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 |
|
|||
|
|||
Usual dinner fare
Dutch wrote:
>>I was looking and waiting for that >>direct answer but it never turned up. > > Yes it did, in a response to me, and you replied. You said that the person > must not have much respect for him to expect him to do that. Typically, you > completely misunderstood his position. Not so much a misunderstanding as she has a muddled thought process due to her drug abuse. >>Do you have a link to that post? > > Yes, I do, it was less than two months ago. That's all the clues you're > getting That's the only clue she has, too. Otherwise, she's completely clueless. >> All >>I saw was vagueness on his part, >>that and evasiveness. > > He was very, very clear that if he thought it would cause insult to a host > to refuse that he would eat it. Exactly. |
|
|||
|
|||
Usual dinner fare
"usual suspect" > wrote in message
... > Skanky wrote: > > No, he was vague > > I was quite clear about it, dummy. Maybe you should lay off the dope a > while and see if it improves your comprehension. You were quite clear about being vague. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ |
|
|||
|
|||
Usual dinner fare
Skanky wrote:
> If he has this sort of problem with > steak, I don't see it as a problem, but I'm not surprised that you do. > I'd love to see him invited to > some sort of dinner with monkey > brains and fish eyeballs. Does boiled frog count? Had a few of those at a host's insistence. I had no problem getting (or keeping) them down. > It's all moot anyways, because I suspect > that he avoids dinners with potential > meat situations. Your suspicion is wrong, as usual. > All he's had according > to him is some fish (once) and trace > amounts of dairy that his (proven to > be imaginary) girlfriend About as imaginary as Belinda was when David ****ed her brains out in Derek's bed, you fruitcake. |
|
|||
|
|||
Usual dinner fare
Skanky wrote:
>>>No, he was vague >> >>I was quite clear about it, dummy. Maybe you should lay off the dope a >>while and see if it improves your comprehension. > > You were quite clear I know. |
|
|||
|
|||
Usual dinner fare
"usual suspect" > wrote in message
... > Skanky wrote: > >>>No, he was vague > >> > >>I was quite clear about it, dummy. Maybe you should lay off the dope a > >>while and see if it improves your comprehension. > > > > You were quite clear > > I know. Stop altering quotes moron. Are you sniffing up Rudey's ass or something? -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ |
|
|||
|
|||
Usual dinner fare
Skanky wrote:
>>>>>No, he was vague >>>> >>>>I was quite clear about it, dummy. Maybe you should lay off the dope a >>>>while and see if it improves your comprehension. >>> >>>You were quite clear >> >>I know. > > Stop No. |
|
|||
|
|||
Usual dinner fare
"usual suspect" > wrote in message
... > Skanky wrote: > >>>>>No, he was vague > >>>> > >>>>I was quite clear about it, dummy. Maybe you should lay off the dope a > >>>>while and see if it improves your comprehension. > >>> > >>>You were quite clear > >> > >>I know. > > > > Stop > > No. No, you're not going to stop snipping quotes, or no, you're not going to keep sniffing Rudey's ass? If you want any real conversation, stop sniffing, er I mean snipping. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Usual dinner fare
Skanky wrote:
>>>When he broke his vegan diet >> >>Diet is not vegan. Diet is food. Veganism is about animal rights. > > Veganism is defined as diet. Wrong. > Only the old fashioned original meaning WTF are you prating about now, Skanky? The original meaning hasn't changed. > meant that it had to go hand in hand > with the concept of animal rights. It still does. > Some people (like you) take on a > vegan diet for health and/or > aesthetic reasons. Diets aren't vegan. AR-types are. Veganism and AR go hand-in-hand. You do not have veganism without AR. > The older original meaning It still prevails. > http://www.websters-online-dictionar...finition/vegan From that page: Motivation Vegans use as their primary motivation the concept of reducing animal suffering. Rooted in utilitarian philosophy, as expressed by authors such as Jeremy Bentham and Peter Singer, ethical veganism is the belief that humans have a moral obligation to avoid causing suffering to any other living creature. Animals are seen to have the same inherent rights as humans to a life as free from suffering as possible.... There is no such thing as a "dietary vegan." A "total vegetarian" may eat a diet free of animals products for health reasons, such as avoiding cholesterol, and