> So, in other words, the definition of vegans as "people who do not
consume
> animal products" is false.

that assertion is right - vegans seek to avoid doing things that inherently
exploit, or cause suffereing to other beings (it is an
anti-slavery/suffering sentiment)

> And again, what is animal exploitation? Is eating a dead cow (ie, a cow
> that I did not necessarily kill) vegan?

if you found a dead animal that had died by accident, it would not be
unvegan to eat it, although you might be taking food away from predators -
in reality this is not a useful consideration, because the reality of animal
consumption is mass exploitation and a lot of suffering (a vegan campaign to
protest against picking up roadkills to eat is pointless because that
doesn't really happen! - but if it did, I would be more convinced that
humans are natural meat eaters)

> How about I find an abandoned egg on the ground and I decide to eat it, is
> that vegan? Some tribes in South Asia, after the tribe member died, they
> ate the body... doesn't sound "exploitative" to me, but it would hardly
fit
> the bill as being vegetarian faire, right?

cannibalism of someone who died naturally isn't exploitative - however, a
good few vegans find that once they drop meat from the diet they lose
interest or are even repulsed by it (I was repulsed by meat in my childhood
anyway, same as for drinking beer or coffee, and smoking.)

> Rice growing could, theoretically, involve the deaths of animals. So
> could growing wheat for that matter.

True. As I said it is about _intentional_ exploitation. Some mainly insect
collateral damage doesn't seem to count. Just about every food system will
cause insect deaths. Free roaming cattle probably eat and trample a lot of
insects to. No dig permaculture and careful agroforestry can avoid a lot of
insect death also.

> Vegetarian is easy to define- it's somebody that doesn't eat animal
flesh.
> Vegan is alot harder to define, it would seem.

a useful definition may be found here
http://www.vegansociety.com/html/about_us/ at the original home of veganism

"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. "

John

"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

> 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.

> One could argue that cows give up their milk voluntarily,

Cows are domesticated imbreeds with little of their original instincts
left - wild bovids do not welcome humans to come and steal their milk. I
doubt cows really volunteer their milk either, other than perhaps to relieve
the burden. However, since the calves that are taken are caused to suffer by
this and the mother cow, then that is unacceptable to a vegan.

John

"John Coleman" > wrote
> "Digger" > wrote

>> >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

This would have been a good place to offer one.

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?

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 20:45:58 GMT, "John Coleman" > wrote:

>> So, in other words, the definition of vegans as "people
>> who do not consume animal products" is false.
>
>that assertion is right

Meaning, in truth vegans can eat meat?

>- vegans seek to avoid doing things that inherently
>exploit, or cause suffereing to other beings (it is an
>anti-slavery/suffering sentiment)

You're watering it down to allow meat eaters and dairy
users to include themselves among vegans, as long as
they can prove the source of their nourishment wasn't
cruelly exploited.

>> And again, what is animal exploitation? Is eating a dead cow (ie, a cow
>> that I did not necessarily kill) vegan?
>
>if you found a dead animal that had died by accident, it would not be
>unvegan to eat it,

Road kill is not vegan fare. You're very wrong on this point.

> although you might be taking food away from predators -

Irrelevant.
[..]

"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

"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

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.

If vegans just said "vegans do not consume most animal products", then
that would be true, as would the statement "vegans do not consume the
products of nonhuman animals". But to say that vegans do not consume animal
products is false. Breast milk, donated organs, blood... and yes, even
semen, are all "animal products". And even with the revised definition,
it leaves open the possibility that Hannibal Lecter and Jeffery Dahmer could
be perfectly happy vegans ("people... the other white meat").

Vegetarian is an easy definition- it's a person who doesn't eat animal
flesh.

