Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
|||
"Digger" > wrote in message ... > On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:37:35 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >"Digger" > wrote in message ... > >> On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:09:37 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >"Digger" > wrote nothing new.. > >> > > >> >Breast milk = vegan, non-vegan, omnivore, carnivore, herbivore = who > >cares? > >> > >> Once again blah blah blah... > Once again blah blah blah... |
|
|||
|
|||
"Digger" > wrote in message ... > On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:37:35 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >"Digger" > wrote in message ... > >> On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:09:37 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >"Digger" > wrote nothing new.. > >> > > >> >Breast milk = vegan, non-vegan, omnivore, carnivore, herbivore = who > >cares? > >> > >> Once again blah blah blah... > Once again blah blah blah... |
|
|||
|
|||
"Digger" > wrote in message ... > On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:38:10 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >"Digger" > wrote in message ... > >> On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:05:38 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >"Digger" > wrote nothing > > > >How about fasting, is fasting vegan or non-vegan? > > You've got to do better The breast milk issue is DOA. How about fasting, is fasting vegan or non-vegan? |
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 19:38:53 +0100, "Richard" > wrote:
>Am I upsetting you? No, but you're obviously very embarrassed about my showing what a faux vegetarian you are, else you wouldn't keep snipping my whole post away. Why don't you explain why you try to fool people into thinking you're a vegetarian whose diet consists primarily or wholly of vegetables when announcing yourself as a vegetarian? You've admitted you inwardly refer to a completely different definition of the term 'vegetarian' when making this announcement which has nothing to do with vegetables at all, and here's your acknowledgement of that. "The term "vegetarian" comes from "vegetus", the latin for "enlivened", and has no connection, apart from a linguistic one, with vegetables. This is a common misconception." Richard 14/10/2004 As you say, "This is a common misconception", and you do your very best to take advantage of it whenever announcing yourself as a vegetarian. Why don't you just say you're lively, if that's what you really mean? |
|
|||
|
|||
"Digger" > wrote in message
... > On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 19:38:53 +0100, "Richard" > wrote: > > >Am I upsetting you? > > No, but you're obviously very embarrassed about my > showing what a faux vegetarian you are, else you > wouldn't keep snipping my whole post away. Only because you did it and eliminated the point I made. You did it again with this point. > Why don't you explain why you try to fool people into > thinking you're a vegetarian whose diet consists primarily > or wholly of vegetables when announcing yourself as a > vegetarian? You've admitted you inwardly refer to a > completely different definition of the term 'vegetarian' > when making this announcement which has nothing to do > with vegetables at all, and here's your acknowledgement > of that. > > "The term "vegetarian" comes from "vegetus", the > latin for "enlivened", and has no connection, apart > from a linguistic one, with vegetables. This is a > common misconception." > Richard 14/10/2004 > > As you say, "This is a common misconception", and > you do your very best to take advantage of it whenever > announcing yourself as a vegetarian. Why don't you > just say you're lively, if that's what you really mean? I think that most people think the word vegetarian means one who doesn't eat meat. What do you think it means? |
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:55:15 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote in message ... >> On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:38:10 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >"Digger" > wrote in message ... >> >> On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:05:38 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >> >"Digger" > wrote nothing >> > >> >How about fasting, is fasting vegan or non-vegan? >> >> You've got to do better > >The breast milk issue is DOA. Rather, it's shown what a dodger and snipper you become when trapped. Every time I grind you into the ground on an issue you resort to snipping and totally ignore the evidence which proves you wrong. There's about three threads going at the moment where you've simply cut and run, and this isn't the fist time you've had to resort to that either. You're always doing it. What we have here is a situation where you cannot compete with me, so you simply snip and run for cover every time instead. [unsnip] When agreeing with magnulus' statement where he asserts "Breast milk is not non-vegan" you both logically assert that "Breast milk is vegan" when the double negative is removed. [In spite of this noble history, grammarians since the Renaissance have objected to the double negative in English. In their eagerness to make English conform to formal logic, they conceived and promulgated the notion that * two negatives destroy each other and make a positive.* This rule, vigorously advocated by teachers of grammar and writing, has become established as a fundamental of standard usage.] *my emphasis* http://dictionary.reference.com/sear...ble%20negative Yawn and walk away if you want, but the fact remains that you have asserted "Breast milk is vegan", whether you accept that fact or not. Your arrogant dodging and snipping, as well as your ignorance only shows you're incapable of accepting the fact you are wrong, Ditch. How about fasting, is fasting vegan or >non-vegan? > > |
