On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 20:53:07 GMT, "John Coleman" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote in message ...
>> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 00:10:50 -0400, "magnulus" >wrote:
>>
>> > Isn't a human an animal,
>>
>> We are mammals by virtue of the female of our species
>> having mammary glands. (thank you, Lord)
>>
>> >so wouldn't human breast milk be an "animal
>> >byproduct"?
>>
>> Yes, and therefore a non-vegan source of food.
>
>incorrect - you need to start with a valid definition of veganism, then work
>from there

Milk is an animal product and thereby non-vegan by default.

>> Human milk and placentas are a non-vegan food source,
>> so when you read any vegan material claiming these foods
>> to be vegan fare, you'll know they're lying.
>
>No those assertions are quite correct.

Then, a person who nourishes himself on expressed human
milk and placentas is living on a vegan diet, is he?

>> One could argue that cows give up their milk voluntarily,
>
>Cows are domesticated imbreeds with little of their original instincts
>left

They give up their milk quite voluntarily, and there's no cruelty
or exploitation involved in relieving them of it, so why isn't it
vegan fare while human milk is?

>- wild bovids do not welcome humans to come and steal their milk.

You cannot say that of all feral cows. There may be instances
where their milk can be taken from them quite easily, being such
docile beasts by nature. Would that be vegan fare?

>I
>doubt cows really volunteer their milk either, other than perhaps to relieve
>the burden.

Exactly. It's very common for cows to make their own way
to the milking parlour for just that very reason; to volunteer it
up so as to relieve themselves. There's nothing inherently cruel
or exploitative about relieving a cow of it's milk, John. That
being so, why isn't it vegan fare if cruelty and exploitation
aren't involved in its production?

>However, since the calves that are taken are caused to suffer by
>this and the mother cow, then that is unacceptable to a vegan.

What if calves weren't taken and made to suffer - would
the milk from its mother qualify as vegan fare?

"Digger" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 20:53:07 GMT, "John Coleman" > wrote:
> >"Digger" > wrote in message
...
> >> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 00:10:50 -0400, "magnulus"
>wrote:
> >>
> >> > Isn't a human an animal,
> >>
> >> We are mammals by virtue of the female of our species
> >> having mammary glands. (thank you, Lord)
> >>
> >> >so wouldn't human breast milk be an "animal
> >> >byproduct"?
> >>
> >> Yes, and therefore a non-vegan source of food.
> >
> >incorrect - you need to start with a valid definition of veganism, then
work
> >from there
>
> Milk is an animal product and thereby non-vegan by default.

incorrect - please start with the right defiition

as stated befo
"Today, the Society remains as determined as ever to promote vegan
lifestyles - that is, ways of living that seek to exclude, as far as is
possible and practical, all forms of exploitation of animals for food,
clothing or any other purpose. "
http://www.vegansociety.com/html/about_us/

> Then, a person who nourishes himself on expressed human
> milk and placentas is living on a vegan diet, is he?

According to the original definition above yes, but not according to the
traditional practices of vegans. As with Islam, there is Islam the religion
and the traditions of Islamists. In practical terms vegans avoid animal
products because exploitation is usually inherent.

> They give up their milk quite voluntarily, and there's no cruelty
> or exploitation involved in relieving them of it, so why isn't it
> vegan fare while human milk is?

Already explained. Cows do not volunteer their milk, it is all part of a
cruel system of exploitation and extermination.

Distress to Young Calf & Mother
The harsh reality is that to produce milk, a cow must have a calf. To
maximise production, each calf is taken from its mother within 24-48 hours
of birth. Calves would naturally suckle for 6-12 months.