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 06:14:48 -0400, "magnulus" > wrote:

> If vegans just said "vegans do not consume most animal products", then
>that would be true, as would the statement "vegans do not consume the
>products of nonhuman animals". But to say that vegans do not consume animal
>products is false. Breast milk, donated organs, blood... and yes, even
>semen, are all "animal products". And even with the revised definition,
>it leaves open the possibility that Hannibal Lecter and Jeffery Dahmer could
>be perfectly happy vegans ("people... the other white meat").

The focus is on diet and what qualifies as a vegan source
of nourishment. Exchanges of body fluids during sex and
tissue transplants are not sources of nourishment and
therefore fall outside the range of this issue concerning the
vegan diet. Human milk and placentas, on the other hand,
are animal products which are eaten to gain nourishment.
These, then, remain inside the range of this issue concerning
the vegan diet, but outside the range of foods which qualify
as vegan fare.

For example, if I were to advertise in my local newspaper
for women like Susan Schulze to sell me their expressed
human milk, it wouldn't be accurate to describe myself as
a vegan.

[Susan Schulze, 31, has not only fed her daughter Sophie
for seven months but has also provided 50 gallons of milk
for other babies. The paper said she had set a fine example
as "a woman with tremendous heart and much to give".

It can be a lucrative business for the producers, who get
paid about £2.30 a pint. Some continue providing milk after
their babies have been weaned.]
http://tinyurl.com/9g10

If one extreme case can express 50 gallons of milk on top
of what she feeds her own daughter for £2.30 a pint, then
less extreme cases could easily produce half that and help
provide enough to permanently nourish several adults.


> Vegetarian is an easy definition- it's a person who doesn't eat animal
>flesh.
>

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 11:22:37 GMT, The Ghost of Pete Charest <pc@burning@hell> wrote:

>On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 20:45:58 GMT, "John Coleman" >
>wrote the following in alt.food.vegan:
>
>{snip}
>
>>if you found a dead animal that had died by accident, it would not be
>>unvegan to eat it, although you might be taking food away from predators -
>>in reality this is not a useful consideration, because the reality of animal
>>consumption is mass exploitation and a lot of suffering (a vegan campaign to
>>protest against picking up roadkills to eat is pointless because that
>>doesn't really happen! - but if it did, I would be more convinced that
>>humans are natural meat eaters)
>
>What makes you think that humans are not natural meat eaters?

"We now know that man inhabited warm areas, allowing the
favourable conditions for a fruit regimen, which according to
the Anatomic laws, is his natural diet." Charles Darwin .
http://tinyurl.com/cxzl

Let the advocate of animal food, force himself to a decisive
experiment on its fitness, and as Plutarch recommends, tear
a living lamb with his teeth, and plunging his head into its vitals,
slake his thirst with the steaming blood; when fresh from the
deed of horror let him revert to the irresistible instincts of nature
that would rise in judgment against it, and say, Nature formed
me for such work as this. Then, and then only, would he be
consistent. Man resembles no carnivorous animal.
Percy Bysshe Shelley (1792-1822)

"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
news

> If the vegan society want to pretend that human milk is
> a valid source of nourishment for vegans to consume,
> then they have no rational basis for excluding the milk
> sourced from other animals.

No. Veganism is a lifestyle that avoids the exploitation of animals.
The case in which human mothers breastfeed their children is not
exploitation. The case in which human mothers feed their children
dairy milk is exploitation. You can't just blanket define anyone who
comsumes milk as non-vegan without considering the exploitation
issues. Agree with it or not, there's your rational basis.

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 11:22:55 -0400, "C. James Strutz" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote in message news >
>> If the vegan society want to pretend that human milk is
>> a valid source of nourishment for vegans to consume,
>> then they have no rational basis for excluding the milk
>> sourced from other animals.
>
>No. Veganism is a lifestyle that avoids the exploitation of animals.
>The case in which human mothers breastfeed their children is not
>exploitation.