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:55:15 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote in message ... >> On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:38:10 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >"Digger" > wrote in message ... >> >> On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:05:38 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >> >"Digger" > wrote nothing >> > >> >How about fasting, is fasting vegan or non-vegan? >> >> You've got to do better > >The breast milk issue is DOA. Rather, it's shown what a dodger and snipper you become when trapped. Every time I grind you into the ground on an issue you resort to snipping and totally ignore the evidence which proves you wrong. There's about three threads going at the moment where you've simply cut and run, and this isn't the fist time you've had to resort to that either. You're always doing it. What we have here is a situation where you cannot compete with me, so you simply snip and run for cover every time instead. [unsnip] When agreeing with magnulus' statement where he asserts "Breast milk is not non-vegan" you both logically assert that "Breast milk is vegan" when the double negative is removed. [In spite of this noble history, grammarians since the Renaissance have objected to the double negative in English. In their eagerness to make English conform to formal logic, they conceived and promulgated the notion that * two negatives destroy each other and make a positive.* This rule, vigorously advocated by teachers of grammar and writing, has become established as a fundamental of standard usage.] *my emphasis* http://dictionary.reference.com/sear...ble%20negative Yawn and walk away if you want, but the fact remains that you have asserted "Breast milk is vegan", whether you accept that fact or not. Your arrogant dodging and snipping, as well as your ignorance only shows you're incapable of accepting the fact you are wrong, Ditch. How about fasting, is fasting vegan or >non-vegan? > > |
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:55:15 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote in message ... >> On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:38:10 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >"Digger" > wrote in message ... >> >> On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:05:38 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >> >"Digger" > wrote nothing >> > >> >How about fasting, is fasting vegan or non-vegan? >> >> You've got to do better > >The breast milk issue is DOA. Rather, it's shown what a dodger and snipper you become when trapped. Every time I grind you into the ground on an issue you resort to snipping and totally ignore the evidence which proves you wrong. There's about three threads going at the moment where you've simply cut and run, and this isn't the fist time you've had to resort to that either. You're always doing it. What we have here is a situation where you cannot compete with me, so you simply snip and run for cover every time instead. [unsnip] When agreeing with magnulus' statement where he asserts "Breast milk is not non-vegan" you both logically assert that "Breast milk is vegan" when the double negative is removed. [In spite of this noble history, grammarians since the Renaissance have objected to the double negative in English. In their eagerness to make English conform to formal logic, they conceived and promulgated the notion that * two negatives destroy each other and make a positive.* This rule, vigorously advocated by teachers of grammar and writing, has become established as a fundamental of standard usage.] *my emphasis* http://dictionary.reference.com/sear...ble%20negative Yawn and walk away if you want, but the fact remains that you have asserted "Breast milk is vegan", whether you accept that fact or not. Your arrogant dodging and snipping, as well as your ignorance only shows you're incapable of accepting the fact you are wrong, Ditch. How about fasting, is fasting vegan or >non-vegan? > > |