Separation is a distressing process as mother and calf form a strong
maternal bond. Dairy cow husbandry expert, Professor John Webster described
the removal of the calf as the "most potentially distressing incident in the
life of the dairy cow". Webster points out that "the cow will submit herself
to considerable personal discomfort or risk to nourish and protect her
calf". [6] Examples of this are cows that have escaped and travelled several
miles to find their own calf after it has been sold on to another farm. [7]

http://www.vegansociety.com/html/ani.../dairy_cow.php

> Exactly. It's very common for cows to make their own way
> to the milking parlour for just that very reason; to volunteer it
> up so as to relieve themselves. There's nothing inherently cruel
> or exploitative about relieving a cow of it's milk, John. That
> being so, why isn't it vegan fare if cruelty and exploitation
> aren't involved in its production?

see the above - cruelty and exploitation are involved in milk production (if
you could synthesise milk in a lab from non animal sources, I guess that
would be vegan, but I expect not environmentally friendly)

> What if calves weren't taken and made to suffer - would
> the milk from its mother qualify as vegan fare?

This question is of little practical value - we deal with the system that
DOES exist. But the answer would still be no IMO, as veganism is mainly
about stopping exploitation. As we cannot ascertain the intentions of other
animals, then it is hard to be in a position where we can reason that we are
not exploiting them, that is that they are consciously consenting as equals.

Chattel slaves go to work to avoid the pain of a beating, and cows to avoid
the pain of milk excess buildup (that their calves should relieve) - in both
cases although very different, fundamentally the situation is one of fear
and exploitation.

I submit that if they gave a cow pain killers so it didn't feel that its
udders were full, it would not turn up at the milk parlour and "volunteer"
its milk. This suggestion that cows "volunteer" milk is absurd - a confusion
of similarity and equivalents. One does not "volunteer" when one is
compelled through pain or fear of pain.

John

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 22:44:29 GMT, "John Coleman" > wrote:

>"Digger" > wrote in message ...
>> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 20:53:07 GMT, "John Coleman" > wrote:
>> >"Digger" > wrote in message ...
>> >> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 00:10:50 -0400, "magnulus" >wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Isn't a human an animal,
>> >>
>> >> We are mammals by virtue of the female of our species
>> >> having mammary glands. (thank you, Lord)
>> >>
>> >> >so wouldn't human breast milk be an "animal
>> >> >byproduct"?
>> >>
>> >> Yes, and therefore a non-vegan source of food.
>> >
>> >incorrect - you need to start with a valid definition of
>> >veganism, then work from there
>>
>> Milk is an animal product and thereby non-vegan by default.
>
>incorrect

Then you must allow all diary users to announce themselves
as vegan.

>- please start with the right defiition
>
>as stated befo
>"Today, the Society remains as determined as ever to promote vegan
>lifestyles - that is, ways of living that seek to exclude, as far as is
>possible and practical, all forms of exploitation of animals for food,
>clothing or any other purpose. "
>http://www.vegansociety.com/html/about_us/

And where, in any of that does it conclude milk to be
a vegan source of nourishment?

>> Then, a person who nourishes himself on expressed human
>> milk and placentas is living on a vegan diet, is he?
>
>According to the original definition above yes,

There is nothing in that definition that says milk an placenta
are vegan sources of nourishment.

>but not according to the
>traditional practices of vegans.

And certainly not according to the definition you've brought
here, either. In another thread to this you've claimed meat
can be sourced from animals that die accidentally, and be
regarded as vegan fare, and now you're claiming a woman's
placenta is vegan fare as well. What other animal products
do you regard as vegan fare and ware, John?

>As with Islam, there is Islam the religion
>and the traditions of Islamists. In practical terms vegans avoid animal
>products because exploitation is usually inherent.

They avoid animal products for other reasons apart from
its exploitative component. "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

>> They give up their milk quite voluntarily, and there's no cruelty
>> or exploitation involved in relieving them of it, so why isn't it
>> vegan fare while human milk is?
>
>Already explained.

No, you haven't explained, and you haven't explained
how meat sourced from animals involved in accidents
is vegan fare either.

> Cows do not volunteer their milk, it is all part of a
>cruel system of exploitation and extermination.