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

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

If exploitation is the sole reason for defining a food as
non-vegan, then what argument have you against those
who declare milk sourced from unexploited animals as
vegan fare? Also, it is on record that women can receive
£2.30 for each pint they express. What if some third-
World country were to take advantage of that market
and hold women in milk parlours to extract their milk
for a small wage; would that be vegan fare?

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

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

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

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

And it fails.

"Digger" > wrote in message
...
> Road kill is not vegan fare. You're very wrong on this point.

So where is your definition of vegan from? I got mine from the Vegan Society
in England, the original home of veganism.

Here it is again

"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. "

If you can tell me how eating some roadkill is animal exploitation, I would
be interested to know.

I already rejected the dairy argument as cows are pretty clearly exploited.

>
> > although you might be taking food away from predators -
>
> Irrelevant.

not to predators

John

"The Ghost of Pete Charest" <pc@burning@hell> wrote in message
news.com...
> What makes you think that humans are not natural meat eaters?

our anatomy and biochemistry is that of a fruigivorous plant eating
species - there are no meat eating adaptations

See McDougalls Newsletter which as a nice explanation. I posted a link on a
prior thread.

John

"Digger" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 11:22:55 -0400, "C. James Strutz"
> wrote:
> >"Digger" > wrote in message
news
> >
> >> If the vegan society want to pretend that human milk is
> >> a valid source of nourishment for vegans to consume,
> >> then they have no rational basis for excluding the milk
> >> sourced from other animals.
> >
> >No. Veganism is a lifestyle that avoids the exploitation of
animals.
> >The case in which human mothers breastfeed their children is not
> >exploitation.
>
> Relieving a cow of her milk is not inherently cruel or
> exploitative,

You must not know much about the process of producing milk. Before you
reply, do us all and yourself a favor and research milk production and
dairy farming. Look into artificial insemination, grain-feeding and
antibiotics, living conditions, what they do with new born calves, and
what they do to dairy cows who stop producing. Then check your
dictionary for "cruel" and "exploit" and think about how they might
apply to dairy farming and milk production. You will see that it is
anything but "relief" for cows.

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

You're concluding from flawed logic.

> >The case in which human mothers feed their children
> >dairy milk is exploitation.
>
> If exploitation is the sole reason for defining a food as
> non-vegan, then what argument have you against those
> who declare milk sourced from unexploited animals as
> vegan fare?

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

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

It's exploitation.

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

No.

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

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

> >You can't just blanket define anyone who
> >comsumes milk as non-vegan without considering the exploitation
> >issues.
>
> Then you cannot exclude any diary product from the
> list of vegan foods so long as it was produced without
> cruelty and in a non-exploitative way.

I ask again, how do you get milk from a cow without exploiting her?
While I'm at it, I'll ask you what you think the difference is between
making love and prostition. I wonder if you can draw any
similarities...

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

Only if you conclude from faulty information and logic.

"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?

"The Ghost of Pete Charest" <pc@burning@hell> wrote in message
news.com...
>
> That must explain why our ancestors have been eating meat for at least
> 2.5 million years,

logical fallacy - argumentum ad antiquitatem

> and why chimpanzees and bonobos eat meat when
> available.

It is acknowledged that chimps do not need to eat meat, chimps are very
susceptable to atherosclerosis, and it is found in wild chimps. Even rabbits
will eat rabbit meat. I don't doubt that meat is nutritious and useful to
many wild living species, but that is not a reason for us to eat it.

> You might want to read this as well.
>
> http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/...-anat-1a.shtml

why? I am into real science, Billings has no scientific credentials or
ability, he is a spin doctor

John

"Digger" > wrote in message
news
> No, I'm not implying anything like that. The mother, if vegan
> remains a vegan by virtue of her diet and lifestyle. The baby,
> however, cannot be said to be a vegan or even a vegetarian
> while it gains nourishment from animal derived products such
> as human breast milk.

Pure rubbish - the milk is given voluntarily, not through "exploitation".

Digger, accept that your version of "veganism" is your own, and not the
original version.

