these are the most common type of vegetarians.


I'm sure they are, seeing as they're meat eaters anyway.

The animal is not killed for their production.


Irrelevant.


Not if that is the principal reason you use to make the choice.


It's irrelevant to your comment preceding that where you
mentioned, "Vegetarians have no problem with animal by-
products such as milk." That the animal is not killed when
providing milk is irrelevant to whether milk can be deemed
vegetarian.

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

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

You are confusing potential with actuality.


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


Yes, they do not eat meat.


That doesn't necessarily mean that it must then be a
vegetarian, simply because it doesn't eat meat. You're
affirming the consequent.

Vegetarian is someone who doesn't eat meat.


That's partly true, but since suckling lion cubs are
not vegetarians, your rule of logic which asserts
"No meat = vegetarian." is clearly false.

Different types of vegetarians break this down further. But the majority of
vegetarians just don't eat meat. For example I know many vegetarians who
keep cats with a vegetarian diet. Now you're not going to tell me that cats
are herbivores, yet they have never eaten meat so they can only be referred
to as vegetarian.

http://www.ivu.org/faq/definitions.html

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


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


No,


You should do, because it's absolutely certain that a
suckling lion cub is not and cannot be described as a
vegetarian, so that example alone shows your rule is
unworkable and wrong.

see above.

So therefore it is not a meat-eater,


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


But if it is killed, or in the case of the cats above, never fed meat, then
it never will be!


It's true to say it will never eat meat, but that doesn't
mean to say it's a vegetarian because of that and the
fact it was suckling milk from its mother.

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


I am using simple meaning.


No, you're not, and as a result you've tied yourself up
so tightly that you now have to make the claim that a
lion cub is a vegetarian. Way to go ...

You will have to explain why a creature that fits
into the category of vegetarian


Lion cubs do not fit into the category of vegetarians.
They, like all other mammals dependent on milk are
sucklings.

and has never fitted into any other category
would be called something other than what it presently is.


It's a suckling.

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


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


They are when they are,


No, they are not.

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

Exactly.


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


Absolutely.


Thank you.



  #66 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-10-2004, 03:13 PM
Digger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 04:58:06 -0400, "magnulus" wrote:
"Digger" wrote in message ...
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 22:57:03 -0400, "magnulus" wrote:
"Digger" wrote in message ...

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


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


I'm afraid not, because making human milk an exception
to the rule leaves the way clear for any man to regard
himself as a vegan while nourishing himself on it.


No. If a person were to exist on human breast milk, I think they would
qualify as vegan by vegans themselves


No. They would not be classed as vegans for the simple
fact that vegans don't nourish themselves on milk.

although it would be quite a bizarre diet.


I agree that it would be a bizarre diet, but it's not totally
inconceivable to understand that an AIDS victim might
follow it if it were shown to be beneficial to his condition,
for one example.

Again,the problem isn't that breast milk is intrinsicly nonvegan, the
problem is that Vegans who say they do not believe in the consumption of any
animal products for any reason, are lying. Vegans clearly believe in
consuming at least one animal product- breast milk from humans.


Rather, I would say that the very few are slightly misguided
as to what constitutes vegan fare, and as a result wrongly
insist that their suckling babies are vegans.
  #67 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-10-2004, 03:50 PM
Digger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 22:40:29 +0100, "pearl" wrote:

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

there are NO eggs that are sourced ethically.


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


Probably the most sickening example of overgrazing
I've ever seen! ;-)

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


I hand-raised a nanny goat, who quite happily provides milk.


Perfectly ethical to drink, in my opinion, even though
I believe it's not a vegan food item.

Her kid is grown and still with her- weaned in her own time.


Now you've done it! What's a female kid called: a kiddoe
or something?
  #68 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-10-2004, 04:36 PM
Blue Heron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

pearl wrote:
"BlueHeron" wrote in message ...

pearl wrote:

"Blue Heron" wrote in message news

snip
If you explain that prefer "rabbit & bird food", they might get the idea.


Hum... it's a thought. What has actually helped quite a bit is that two
of their close friends, who actually live in Montreal (closer to us),
are very open about their food, and like to experiment with vegetarian
fare. They have doing the hard work of educating my in-laws for me!


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



Stop! lol.


grin

snip

S'great to see you again, Blue. Cheers.


Thanks!

I even have some recipes for a.f.v. Crazy, I know! Maybe we can get
this newgroup turned around again!

-- Blue

  #69 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-10-2004, 04:51 PM
magnulus
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Digger" wrote in message
...

No. They would not be classed as vegans for the simple
fact that vegans don't nourish themselves on milk.


Clearly they do... my purpose starting the thread was not to argue what
is a true vegan, or that vegans by nature are hypocrites... it was to argue
that the definition of veganism often put forward, that vegans are simply
people who avoid animal products in their diet, clothing, and lifestyle, is
highly flawed.


  #70 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-10-2004, 05:21 PM
magnulus
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Digger" wrote in message
...