It goes without saying that in some cases, milk and
eggs can be sourced without causing any harm to the
animal concerned at all, yet it still wouldn't be vegan
fare.

>Distress to Young Calf & Mother

[snip]
I'm fully aware of the dairy industry and the inherent
cruelty involved in it. I want it abolished yesterday.
However, as I keep trying to point out, milk can be
sourced from dairy and feral cows without harming
them in the least, so why isn't that milk vegan while
human milk is?

>> Exactly. It's very common for cows to make their own way
>> to the milking parlour for just that very reason; to volunteer it
>> up so as to relieve themselves. There's nothing inherently cruel
>> or exploitative about relieving a cow of it's milk, John. That
>> being so, why isn't it vegan fare if cruelty and exploitation
>> aren't involved in its production?
>
>see the above - cruelty and exploitation are involved in milk production

That's very true, and it's because of this inherent
cruelty involved that I want diary parlours to close,
but that doesn't mean milk can't be sourced without
cruelty or exploitation. It can, so why can't it be seen
as a vegan source of nourishment?

> (if
>you could synthesise milk in a lab from non animal sources, I guess that
>would be vegan, but I expect not environmentally friendly)
>
>> What if calves weren't taken and made to suffer - would
>> the milk from its mother qualify as vegan fare?
>
>This question is of little practical value

It's of enormous practical value and would have been
even more so had you not snipped out what the question
referred to.

- we deal with the system that
>DOES exist. But the answer would still be no IMO, as veganism is mainly
>about stopping exploitation. As we cannot ascertain the intentions of other
>animals, then it is hard to be in a position where we can reason that we are
>not exploiting them, that is that they are consciously consenting as equals.
>
>Chattel slaves go to work to avoid the pain of a beating, and cows to avoid
>the pain of milk excess buildup (that their calves should relieve) - in both
>cases although very different, fundamentally the situation is one of fear
>and exploitation.
>
>I submit that if they gave a cow pain killers so it didn't feel that its
>udders were full, it would not turn up at the milk parlour and "volunteer"
>its milk. This suggestion that cows "volunteer" milk is absurd - a confusion
>of similarity and equivalents. One does not "volunteer" when one is
>compelled through pain or fear of pain.
>
>John
>

"Digger" > wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 22:44:29 GMT, "John Coleman" > wrote:
>
> >"Digger" > wrote in message ...
> >> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 20:53:07 GMT, "John Coleman" > wrote:
> >> >"Digger" > wrote in message ...
> >> >> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 00:10:50 -0400, "magnulus" >wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Isn't a human an animal,
> >> >>
> >> >> We are mammals by virtue of the female of our species
> >> >> having mammary glands. (thank you, Lord)
> >> >>
> >> >> >so wouldn't human breast milk be an "animal
> >> >> >byproduct"?
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes, and therefore a non-vegan source of food.
> >> >
> >> >incorrect - you need to start with a valid definition of
> >> >veganism, then work from there
> >>
> >> Milk is an animal product and thereby non-vegan by default.
> >
> >incorrect
>
> Then you must allow all diary users to announce themselves
> as vegan.
>
> >- please start with the right defiition
> >
> >as stated befo
> >"Today, the Society remains as determined as ever to promote vegan
> >lifestyles - that is, ways of living that seek to exclude, as far as is
> >possible and practical, all forms of exploitation of animals for food,
> >clothing or any other purpose. "
> >http://www.vegansociety.com/html/about_us/
>
> And where, in any of that does it conclude milk to be
> a vegan source of nourishment?

Human breast milk doesn't involve exploitation of animals.

<..>

> They avoid animal products for other reasons apart from
> its exploitative component. "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

'Animal milk' here, would not include human breast milk.