not out of compassion for animals. However, popular vegan author Joanne Stepaniak writes that the term "dietary vegan" is inappropriate because veganism is by definition about helping animals, and a term such as "total vegetarian" should be used for people who avoid eating animal products for health reasons but, for example, buy leather shoes. IOW, it's all about animal rights. > You are confused, No, dopey, you are. WTF do you think YOUR OWN SOURCE means when it says "There is no such thing as a 'dietary vegan'"? > On the one hand, you are (mostly) a dietary > vegan, Look more closely at your own source, you dope-smoking retard: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "DIETARY VEGAN." A "total vegetarian" may eat a diet free of animals products for health reasons, such as avoiding cholesterol, and not out of compassion for animals. However, popular vegan author Joanne Stepaniak writes that THE TERM "DIETARY VEGAN" IS INAPPROPRIATE BECAUSE VEGANISM IS BY DEFINITION ABOUT HELPING ANIMALS, and a term such as "total vegetarian" should be used for people who avoid eating animal products for health reasons but, for example, buy leather shoes. > and on the other, you hate > those who believe in animal rights. I don't hate anyone, I object to the ridiculous assertion that animals have, or should have, rights. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Usual dinner fare
Skanky wrote:
>>>>>>>No, he was vague >>>>>> >>>>>>I was quite clear about it, dummy. Maybe you should lay off the dope a >>>>>>while and see if it improves your comprehension. >>>>> >>>>>You were quite clear >>>> >>>>I know. >>> >>>Stop >> >>No. > > No Correct, I will continue excising your frivolous irrelevance from replies. Say something meaningful -- for once -- and it all stays in. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Usual dinner fare
--
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ... > Skanky wrote: > >>>>>>>No, he was vague > >>>>>> > >>>>>>I was quite clear about it, dummy. Maybe you should lay off the dope a > >>>>>>while and see if it improves your comprehension. > >>>>> > >>>>>You were quite clear > >>>> > >>>>I know. > >>> > >>>Stop > >> > >>No. > > > > No > > Correct, I will continue excising your frivolous irrelevance from > replies. Say something meaningful -- for once -- and it all stays in. Wow, you'll do anything to avoid the original conversation, eh? -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Usual dinner fare
"usual suspect" > wrote in message
... > Skanky wrote: > >>>When he broke his vegan diet > >> > >>Diet is not vegan. Diet is food. Veganism is about animal rights. > > > > Veganism is defined as diet. > > Wrong. As the MAIN DEFINITION, it's diet only. > > Only the old fashioned original meaning > > WTF are you prating about now, Skanky? The original meaning hasn't changed. You snipped what I was talking about. The fact that the main definition in that dictionary is a dietary only one. The SPECIALTY DEFINITION is the one where you are only vegan if you are an animal rights activist as well as the diet. Even though it may have been the original definition, it seems that it's become antiquated, and put into the specialty definition section. > > meant that it had to go hand in hand > > with the concept of animal rights. > > It still does. Not always. > > Some people (like you) take on a > > vegan diet for health and/or > > aesthetic reasons. > > Diets aren't vegan. AR-types are. Veganism and AR go hand-in-hand. You > do not have veganism without AR. > > > The older original meaning > > It still prevails. > > > http://www.websters-online-dictionar...finition/vegan > > From that page: Under SPECIALTY DEFINITION: > Motivation > Vegans use as their primary motivation the concept of reducing > animal suffering. Rooted in utilitarian philosophy, as expressed > by authors such as Jeremy Bentham and Peter Singer, ethical > veganism is the belief that humans have a moral obligation to > avoid causing suffering to any other living creature. Animals > are seen to have the same inherent rights as humans to a life as > free from suffering as possible.... > > There is no such thing as a "dietary vegan." A "total > vegetarian" may eat a diet free of animals products for health > reasons, such as avoiding cholesterol, and not out of compassion > for animals. However, popular vegan author Joanne Stepaniak > writes that the term "dietary vegan" is inappropriate because > veganism is by definition about helping animals, and a term such > as "total vegetarian" should be used for people who avoid eating > animal