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


This is a false defenition. Vegetarian comes from the Latin "vegetus"
(vigorous, energetic), which doesn't mean "vegetable". It reffers instead
to the original intent of the vegetarian diet in the West, a "pure" diet
free of meat that would confer health properties (ancient vegetarians such
as Pythagoras or Ovid didn't call their diet/lifestyle "vegetarian"). Milk
products, honey, and eggs have been accepted as vegetarian food for a long
time, and vegetarians might even wear wool, a few leather... in India
vegetarians sometimes use leather derived from dead cows (ones that have
died of natural causes).

Chinese Buddhist "vegetarians" sometimes east bivalve molluscs if they
live near the ocean, though this would not be in accordance with the Western
idea of vegetarianism. The Chinese Buddhists eat the molluscs because of
tradition, they don't consider the bivalve molluscs to be feeling animals in
the usual sense. Of course, some Buddhists don't eat garlic, either.

Not everything vegetarians eat is "plant" based in the biological sense.
Fungi such as mushrooms, Quorn, miso (Aspergillus oryzae), nutritional
yeast, are definitely not plants in the biological sense. Most seaweeds
vegetarians/macriobitcs would eat are actually not plants, either- they
belong to an entirely different kingdom of eurkariotic life: Protista, and
they are actually far older than plants.




  #71 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-10-2004, 10:47 PM
Digger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 11:51:42 -0400, "magnulus" wrote:
"Digger" wrote in message ...

No. They would not be classed as vegans for the simple
fact that vegans don't nourish themselves on milk.


Clearly they do...


Clearly, they do not.

my purpose starting the thread was not to argue what
is a true vegan, or that vegans by nature are hypocrites... it was to argue
that the definition of veganism often put forward, that vegans are simply
people who avoid animal products in their diet, clothing, and lifestyle, is
highly flawed.


Rather, your conception of a vegan is flawed. Suckling
babies aren't vegans, so the definition of a vegan as a
person that doesn't drink milk remains the same and isn't
flawed, despite your misconception.
  #72 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-10-2004, 11:00 PM
Digger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:21:14 -0400, "magnulus" wrote:
"Digger" wrote in message ...

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


This is a false defenition.


No. it is not.

Vegetarian comes from the Latin "vegetus"
(vigorous, energetic), which doesn't mean "vegetable".


Then, to regard or announce oneself as a vegetarian,
all one need do is equivocate on the term and hope
no one realises they aren't trying to fool others when
inwardly referring to a definition of vegetarianism
normally associated with eating veg. Good luck with
that, but you won't fool everyone using that kind of
equivocation. Not unless you're only trying to fool
yourself, that is.


It reffers instead
to the original intent of the vegetarian diet in the West, a "pure" diet
free of meat that would confer health properties (ancient vegetarians such
as Pythagoras or Ovid didn't call their diet/lifestyle "vegetarian"). Milk
products, honey, and eggs have been accepted as vegetarian food for a long
time, and vegetarians might even wear wool, a few leather... in India
vegetarians sometimes use leather derived from dead cows (ones that have
died of natural causes).

Chinese Buddhist "vegetarians" sometimes east bivalve molluscs if they
live near the ocean, though this would not be in accordance with the Western
idea of vegetarianism. The Chinese Buddhists eat the molluscs because of
tradition, they don't consider the bivalve molluscs to be feeling animals in
the usual sense. Of course, some Buddhists don't eat garlic, either.

Not everything vegetarians eat is "plant" based in the biological sense.
Fungi such as mushrooms, Quorn, miso (Aspergillus oryzae), nutritional
yeast, are definitely not plants in the biological sense. Most seaweeds
vegetarians/macriobitcs would eat are actually not plants, either- they
belong to an entirely different kingdom of eurkariotic life: Protista, and
they are actually far older than plants.


  #73 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-10-2004, 11:03 PM
Digger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Correction *

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 23:00:51 +0100, Digger wrote:

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:21:14 -0400, "magnulus" wrote:
"Digger" wrote in message ...

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


This is a false defenition.


No. it is not.

Vegetarian comes from the Latin "vegetus"
(vigorous, energetic), which doesn't mean "vegetable".


Then, to regard or announce oneself as a vegetarian,
all one need do is equivocate on the term and hope
no one realises they aren't trying to fool others when
inwardly referring to a definition of vegetarianism


* not

normally associated with eating veg. Good luck with
that, but you won't fool everyone using that kind of
equivocation. Not unless you're only trying to fool
yourself, that is.


  #74 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-10-2004, 02:50 AM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.



  #75 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-10-2004, 03:17 AM
magnulus
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Dutch" wrote in message
...
The one interesting fact coming from this debate is that, contrary to what
some vegans try to portray, no human is born a natural vegan, the first
natural human food is primarily animal fat and protein.


Human breast milk is only 5 percent protein.

Saying that vegetarians or vegans do not consume some animal products is
false... they do. But breast milk is not nonvegan or nonvegeterian. The
simple fact is the word "vegetarian" does not mean a person exists
exclusively by eating plants or vegetables- the root of the word
"vegetarian" means "lively, vigorous"- not vegetable.




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 06:56 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