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:54:23 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote in message ... >> On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:37:35 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >"Digger" > wrote in message ... >> >> On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:09:37 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >> >"Digger" > wrote nothing new.. >> >> > >> >> >Breast milk = vegan, non-vegan, omnivore, carnivore, >> >> >herbivore = who cares? >> >> >> >> Once again blah blah blah... >> >Once again blah blah blah... Every time I grind you into the ground on an issue you resort to snipping and totally ignore the evidence which proves you wrong. There's about three threads going at the moment where you've simply cut and run, and this isn't the fist time you've had to resort to that either. You're always doing it. What we have here is a situation where you cannot compete with me, so you simply snip and run for cover every time instead. [unsnip] Once again you've snipped the whole post and ran for cover, but while doing that the fact still remains that while agreeing with magnulus' statement which asserts "Breast milk is not non-vegan", you in fact logically assert "Breast milk is vegan" once the *two negatives destroy each other and make a positive* [In spite of this noble history, grammarians since the Renaissance have objected to the double negative in English. In their eagerness to make English conform to formal logic, they conceived and promulgated the notion that * two negatives destroy each other and make a positive.* This rule, vigorously advocated by teachers of grammar and writing, has become established as a fundamental of standard usage.] *my emphasis* http://dictionary.reference.com/sear...ble%20negative Snipping and running away while denying the evidence in front of you is cowardly and dishonest. You're only lying to yourself if you deny the fact that you asserted breast milk is vegan when agreeing with magnulus' statement. [endsnip] Is this the best you can do, Ditch: snip and run? Pah! |
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:54:23 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote in message ... >> On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:37:35 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >"Digger" > wrote in message ... >> >> On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:09:37 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >> >"Digger" > wrote nothing new.. >> >> > >> >> >Breast milk = vegan, non-vegan, omnivore, carnivore, >> >> >herbivore = who cares? >> >> >> >> Once again blah blah blah... >> >Once again blah blah blah... Every time I grind you into the ground on an issue you resort to snipping and totally ignore the evidence which proves you wrong. There's about three threads going at the moment where you've simply cut and run, and this isn't the fist time you've had to resort to that either. You're always doing it. What we have here is a situation where you cannot compete with me, so you simply snip and run for cover every time instead. [unsnip] Once again you've snipped the whole post and ran for cover, but while doing that the fact still remains that while agreeing with magnulus' statement which asserts "Breast milk is not non-vegan", you in fact logically assert "Breast milk is vegan" once the *two negatives destroy each other and make a positive* [In spite of this noble history, grammarians since the Renaissance have objected to the double negative in English. In their eagerness to make English conform to formal logic, they conceived and promulgated the notion that * two negatives destroy each other and make a positive.* This rule, vigorously advocated by teachers of grammar and writing, has become established as a fundamental of standard usage.] *my emphasis* http://dictionary.reference.com/sear...ble%20negative Snipping and running away while denying the evidence in front of you is cowardly and dishonest. You're only lying to yourself if you deny the fact that you asserted breast milk is vegan when agreeing with magnulus' statement. [endsnip] Is this the best you can do, Ditch: snip and run? Pah! |
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 20:46:56 +0100, "Richard" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote in message ... >> On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 19:38:53 +0100, "Richard" > wrote: >> >> >Am I upsetting you? >> >> No, but you're obviously very embarrassed about my >> showing what a faux vegetarian you are, else you >> wouldn't keep snipping my whole post away. > >Only because you did it and eliminated the point I made. Rather than eliminate the point you made, I've focused very strongly on it, namely, that while announcing yourself as a vegetarian you inwardly refer to a Latin phrase which translates as 'enlivened', and then do your best to rely on a "common misconception" among those you're trying to fool. Why do you do it? Why not just say you're enlivened if that's what you want to say? Why rely on a "common misconception" of a Latin term hardly known instead of the self-describing common term usually associated with your announced lifestyle? >> Why don't you explain why you try to fool people into >> thinking you're a vegetarian whose diet consists primarily >> or wholly of vegetables when announcing yourself as a >> vegetarian? You've admitted you inwardly refer to a >> completely different definition of the term 'vegetarian' >> when making this announcement which has nothing to do >> with vegetables at all, and here's your acknowledgement >> of that. >> >> "The term "vegetarian" comes from "vegetus", the >> latin for "enlivened", and has no connection, apart >> from a linguistic one, with vegetables. This is a >> common misconception." >> Richard 14/10/2004 >> >> As you say, "This is a common misconception", and >> you do your very best to take advantage of it whenever >> announcing yourself as a vegetarian. Why don't you >> just say you're lively, if that's what you really mean? > >I think that most people think the word vegetarian means one who doesn't eat >meat. And you rely on this "common misconception" when trying to fool them. >What do you think it means? It's a self-describing term. veg·e·tar·i·an n. One who practices vegetarianism. A herbivore. adj. Of or relating to vegetarianism or vegetarians. Consisting primarily or wholly of vegetables and vegetable products: a vegetarian diet. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=vegetarian |