John

"Digger" > wrote

> >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'?
>
> No, I'm not implying anything like that. The mother, if vegan
> remains a vegan by virtue of her diet and lifestyle. The baby,
> however, cannot be said to be a vegan or even a vegetarian
> while it gains nourishment from animal derived products such
> as human breast milk.

What do you mean not vegetarian? A vegetarian doesn't eat the meat of
animals? If the baby doesn't eat the meat of animals, then it is vegetarian.

> >I'd call a suckling baby 'vegetarian', myself.
>
> I wouldn't, for the simple fact that it doesn't feed exclusively
> on vegetables. It's a suckling baby without any labels or
> stigma attached to its diet.

What have vegetables got to do with it? You could be a vegetarian without
eating vegetables. Do you have even the slightest idea as to what a
vegetarian is? Of course the baby is vegetarian. It only stops being
vegetarian when you make it meat.

Richard

"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

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 13:52:34 -0400, "C. James Strutz" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote in message ...
>> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 11:22:55 -0400, "C. James > wrote:
>> >"Digger" > wrote in messagenewspcqm0dkbv0dhqn3727dp6i1jp1fa76fq0@4ax .com...
>> >
>> >> If the vegan society want to pretend that human milk is
>> >> a valid source of nourishment for vegans to consume,
>> >> then they have no rational basis for excluding the milk
>> >> sourced from other animals.
>> >
>> >No. Veganism is a lifestyle that avoids the exploitation of
>> >animals. The case in which human mothers breastfeed
>> >their children is not exploitation.
>>
>> Relieving a cow of her milk is not inherently cruel or
>> exploitative,
>
>You must not know much about the process of producing milk. Before you
>reply, do us all and yourself a favor and research milk production and
>dairy farming.

I've been on these groups for years and understand all
the bad practices that go on in the diary industry, but,
nevertheless, in spite of this inherent cruelty involved
in the industry, relieving a cow of its milk is not inherently
cruel or exploitative. That being so, according to your
criteria which qualifies a foodstuff as valid vegan fare
so long as nothing has been exploited, you have no rational
basis on which to disqualify cows milk sourced from cows
that can be shown not to have suffered or been exploited.
Such a source for milk is possible, both in theory and in
practice, so now tell me why that milk is disqualified as
a valid vegan food item.

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

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

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

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

>> >The case in which human mothers feed their children
>> >dairy milk is exploitation.
>>
>> If exploitation is the sole reason for defining a food as
>> non-vegan, then what argument have you against those
>> who declare milk sourced from unexploited animals as
>> vegan fare?
>
>And just how do you get milk from a cow without exploiting her?

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

>> Also, it is on record that women can receive
>> £2.30 for each pint they express.
>
>It's exploitation.

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

>> What if some third-
>> World country were to take advantage of that market
>> and hold women in milk parlours to extract their milk
>> for a small wage; would that be vegan fare?
>
>No.

Thank you.

>> As you can see, exploitation is not the sole issue that
>> qualifies or disqualifies a food as vegan fare. Eggs,
>> for example, can be found on the ground, yet they
>> still don't qualify as a vegan foodstuff either, so your
>> basis for qualifying vegan foods on exploitation has
>> no grounds.
>
>Eggs are a form of life whether you find them on the ground or take
>them from a production farm. It's exploitation.

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

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

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

>> Then you cannot exclude any diary product from the
>> list of vegan foods so long as it was produced without
>> cruelty and in a non-exploitative way.
>
>I ask again, how do you get milk from a cow without exploiting her?

In theory and in practice, a cow can be relieved of
its milk without exploiting it. That being so, according
to your criteria of what constitutes vegan fare, milk
from such an animal would qualify.

>While I'm at it, I'll ask you what you think the difference is between
>making love and prostition.

Another day - yeah?

>I wonder if you can draw any
>similarities...
>
>> >Agree with it or not, there's your rational basis.
>>
>> And it fails.
>
>Only if you conclude from faulty information and logic.