<..>

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 00:54:35 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote in message ...
>> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 22:44:29 GMT, "John Coleman" > wrote:
>> >"Digger" > wrote in message ...
>> >> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 20:53:07 GMT, "John Coleman" > wrote:
>> >> >"Digger" > wrote in message ...
>> >> >> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 00:10:50 -0400, "magnulus" >wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Isn't a human an animal,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> We are mammals by virtue of the female of our species
>> >> >> having mammary glands. (thank you, Lord)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >so wouldn't human breast milk be an "animal
>> >> >> >byproduct"?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yes, and therefore a non-vegan source of food.
>> >> >
>> >> >incorrect - you need to start with a valid definition of
>> >> >veganism, then work from there
>> >>
>> >> Milk is an animal product and thereby non-vegan by default.
>> >
>> >incorrect
>>
>> Then you must allow all diary users to announce themselves
>> as vegan.
>>
>> >- please start with the right defiition
>> >
>> >as stated befo
>> >"Today, the Society remains as determined as ever to promote vegan
>> >lifestyles - that is, ways of living that seek to exclude, as far as is
>> >possible and practical, all forms of exploitation of animals for food,
>> >clothing or any other purpose. "
>> >http://www.vegansociety.com/html/about_us/
>>
>> And where, in any of that does it conclude milk to be
>> a vegan source of nourishment?
>
>Human breast milk doesn't involve exploitation of animals.

Nevertheless, milk is not a vegan source of nourishment.
True vegans abstain from all animal products, including
milk.

>> They avoid animal products for other reasons apart from
>> its exploitative component. "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
>
>'Animal milk' here, would not include human breast milk.

Yes, it would. Humans are animals, and animal milk is a
non-vegan food source. Vegan mothers who believe their
infants are also vegan are badly mistaken.

"Digger" > wrote in message ...
> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 00:54:35 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >"Digger" > wrote in message ...
> >> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 22:44:29 GMT, "John Coleman" > wrote:
> >> >"Digger" > wrote in message ...
<..>
> >> >> Milk is an animal product and thereby non-vegan by default.
> >> >
> >> >incorrect
> >>
> >> Then you must allow all diary users to announce themselves
> >> as vegan.
> >>
> >> >- please start with the right defiition
> >> >
> >> >as stated befo
> >> >"Today, the Society remains as determined as ever to promote vegan
> >> >lifestyles - that is, ways of living that seek to exclude, as far as is
> >> >possible and practical, all forms of exploitation of animals for food,
> >> >clothing or any other purpose. "
> >> >http://www.vegansociety.com/html/about_us/
> >>
> >> And where, in any of that does it conclude milk to be
> >> a vegan source of nourishment?
> >
> >Human breast milk doesn't involve exploitation of animals.
>
> Nevertheless, milk is not a vegan source of nourishment.
> True vegans abstain from all animal products, including
> milk.

You're not implying that a vegan parent who breastfeeds their baby
isn't a 'true vegan', but that the baby of said vegans is 'vegetarian'?

> >> They avoid animal products for other reasons apart from
> >> its exploitative component. "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
> >
> >'Animal milk' here, would not include human breast milk.
>
> Yes, it would. Humans are animals, and animal milk is a
> non-vegan food source. Vegan mothers who believe their
> infants are also vegan are badly mistaken.

I'd call a suckling baby 'vegetarian', myself. But 'veganism'
does not seek to prohibit or exclude breast milk, being as
it is, the best food for babies. It was that superficial kind of
understanding that led to the baby Swinton (sp?) case. Yes?

"Digger" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 22:44:29 GMT, "John Coleman" > wrote:
>
> >"Digger" > wrote in message
...
> >> Milk is an animal product and thereby non-vegan by default.
> >
> >incorrect
>
> Then you must allow all diary users to announce themselves
> as vegan.

why - cow milk yes, a result of exploitation, but human milk no

> And where, in any of that does it conclude milk to be
> a vegan source of nourishment?

it does not - where does it conclude that human breast milk isn't vegan?