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 20:46:56 +0100, "Richard" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote in message ... >> On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 19:38:53 +0100, "Richard" > wrote: >> >> >Am I upsetting you? >> >> No, but you're obviously very embarrassed about my >> showing what a faux vegetarian you are, else you >> wouldn't keep snipping my whole post away. > >Only because you did it and eliminated the point I made. Rather than eliminate the point you made, I've focused very strongly on it, namely, that while announcing yourself as a vegetarian you inwardly refer to a Latin phrase which translates as 'enlivened', and then do your best to rely on a "common misconception" among those you're trying to fool. Why do you do it? Why not just say you're enlivened if that's what you want to say? Why rely on a "common misconception" of a Latin term hardly known instead of the self-describing common term usually associated with your announced lifestyle? >> Why don't you explain why you try to fool people into >> thinking you're a vegetarian whose diet consists primarily >> or wholly of vegetables when announcing yourself as a >> vegetarian? You've admitted you inwardly refer to a >> completely different definition of the term 'vegetarian' >> when making this announcement which has nothing to do >> with vegetables at all, and here's your acknowledgement >> of that. >> >> "The term "vegetarian" comes from "vegetus", the >> latin for "enlivened", and has no connection, apart >> from a linguistic one, with vegetables. This is a >> common misconception." >> Richard 14/10/2004 >> >> As you say, "This is a common misconception", and >> you do your very best to take advantage of it whenever >> announcing yourself as a vegetarian. Why don't you >> just say you're lively, if that's what you really mean? > >I think that most people think the word vegetarian means one who doesn't eat >meat. And you rely on this "common misconception" when trying to fool them. >What do you think it means? It's a self-describing term. veg·e·tar·i·an n. One who practices vegetarianism. A herbivore. adj. Of or relating to vegetarianism or vegetarians. Consisting primarily or wholly of vegetables and vegetable products: a vegetarian diet. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=vegetarian |
|
|||
|
|||
"Digger" > wrote in message ... > On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:55:15 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>"Digger" > wrote in message . .. >>> On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:38:10 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>> >"Digger" > wrote in message >>> .. . >>> >> On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:05:38 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>> >> >"Digger" > wrote nothing >>> > >>> >How about fasting, is fasting vegan or non-vegan? >>> >>> You've got to do better >> >>The breast milk issue is DOA. > > Rather, Rather nothing.. D--O--A.. How about fasting, is fasting vegan or non-vegan? Why are you afraid to answer? Isn't the answer obvious? |
|
|||
|
|||
"Digger" > wrote in message ... > On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:55:15 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>"Digger" > wrote in message . .. >>> On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:38:10 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>> >"Digger" > wrote in message >>> .. . >>> >> On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:05:38 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>> >> >"Digger" > wrote nothing >>> > >>> >How about fasting, is fasting vegan or non-vegan? >>> >>> You've got to do better >> >>The breast milk issue is DOA. > > Rather, Rather nothing.. D--O--A.. How about fasting, is fasting vegan or non-vegan? Why are you afraid to answer? Isn't the answer obvious? |
|
|||
|
|||
"Digger" > wrote in message ... > On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:54:23 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>"Digger" > wrote in message . .. >>> On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:37:35 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>> >"Digger" > wrote in message >>> .. . >>> >> On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:09:37 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>> >> >"Digger" > wrote nothing new.. >>> >> > >>> >> >Breast milk = vegan, non-vegan, omnivore, carnivore, >>> >> >herbivore = who cares? >>> >> >>> >> Once again blah blah blah... >>> >>Once again blah blah blah... > > Every time <> you repeat the same nonsense I remove it. When will you ever learn? |
|
|||
|
|||