If I'm wrong in saying your criteria for excluding certain
foods as valid vegan fare is based solely on exploitation,
what else would it be based on, and how will you then
be able to include human milk onto that list?

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 19:24:45 GMT, "John Coleman" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote in message news
>>
>> No, I'm not implying anything like that. The mother, if vegan
>> remains a vegan by virtue of her diet and lifestyle. The baby,
>> however, cannot be said to be a vegan or even a vegetarian
>> while it gains nourishment from animal derived products such
>> as human breast milk.
>
>Pure rubbish - the milk is given voluntarily, not through "exploitation".

Cows milk can be given up quite voluntarily without any
exploitation involved at all. In fact you may even be relieving
her of a huge excess of it and helping her. If you disqualify
foods as vegan fare on the basis of exploitation rather than it
being an animal product, you then have no rational basis on
which to disqualify milk sourced from a well treated an
content cow.

>Digger, accept that your version of "veganism" is your own, and not the
>original version.

The original version says nothing of human breast milk. In
fact it makes it quite plain that all animal milk must 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

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 20:31:44 +0100, "Richard" > wrote:

>"Digger" > wrote
>
>> >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'?
>>
>> No, I'm not implying anything like that. The mother, if vegan
>> remains a vegan by virtue of her diet and lifestyle. The baby,
>> however, cannot be said to be a vegan or even a vegetarian
>> while it gains nourishment from animal derived products such
>> as human breast milk.
>
>What do you mean not vegetarian? A vegetarian doesn't eat the meat of
>animals? If the baby doesn't eat the meat of animals, then it is vegetarian.

Does that logic apply to suckling lion cubs as well?

>> >I'd call a suckling baby 'vegetarian', myself.

Pearl - is a suckling lion cub a vegetarian?

>> I wouldn't, for the simple fact that it doesn't feed exclusively
>> on vegetables. It's a suckling baby without any labels or
>> stigma attached to its diet.
>
>What have vegetables got to do with it?

Quite a bit, actually.

>You could be a vegetarian without
>eating vegetables.

No, you couldn't.

>Do you have even the slightest idea as to what a
>vegetarian is?

Some.

>Of course the baby is vegetarian.

No, it is not.

>It only stops being
>vegetarian when you make it meat.

It was never a vegetarian or a vegan to begin with,
and no, I wouldn't make a baby eat meat.

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.
[..]

"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?

"The Ghost of Pete Charest" <pc@burning@hell> wrote in message
news.com...
> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 19:37:06 GMT, "John Coleman" >
> wrote the following in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian:
>
> >
> >"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
>
> So "veganic" agriculture doesn't result in the death of any animals?

Just walking around doing nothing much results in the death of some tiny
animals. Veganic agriculture is agriculture free of animal products,
pesticides etc. See
http://www.veg-soc.org/html/articles...riculture.html - (Digger will
like this one as it has a definition like his definition of Veganism in it)

you raise that old false dilema fallacy again - read the definition, esp. my
emphasis added

"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."

If you or anyone else do not understand this simple English, please explain
how and why not! We simply try to avoid causing animal suffering and
exploitation where practical. We are perfectly well aware that it is
impossible to avoid killing animals altogether, even as you roll over in bed
you kill mites.

Even if I were to drop down dead now, I dare say I would crush many
invertibrates - but that does not make dropping dead unvegan either.

John

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 17:36:16 GMT, "John Coleman" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote in message ...
>>
>> Road kill is not vegan fare. You're very wrong on this point.
>
>So where is your definition of vegan from?

[The definition of "veganism," which is accepted
as the decisive standard worldwide, is as follows:

Veganism is a way of living which excludes all
forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal
kingdom, and includes a reverence for life. 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.