products for health reasons but, for example, buy leather > shoes. Animal rights = animal rights. Vegan = a diet of no animal products, according to the MAIN DEFINITION > IOW, it's all about animal rights. > > > You are confused, > > No, dopey, you are. WTF do you think YOUR OWN SOURCE means when it says > "There is no such thing as a 'dietary vegan'"? That's under SPECIALTY DEFINITION. > > On the one hand, you are (mostly) a dietary > > vegan, > > Look more closely at your own source, you dope-smoking retard: > THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "DIETARY VEGAN." A "total > vegetarian" may eat a diet free of animals products for health > reasons, such as avoiding cholesterol, and not out of compassion > for animals. However, popular vegan author Joanne Stepaniak > writes that THE TERM "DIETARY VEGAN" IS INAPPROPRIATE BECAUSE > VEGANISM IS BY DEFINITION ABOUT HELPING ANIMALS, and a term such > as "total vegetarian" should be used for people who avoid eating > animal products for health reasons but, for example, buy leather > shoes. You don't get it, do you. There are 2 current definitions out these days. And there's nothing wrong with that. Just accept that some people have the main def. and some the specialty def. Some ARs themselves think of the word vegan as referring to their diet. > > and on the other, you hate > > those who believe in animal rights. > > I don't hate anyone, I object to the ridiculous assertion that animals > have, or should have, rights. So, you don't think that there any improvements needed in regards to how our (humans) actions effect them? -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Usual dinner fare
Skanky wrote:
>>>>>When he broke his vegan diet >>>> >>>>Diet is not vegan. Diet is food. Veganism is about animal rights. >>> >>>Veganism is defined as diet. >> >>Wrong. > > As the MAIN DEFINITION Wrong. That's not the "main definition," dummy. You're focused solely on the least-common denominator definition rather than the full-blown definition. The full definition points out what makes veganism what it is and distinguishes it from vegetarianism: animal rights. Your focus on the most simplistic BS definition rather than the big picture fails to make the distinction between vegan and vegetarian. Look at your source's definition of vegetarian: Eater of fruits and grains and nuts; someone who eats no meat or fish or (often) any animal products. How is that qualitatively distinct from its definition of vegan? Read the full definitions and you see that one (vegetarian) is primarily related to diet while the other (vegan) primarily pertains to animal rights. They're not synonyms, they're not interchangeable terms. >>>Only the old fashioned original meaning >> >>WTF are you prating about now, Skanky? The original meaning hasn't >>changed. > > You snipped what I was talking about. I only snipped your irrelevant and pathetic attempts at sophistry. The definition isn't as you present it. > The fact that the main definition in that > dictionary is a dietary only one. Bullshit. That is NOT the main definition. > Even though it may have > been the original definition, it seems > that it's become antiquated, Wrong. Read it again and compare to VEGETARIAN from the same dictionary, dipshit. http://www.websters-online-dictionar...ion/vegetarian >>>meant that it had to go hand in hand >>>with the concept of animal rights. >> >>It still does. > > Not always. Always. >>>On the one hand, you are (mostly) a dietary >>>vegan, >> >>Look more closely at your own source, you dope-smoking retard: >>THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "DIETARY VEGAN." A "total >>vegetarian" may eat a diet free of animals products for health >>reasons, such as avoiding cholesterol, and not out of compassion >>for animals. However, popular vegan author Joanne Stepaniak >>writes that THE TERM "DIETARY VEGAN" IS INAPPROPRIATE BECAUSE >>VEGANISM IS BY DEFINITION ABOUT HELPING ANIMALS, and a term such >>as "total vegetarian" should be used for people who avoid eating >>animal products for health reasons but, for example, buy leather >>shoes. > > You don't get it, I do, you don't. > There are 2 current definitions out these days. No, there's one. You're confusing the definition of vegetarian for vegan -- see your own source, dumb ass. It says: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "DIETARY VEGAN...." THE TERM "DIETARY VEGAN" IS INAPPROPRIATE BECAUSE VEGANISM IS BY DEFINITION ABOUT HELPING ANIMALS. What then is one who avoids animal products for health reasons? A "total vegetarian" may eat a diet free of animals products for health reasons, such as avoiding cholesterol, and not out of compassion for animals. Again, compare the two definitions -- vegetarian, vegan -- from the source you chose. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Usual dinner fare