"Digger" > wrote in message ... > On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:54:23 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>"Digger" > wrote in message . .. >>> On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:37:35 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>> >"Digger" > wrote in message >>> .. . >>> >> On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:09:37 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>> >> >"Digger" > wrote nothing new.. >>> >> > >>> >> >Breast milk = vegan, non-vegan, omnivore, carnivore, >>> >> >herbivore = who cares? >>> >> >>> >> Once again blah blah blah... >>> >>Once again blah blah blah... > > Every time <> you repeat the same nonsense I remove it. When will you ever learn? |
|
|||
|
|||
"Digger" > wrote
> >Only because you did it and eliminated the point I made. > > Rather than eliminate the point you made, I've focused > very strongly on it, namely, that while announcing yourself > as a vegetarian you inwardly refer to a Latin phrase which > translates as 'enlivened', and then do your best to rely on a > "common misconception" among those you're trying to fool. > > Why do you do it? Why not just say you're enlivened if that's > what you want to say? Why rely on a "common misconception" > of a Latin term hardly known instead of the self-describing > common term usually associated with your announced lifestyle? If I met a person who thought that the modern dictionary definition of vegetarian meant anything other than one who doesn't eat meat, I'd happily describe that to them. I've never met such a person so far. > >I think that most people think the word vegetarian means one who doesn't eat > >meat. > > And you rely on this "common misconception" when > trying to fool them. So dramatic! You have yet to prove how the majority of people think the word vegetarian means a person who does not consume milk. > >What do you think it means? > > It's a self-describing term. > > veg·e·tar·i·an > n. > One who practices vegetarianism. > A herbivore. > > adj. > Of or relating to vegetarianism or vegetarians. > Consisting primarily or wholly of vegetables and > vegetable products: a vegetarian diet. > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=vegetarian Great, lots of variations there. Now where does it say anything about not consuming milk? |
|
|||
|
|||
"Digger" > wrote
> >Only because you did it and eliminated the point I made. > > Rather than eliminate the point you made, I've focused > very strongly on it, namely, that while announcing yourself > as a vegetarian you inwardly refer to a Latin phrase which > translates as 'enlivened', and then do your best to rely on a > "common misconception" among those you're trying to fool. > > Why do you do it? Why not just say you're enlivened if that's > what you want to say? Why rely on a "common misconception" > of a Latin term hardly known instead of the self-describing > common term usually associated with your announced lifestyle? If I met a person who thought that the modern dictionary definition of vegetarian meant anything other than one who doesn't eat meat, I'd happily describe that to them. I've never met such a person so far. > >I think that most people think the word vegetarian means one who doesn't eat > >meat. > > And you rely on this "common misconception" when > trying to fool them. So dramatic! You have yet to prove how the majority of people think the word vegetarian means a person who does not consume milk. > >What do you think it means? > > It's a self-describing term. > > veg·e·tar·i·an > n. > One who practices vegetarianism. > A herbivore. > > adj. > Of or relating to vegetarianism or vegetarians. > Consisting primarily or wholly of vegetables and > vegetable products: a vegetarian diet. > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=vegetarian Great, lots of variations there. Now where does it say anything about not consuming milk? |
|
|||
|
|||
"Digger" > wrote > On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 17:04:40 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >>>> >>>A baby is not a vegan, nor is it a non-vegan, > >>>> >> > >>>> >> It has to be one or the other, you stupid idiot. If > >>>> >> it is not non-vegan, then it is a vegan. > >>>> > > >>>> >Wrong > >>>> > >>>> It's logically certain that if a baby or animal is not > >>>> non-vegan, then it is vegan > >>> > >>>If a tree is not non-vegan then is it vegan? > >> > >> Yes, according to that statement. > > > >Wrong answer > > It's the only logical answer according to that statement. > Once the double negative is removed from > > 'a tree is not non-vegan' > > you're left with > > 'a tree is vegan' > > It's an incorrect statement because trees aren't vegans, The light is beginning to come on... well done. -snip tap-dance- |
|
|||
|
|||
"Richard" > wrote in message ... > "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. You confuse similarities with equivalents and are horribly inaccurate. Non human animals that don't consume animal matter are called herbivores, or other related names. John |
|
|||
|
|||
"Richard" > wrote in message ... > "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. You confuse similarities with equivalents and are horribly inaccurate. Non human animals that don't consume animal matter are called herbivores, or other related names. John |
|
|||
|
|||
"Richard" > wrote in message ... > "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. Many of the males of the species in question are because they don't produce milk. John |
|
|||
|
|||
"Richard" > wrote in message ... > "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. Many of the males of the species in question are because they don't produce milk. John |
|
|||
|
|||
"John Coleman" > wrote in message >...