In its Articles of Association, the legal documents of
the Society, a slightly different version is presented:

Veganism denotes a philosophy and way of living
which seeks to exclude - as far as is possible and
practical - all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to,
animals for food, clothing, or any other purpose; and
by extension, promotes the development and use of
animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans,
animals, and the environment.

Both interpretations begin by stating that veganism is
a "way of life," and "a philosophy." Neither emphasizes
diet over other aspects of compassionate living, because
in vegan practice no one area is more significant than
another;

**all are expected to be implemented simultaneously.**

In the second version, a disclaimer about practicality
has been inserted, revealing that the founders
acknowledged the impossibility of totally divesting
oneself of all animal products and derivatives in the
modern world. This phrase is also critical because
it helps practitioners understand that veganism is not
about personal perfection or "purity," but rather the
avoidance and elimination of exploitation of and cruelty
to animals. The first rendition mentions "reverence for
life," with no hierarchy of value given to the life to which
it is referring. Therefore, the statement is inclusive,
asserting that all life forms are equally deserving of
reverence.

**It also delineates the specific foods that are to be avoided,**

and both definitions encourage the use and development
of alternatives to animal commodities.] **my edit**
http://www.vegsource.com/jo/essays/namegame.htm

As you can see, meat is definitely OFF the menu.
Even your road kill.

>I got mine from the Vegan Society
>in England, the original home of veganism.
>
>Here it is again
>
>"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. "
>
>If you can tell me how eating some roadkill is animal exploitation, I would
>be interested to know.

You've missed out a huge swathe from the beginning
which covers meat quite clearly.

"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."

Road kill is meat and therefore not a vegan food, by
that definition and anyone else's definition who knows
anything about veganism.

>I already rejected the dairy argument as cows are pretty clearly exploited.

I agree that cows are terribly exploited in the dairy
industry and want it shut down, but I'm not ready to
agree that milk cannot be sourced quite ethically
without any cruelty or exploitation involved. That
being so, according to your rule such milk qualifies
as vegan fare so long as it can be proved as described.

>> > although you might be taking food away from predators -
>>
>> Irrelevant.
>
>not to predators
>
>John
>

"John Coleman" > wrote

> "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."
>
> If you or anyone else do not understand this simple English, please
> explain
> how and why not! We simply try to avoid causing animal suffering and
> exploitation where practical.

Fine, then a person who hunts and fishes instead of importing commercially
farmed produce, and thus reduces the overall impact of his diet, is a vegan?

Do what you think and say what you feel because
those who mind don't matter, and those who matter
don't mind.~Richard Bach~

"John Coleman" > wrote in message
news
>
> "The Ghost of Pete Charest" <pc@burning@hell> wrote in message
> news.com...
> > On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 19:37:06 GMT, "John Coleman" >
> > wrote the following in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian:
> >
> > >
> > >"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
> >
> > So "veganic" agriculture doesn't result in the death of any animals?
>
> Just walking around doing nothing much results in the death of some tiny
> animals. Veganic agriculture is agriculture free of animal products,
> pesticides etc. See
> http://www.veg-soc.org/html/articles...riculture.html - (Digger will
> like this one as it has a definition like his definition of Veganism in
it)
>
> you raise that old false dilema fallacy again - read the definition, esp.
my
> emphasis added
>
> "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."
=============
No, they aren't. Especially since they maintain websites. It's all about
conning your money....


>
> If you or anyone else do not understand this simple English, please
explain
> how and why not! We simply try to avoid causing animal suffering and
> exploitation where practical.
=====================
No, you don't. Here are are proving that fact yet again, killer. You are
here contributing to the unnecessary death and suffering of animals for no
more reason than your entertainment.


We are perfectly well aware that it is
> impossible to avoid killing animals altogether, even as you roll over in
bed
> you kill mites.
>
> Even if I were to drop down dead now, I dare say I would crush many
> invertibrates - but that does not make dropping dead unvegan either.
================
Posting to usenet is still unvegan. But then usenet vegans arern't really
vegan anyway, hypocrite.