"usual suspect" > wrote in message
... > Skanky wrote: > >>>>>When he broke his vegan diet > >>>> > >>>>Diet is not vegan. Diet is food. Veganism is about animal rights. > >>> > >>>Veganism is defined as diet. > >> > >>Wrong. > > > > As the MAIN DEFINITION > > Wrong. That's not the "main definition," dummy. You're focused solely on > the least-common denominator definition rather than the full-blown > definition. The full definition points out what makes veganism what it > is and distinguishes it from vegetarianism: animal rights. Your focus on > the most simplistic BS definition rather than the big picture fails to > make the distinction between vegan and vegetarian. Look at your source's > definition of vegetarian: > Eater of fruits and grains and nuts; someone who eats no meat or > fish or (often) any animal products. > > How is that qualitatively distinct from its definition of vegan? Read > the full definitions and you see that one (vegetarian) is primarily > related to diet while the other (vegan) primarily pertains to animal > rights. They're not synonyms, they're not interchangeable terms. Vegans are always vegetarians, but vegetarians are not always vegans. > >>>Only the old fashioned original meaning > >> > >>WTF are you prating about now, Skanky? The original meaning hasn't > >>changed. > > > > You snipped what I was talking about. > > I only snipped your irrelevant and pathetic attempts at sophistry. The > definition isn't as you present it. > > > The fact that the main definition in that > > dictionary is a dietary only one. > > Bullshit. That is NOT the main definition. It's the main definition right near the top of the page. Specialty is below. > > Even though it may have > > been the original definition, it seems > > that it's become antiquated, > > Wrong. Read it again and compare to VEGETARIAN from the same dictionary, > dipshit. > > http://www.websters-online-dictionar...ion/vegetarian Vegans are always vegetarians, but vegetarians are not always vegans. > >>>meant that it had to go hand in hand > >>>with the concept of animal rights. > >> > >>It still does. > > > > Not always. > > Always. Vegans are always vegetarians, but vegetarians are not always vegans. > >>>On the one hand, you are (mostly) a dietary > >>>vegan, > >> > >>Look more closely at your own source, you dope-smoking retard: > >>THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "DIETARY VEGAN." A "total > >>vegetarian" may eat a diet free of animals products for health > >>reasons, such as avoiding cholesterol, and not out of compassion > >>for animals. However, popular vegan author Joanne Stepaniak > >>writes that THE TERM "DIETARY VEGAN" IS INAPPROPRIATE BECAUSE > >>VEGANISM IS BY DEFINITION ABOUT HELPING ANIMALS, and a term such > >>as "total vegetarian" should be used for people who avoid eating > >>animal products for health reasons but, for example, buy leather > >>shoes. > > > > You don't get it, > > I do, you don't. > > > There are 2 current definitions out these days. > > No, there's one. You're confusing the definition of vegetarian for vegan > -- see your own source, dumb ass. It says: > THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "DIETARY VEGAN...." THE TERM > "DIETARY VEGAN" IS INAPPROPRIATE BECAUSE VEGANISM IS BY > DEFINITION ABOUT HELPING ANIMALS. You're again referring to the SPECIALTY definition. > What then is one who avoids animal products for health reasons? > A "total vegetarian" may eat a diet free of animals products for > health reasons, such as avoiding cholesterol, and not out of > compassion for animals. > > Again, compare the two definitions -- vegetarian, vegan -- from the > source you chose. Vegans are always vegetarians, but vegetarians are not always vegans. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Usual dinner fare
Skanky wrote:
>>>>>>>When he broke his vegan diet >>>>>> >>>>>>Diet is not vegan. Diet is food. Veganism is about animal rights. >>>>> >>>>>Veganism is defined as diet. >>>> >>>>Wrong. >>> >>>As the MAIN DEFINITION >> >>Wrong. That's not the "main definition," dummy. You're focused solely on >>the least-common denominator definition rather than the full-blown >>definition. The full definition points out what makes veganism what it >>is and distinguishes it from vegetarianism: animal rights. Your focus on >>the most simplistic BS definition rather than the big picture fails to >>make the distinction between vegan and vegetarian. Look at your source's >>definition of vegetarian: >>Eater of fruits and grains and nuts; someone who eats no meat or >>fish or (often) any animal products. >> >>How is that qualitatively distinct from its definition of vegan? Answer the question, dummy. >>Read >>the full definitions and you see that one (vegetarian) is primarily >>related to diet while the other (vegan) primarily pertains to animal >>rights. They're not synonyms, they're not interchangeable terms. > > Vegans are always vegetarians, Vegans are AR-based vegetarians. That's all. > but vegetarians are not always vegans. Because vegetarians can be anti-AR or neutral on the issue. Vegans are pro-AR. >>>>>Only the old fashioned original meaning >>>> >>>>WTF are you prating about now, Skanky? The original meaning hasn't >>>>changed. >>> >>>You snipped what I was talking about. >> >>I only snipped your irrelevant and pathetic attempts at sophistry. The >>definition isn't as you present it. >> >> >>>The fact that the main definition in that >>>dictionary is a dietary only one. >> >>Bullshit. That is NOT the main definition. > > It's the main definition No, it isn't. >>>Even though it may have >>>been the original definition, it seems >>>that it's become antiquated, >> >>Wrong. Read it again and compare to VEGETARIAN from the same dictionary, >>dipshit. >> >>http://www.websters-online-dictionar...ion/vegetarian > > > Vegans are always vegetarians, Vegans are AR-based vegetarians. That's all. > but vegetarians are not always vegans. Because vegetarians can be anti-AR or neutral on the issue. Vegans are pro-AR. >>>>>meant that it had to go hand in hand >>>>>with the concept of animal rights. >>>> >>>>It still does. >>> >>>Not always. >> >>Always. > > Vegans are always vegetarians, Vegans are AR-based vegetarians. That's all. > but vegetarians are not always vegans. Because vegetarians can be anti-AR or neutral on the issue. Vegans are pro-AR. >>>>>On the one hand, you are (mostly) a dietary >>>>>vegan, >>>> >>>>Look more closely at your own source, you dope-smoking retard: >>>>THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "DIETARY VEGAN." A "total >>>>vegetarian" may eat a diet free of animals products for health >>>>reasons, such as avoiding cholesterol, and not out of compassion >>>>for animals. However, popular vegan author Joanne Stepaniak >>>>writes that THE TERM "DIETARY VEGAN" IS INAPPROPRIATE BECAUSE >>>>VEGANISM IS BY DEFINITION ABOUT HELPING ANIMALS, and a term such >>>>as "total vegetarian" should be used for people who avoid eating >>>>animal products for health reasons but, for example, buy leather >>>>shoes. >>> >>>You don't get it, >> >>I do, you don't. Established. >>>There are 2 current definitions out these days. >> >>No, there's one. You're confusing the definition of vegetarian for vegan >>-- see your own source, dumb ass. It says: >>THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "DIETARY VEGAN...." THE TERM >>"DIETARY VEGAN" IS INAPPROPRIATE BECAUSE VEGANISM IS BY >>DEFINITION ABOUT HELPING ANIMALS. > > You're again referring ....to the full and precise definition, which dispels your semantical error. The two words are not interchangeable, though you're using a definition which makes them at least appear interchangeable. Vegan is AR-based. Vegetarian isn't. >>What then is one who avoids animal products for health reasons? >>A "total vegetarian" may eat a diet free of animals products for >>health reasons, such as avoiding cholesterol, and not out of >>compassion for animals. >> >>Again, compare the two definitions -- vegetarian, vegan -- from the >>source you chose. > > Vegans are always vegetarians, Vegans are AR-based vegetarians. That's all. > but vegetarians are not always vegans. Because vegetarians can be anti-AR or neutral on the issue. Vegans are pro-AR. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Usual dinner fare
Oh stop your whiny repetitive