> "Richard" > wrote in message > ... > > "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. > > Many of the males of the species in question are because they don't produce > milk. What species? Dairy cattle do not constitute a species. Also, the reason you cited for their slaughter is innacurate. They are not kiiled "because they don't produce milk", they are killed for the same reason beef cattle (also not a species) are killed: for meat. For someone who tries to come off as some sort of expert, you really are clueless. > > John |
|
|||
|
|||
> Milk and eggs aren't vegetarian, no matter how much > you equivocate on the term and try to hijack it. so what is an ovo-lacto-vegetarian? John |
|
|||
|
|||
> Milk and eggs aren't vegetarian, no matter how much > you equivocate on the term and try to hijack it. so what is an ovo-lacto-vegetarian? John |
|
|||
|
|||
"C. James Strutz" > wrote in message ... 8< > You don't have a clue what "vegetarian" or "vegan" are. I am glad I am not the only one to point this out. But I wonder if that will do Digger any good? John |
|
|||
|
|||
"C. James Strutz" > wrote in message ... 8< > You don't have a clue what "vegetarian" or "vegan" are. I am glad I am not the only one to point this out. But I wonder if that will do Digger any good? John |
|
|||
|
|||
"Dutch" > wrote in message ... > "Blue Heron" > wrote > > > > I however do not > > try to pretend that I am something that I am not, unlike yourself, who > > can do nothing but resort to lies, mistruths, and faulty logic. > > Don't forget insults, lies, half-truths, equivocation, faulty logic and > insults. Derek has a colossal ego combined with blinding stupidity. This > unfortunate combination results in the incoherent ranting and babbling you > see from him. What excellent qualifications - I expect to see him in the next presidential campaign. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Dutch" > wrote in message ... > "Blue Heron" > wrote > > > > I however do not > > try to pretend that I am something that I am not, unlike yourself, who > > can do nothing but resort to lies, mistruths, and faulty logic. > > Don't forget insults, lies, half-truths, equivocation, faulty logic and > insults. Derek has a colossal ego combined with blinding stupidity. This > unfortunate combination results in the incoherent ranting and babbling you > see from him. What excellent qualifications - I expect to see him in the next presidential campaign. |
|
|||
|
|||
"John Coleman" > wrote in message ... > >> Milk and eggs aren't vegetarian, no matter how much >> you equivocate on the term and try to hijack it. > > so what is an ovo-lacto-vegetarian? > ======================== A weak-willed wannbe that doesn't have a clue. Oh, kinda like you, eh killer? No matter how many adjectives you try to put in front, it still means you aren't vegetarian.... > John > > |
|
|||
|
|||
"John Coleman" > wrote in message ... > >> Milk and eggs aren't vegetarian, no matter how much >> you equivocate on the term and try to hijack it. > > so what is an ovo-lacto-vegetarian? > ======================== A weak-willed wannbe that doesn't have a clue. Oh, kinda like you, eh killer? No matter how many adjectives you try to put in front, it still means you aren't vegetarian.... > John > > |
|
|||
|
|||
"K D B" > wrote in message om... > "John Coleman" > wrote in message >... > > "Richard" > wrote in message > > ... > > > "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. > > > > Many of the males of the species in question are because they don't produce > > milk. > > What species? Dairy cattle do not constitute a species. I never said anything about dairy cattle being a species. I simply refered to "the species", but male offspring would be a better phrase. > reason you cited for their slaughter is innacurate. They are not > kiiled "because they don't produce milk", they are killed for the same > reason beef cattle (also not a species) are killed: for meat. For Many male offspring are killed immediately if they are weak - they do not get reared and go to market as do the stronger ones, instead they are burried (illegally) in fields or otherwise disposed of probably for pet food. If they were female they would have lived to be exploited for milk. John |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Dan Congs considered bitter? | Tea | |||
Have You Considered Raccoon...??? | General Cooking | |||
why is breast feeding considered vegan? | Vegan | |||
Why is fried food considered unhealthy? | General Cooking |