> There is nothing in that definition that says milk an placenta
> are vegan sources of nourishment.

they are not excluded either - but the definition says it all, one simply
has to apply it

> And certainly not according to the definition you've brought
> here, either. In another thread to this you've claimed meat
> can be sourced from animals that die accidentally, and be
> regarded as vegan fare, and now you're claiming a woman's
> placenta is vegan fare as well. What other animal products
> do you regard as vegan fare and ware, John?

Any that fall outside the definition already given - do you not understand
this?

Vegans are people who seek to AVOID EXPLOITING ANIMALS. Eating roadkill
doesn't cause exploitation, so isn't prohibited in veganism.

> They avoid animal products for other reasons apart from
> its exploitative component. "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

This simply says that an exclusively plant based diet, animal free lifestyle
falls within the definitions bounds of being vegan. I agree. It doesn't say
that one must exclude animal products if they can be obtained without
exploitation.

Nor does it say breast milk isn't vegan - quite the opposite:
http://www.vegansociety.com/html/peo...astfeeding.php

> No, you haven't explained, and you haven't explained
> how meat sourced from animals involved in accidents
> is vegan fare either.

Well I did.

> It goes without saying that in some cases, milk and
> eggs can be sourced without causing any harm to the
> animal concerned at all, yet it still wouldn't be vegan
> fare.

according to what definition?

> However, as I keep trying to point out, milk can be
> sourced from dairy and feral cows without harming
> them in the least, so why isn't that milk vegan while
> human milk is?

I think exploitation could still be involved in that case, afterall you are
still _using_ the cow, and that is exploitation - you simply cannot
establish consent.

> cruelty or exploitation. It can, so why can't it be seen
> as a vegan source of nourishment?

I don't agree with your assertion of obtaining milk without exploitation. I
think exploitation is probably inherent, although there might be a little
greyness.

> It's of enormous practical value and would have been
> even more so had you not snipped out what the question
> referred to.

so expand - and start with THE definition given, not making it up yourself

John

"John Coleman" > wrote

> Vegans are people who seek to AVOID EXPLOITING ANIMALS. Eating roadkill
> doesn't cause exploitation, so isn't prohibited in veganism.

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

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

no, the reason that vegans seek to avoid exploitation is because it is cruel
and cynical, so is killing - vegans do "veganic" agriculture

John

"John Coleman" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote
>> "John Coleman" > wrote

>> So if I killed some animals to prevent them from destroying my crops,
>> there's no exploitation, so are vegans OK with that?
>
> no, the reason that vegans seek to avoid exploitation is because it is
> cruel
> and cynical, so is killing - vegans do "veganic" agriculture

I don't know any vegans who "do agriculture" at all, they shop at the same
markets I do. Judging from their actions, not your rather glib assurances, I
conclude that vegans do not have a problem with killing animals to protect
crops (i.e. paying others to do it for them).

This is where vegans nearly always let themselves down. I can understand and
respect your desire to not exploit animals, but then when pressed further
you always begin to equivocate. Why? Vegan diets are generally quite
healthy, pretty darn good for the environment, and they harm fewer animals
than the vast majority of diets. Why isn't that enough? Why do vegans have
to believe they have hit the world's most colossal moral home run?

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 18:01:37 GMT, "John Coleman" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote in message ...
>> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 22:44:29 GMT, "John Coleman" > wrote:
>> >"Digger" > wrote in message ...
>> >>
>> >> Milk is an animal product and thereby non-vegan by default.
>> >
>> >incorrect
>>
>> Then you must allow all diary users to announce themselves
>> as vegan.
>
>why - cow milk yes, a result of exploitation, but human milk no

Humans can be exploited for their milk, in theory and
in practice, so according to your definition of what
constitutes proper vegan fare, human breast milk is
disqualified so long as people claim women are being
exploited for it.

>> And where, in any of that does it conclude milk to be
>> a vegan source of nourishment?
>
>it does not

Then you cannot conclude that human milk has been
made an exception unless clearly stated.

>- where does it conclude that human breast milk isn't vegan?