babbling. Go support your troops or something. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ "usual suspect" > wrote in message ... > Skanky wrote: > >>>>>>>When he broke his vegan diet > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Diet is not vegan. Diet is food. Veganism is about animal rights. > >>>>> > >>>>>Veganism is defined as diet. > >>>> > >>>>Wrong. > >>> > >>>As the MAIN DEFINITION > >> > >>Wrong. That's not the "main definition," dummy. You're focused solely on > >>the least-common denominator definition rather than the full-blown > >>definition. The full definition points out what makes veganism what it > >>is and distinguishes it from vegetarianism: animal rights. Your focus on > >>the most simplistic BS definition rather than the big picture fails to > >>make the distinction between vegan and vegetarian. Look at your source's > >>definition of vegetarian: > >>Eater of fruits and grains and nuts; someone who eats no meat or > >>fish or (often) any animal products. > >> > >>How is that qualitatively distinct from its definition of vegan? > > Answer the question, dummy. > > >>Read > >>the full definitions and you see that one (vegetarian) is primarily > >>related to diet while the other (vegan) primarily pertains to animal > >>rights. They're not synonyms, they're not interchangeable terms. > > > > Vegans are always vegetarians, > > Vegans are AR-based vegetarians. That's all. > > > but vegetarians are not always vegans. > > Because vegetarians can be anti-AR or neutral on the issue. Vegans are > pro-AR. > > >>>>>Only the old fashioned original meaning > >>>> > >>>>WTF are you prating about now, Skanky? The original meaning hasn't > >>>>changed. > >>> > >>>You snipped what I was talking about. > >> > >>I only snipped your irrelevant and pathetic attempts at sophistry. The > >>definition isn't as you present it. > >> > >> > >>>The fact that the main definition in that > >>>dictionary is a dietary only one. > >> > >>Bullshit. That is NOT the main definition. > > > > It's the main definition > > No, it isn't. > > >>>Even though it may have > >>>been the original definition, it seems > >>>that it's become antiquated, > >> > >>Wrong. Read it again and compare to VEGETARIAN from the same dictionary, > >>dipshit. > >> > >>http://www.websters-online-dictionar...ion/vegetarian > > > > > > Vegans are always vegetarians, > > Vegans are AR-based vegetarians. That's all. > > > but vegetarians are not always vegans. > > Because vegetarians can be anti-AR or neutral on the issue. Vegans are > pro-AR. > > >>>>>meant that it had to go hand in hand > >>>>>with the concept of animal rights. > >>>> > >>>>It still does. > >>> > >>>Not always. > >> > >>Always. > > > > Vegans are always vegetarians, > > Vegans are AR-based vegetarians. That's all. > > > but vegetarians are not always vegans. > > Because vegetarians can be anti-AR or neutral on the issue. Vegans are > pro-AR. > > >>>>>On the one hand, you are (mostly) a dietary > >>>>>vegan, > >>>> > >>>>Look more closely at your own source, you dope-smoking retard: > >>>>THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "DIETARY VEGAN." A "total > >>>>vegetarian" may eat a diet free of animals products for health > >>>>reasons, such as avoiding cholesterol, and not out of compassion > >>>>for animals. However, popular vegan author Joanne Stepaniak > >>>>writes that THE TERM "DIETARY VEGAN" IS INAPPROPRIATE BECAUSE > >>>>VEGANISM IS BY DEFINITION ABOUT HELPING ANIMALS, and a term such > >>>>as "total vegetarian" should be used for people who avoid eating > >>>>animal products for health reasons but, for example, buy leather > >>>>shoes. > >>> > >>>You don't get it, > >> > >>I do, you don't. > > Established. > > >>>There are 2 current definitions out these days. > >> > >>No, there's one. You're confusing the definition of vegetarian for vegan > >>-- see your own source, dumb ass. It says: > >>THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "DIETARY VEGAN...." THE TERM > >>"DIETARY VEGAN" IS INAPPROPRIATE BECAUSE VEGANISM IS BY > >>DEFINITION ABOUT HELPING ANIMALS. > > > > You're again referring > > ...to the full and precise definition, which dispels your semantical > error. The two words are not interchangeable, though you're using a > definition which makes them at least appear interchangeable. Vegan is > AR-based. Vegetarian isn't. > > >>What then is one who avoids animal products for health reasons? > >>A "total vegetarian" may eat a diet free of animals products for > >>health reasons, such as avoiding cholesterol, and not out of > >>compassion for animals. > >> > >>Again, compare the two definitions -- vegetarian, vegan -- from the > >>source you chose. > > > > Vegans are always vegetarians, > > Vegans are AR-based vegetarians. That's all. > > > but vegetarians are not always vegans. > > Because vegetarians can be anti-AR or neutral on the issue. Vegans are > pro-AR. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Usual dinner fare
Skanky wrote:
> Oh stop No. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Tonight's Dinner Fare & Christmas Meals | General Cooking | |||
Fair Fare | Preserving | |||
Dinner Party Fare | General Cooking |