>
> John
>
>

"Digger" > wrote:

> >What do you mean not vegetarian? A vegetarian doesn't eat the meat of
> >animals? If the baby doesn't eat the meat of animals, then it is
vegetarian.

> Does that logic apply to suckling lion cubs as well?

Well they don't need meat to live in the early stages so sure.

> >> I wouldn't, for the simple fact that it doesn't feed exclusively
> >> on vegetables. It's a suckling baby without any labels or
> >> stigma attached to its diet.
> >
> >What have vegetables got to do with it?
>
> Quite a bit, actually.

Elaborate.

> >You could be a vegetarian without
> >eating vegetables.
>
> No, you couldn't.

Yes you could. I wouldn't recomend it though.

> >Do you have even the slightest idea as to what a
> >vegetarian is?
>
> Some.

A person who eats no meat can be called vegetarian.

> >Of course the baby is vegetarian.
>
> No, it is not.

Denying it don't make it so.

> >It only stops being
> >vegetarian when you make it meat.
>
> It was never a vegetarian or a vegan to begin with,
> and no, I wouldn't make a baby eat meat.

Doesn't really matter what you choose to call it. A baby is vegetarian
because it eats no meat. If you think it is not, then at what point does it
become a vegetarian or a meat eater?

"Digger" > wrote in message
...
> The focus is on diet and what qualifies as a vegan source
> of nourishment.

Wrong... wool hats are "not vegan". Neither is leather. Yet neither have
anything to do with diet. One of them, wool, has very little to do with
killing animals.

"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 Thu, 14 Oct 2004 02:00:28 +0100, "Richard" > wrote:

>"Digger" > wrote:
>
>> >What do you mean not vegetarian? A vegetarian doesn't eat the meat of
>> >animals? If the baby doesn't eat the meat of animals, then it is
>vegetarian.
>
>> 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..

>> >> I wouldn't, for the simple fact that it doesn't feed exclusively
>> >> on vegetables. It's a suckling baby without any labels or
>> >> stigma attached to its diet.
>> >
>> >What have vegetables got to do with it?
>>
>> Quite a bit, actually.
>
>Elaborate.

A vegetarian eats them. A non vegetarian nourishes
itself with animal derived foods such as milk and meat.

>> >You could be a vegetarian without
>> >eating vegetables.
>>
>> No, you couldn't.
>
>Yes you could. I wouldn't recomend it though.

Neither would I, because if a person goes without veg
of some description for too long, he will most probably
die. Therefore your earlier statement cannot be true.

>> >Do you have even the slightest idea as to what a
>> >vegetarian is?
>>
>> Some.
>
>A person who eats no meat can be called vegetarian.

He can be.

>> >Of course the baby is vegetarian.
>>
>> No, it is not.
>
>Denying it don't make it so.

Asserting it won't make it true, either, especially when
the baby is nourishing itself on animal fats and proteins.
Vegetarians don't nourish themselves on animal fats
and proteins, so while a baby does, it cannot be
described as a vegetarian anymore than you could
describe a lion cub as one.

>> >It only stops being
>> >vegetarian when you make it meat.
>>
>> It was never a vegetarian or a vegan to begin with,
>> and no, I wouldn't make a baby eat meat.
>
>Doesn't really matter what you choose to call it.

Then why call it a vegetarian?

>A baby is vegetarian because it eats no meat.

Affirmation of the consequent.

1) If an animal is vegetarian, then it eats no meat
2) A lion cub eats no meat
therefore
2) a lion cub is a vegetarian

>If you think it is not, then at what point does it
>become a vegetarian or a meat eater?

That question assumes I agree that a baby was at
one time a vegetarian, and I don't. If a baby goes
on to eat meat after finishing with its mother milk,
then it would never have been a vegetarian by dint
of its diet on animal fats and proteins.

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.