Human milk is animal milk, and according to the material
below this line it should be avoided.

"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

>> There is nothing in that definition that says milk an placenta
>> are vegan sources of nourishment.
>
>they are not excluded either

They have to be if they are to be made an exception to the
rule. A man can easily sustain himself on placentas and
human milk, and according to your position on this issue
regarding vegan fare, that man would qualify as a vegan.

>- but the definition says it all, one simply
>has to apply it

That exactly what I say, so read the bit where it refers
to animal milk and meat again.

>> And certainly not according to the definition you've brought
>> here, either. In another thread to this you've claimed meat
>> can be sourced from animals that die accidentally, and be
>> regarded as vegan fare, and now you're claiming a woman's
>> placenta is vegan fare as well. What other animal products
>> do you regard as vegan fare and ware, John?
>
>Any that fall outside the definition already given - do you not understand
>this?

Then list these animal products, please.

>Vegans are people who seek to AVOID EXPLOITING ANIMALS. Eating roadkill
>doesn't cause exploitation, so isn't prohibited in veganism.

You're very very wrong on this. Meat sourced from road kill
is a non-vegan product.

>> They avoid animal products for other reasons apart from
>> its exploitative component. "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
>
>This simply says that an exclusively plant based diet, animal free lifestyle
>falls within the definitions bounds of being vegan. I agree. It doesn't say
>that one must exclude animal products if they can be obtained without
>exploitation.

Then all one need do is scavenge for meat and still be
regarded as a vegan.

>Nor does it say breast milk isn't vegan - quite the opposite:
>http://www.vegansociety.com/html/peo...astfeeding.php

Breast milk is just breast milk. It's no different to any
other mammal's milk. It's source can be exploited like
any other source, and just as easily procured without
any cruelty or exploitation. You have no rational basis
on which to exclude one while promoting the other.

>> No, you haven't explained, and you haven't explained
>> how meat sourced from animals involved in accidents
>> is vegan fare either.
>
>Well I did.

Why won't you be told that scavenged meat isn't vegan
fare when all logical evidence shows that it cannot be?
"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

>> It goes without saying that in some cases, milk and
>> eggs can be sourced without causing any harm to the
>> animal concerned at all, yet it still wouldn't be vegan
>> fare.
>
>according to what definition?

Anyone's definition, and that's always going to be your
stumbling block, because whenever the claim is made
that a animal based food was sourced without causing
it harm or exploitation, you'll always be obliged to accept
it as vegan fare. Good luck with that. Any anti worth
his salt will rip you up within three posts with that.

>> However, as I keep trying to point out, milk can be
>> sourced from dairy and feral cows without harming
>> them in the least, so why isn't that milk vegan while
>> human milk is?
>
>I think exploitation could still be involved in that case, afterall you are
>still _using_ the cow, and that is exploitation - you simply cannot
>establish consent.

A cow may have to be milked in some circumstances
to relieve her of her heavy burden. That wouldn't be
exploiting her or being cruel. Is that milk now vegan
because of that philanthropy?

>> cruelty or exploitation. It can, so why can't it be seen
>> as a vegan source of nourishment?
>
>I don't agree with your assertion of obtaining milk without exploitation.

Just as I don't agree with your assertion that meat
sourced from road kill is vegan fare.
[..]

"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.

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.

"Digger" > wrote in message
...
> You cannot say that of all feral cows. There may be instances
> where their milk can be taken from them quite easily, being such
> docile beasts by nature. Would that be vegan fare?

I might agree with you somewhat on that issue. I see these Hare Krishnas
seem to look after their cows and treat them respectfully, and I suspect do
not steal the calfve smurder them and so forth. Maybe this is "less
unvegan"? That's a moooot point, mass milk production is cruel and
exploitative.

But veganism is all such a distraction from the fundamental issues of what
we are and what we should do for our own best sakes. To which I answer in
this regard, that we are not calves and have no need of cow milk, and
probably are better off without it.

John