 |
|
| 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 |
|
|
|||
|
|||
why is breast feeding considered vegan?
Isn't a human an animal, so wouldn't human breast milk be an "animal
byproduct"? One could argue, breast feeding is voluntary. But this is only partially true. If a poor mother were told she must breast feed her child for optimum health, "or else", isn't that coercion? How is that different from "forcing" a cow to give up its milk for human consumption? How is breast milk any different than say, if I have some chickens nearby and I go in and take their unfertilized eggs (perhaps without them being bothered by it) to eat? (BTW, where I live... there are LOTS of chickens living semi-feral lives. In fact the town has them as their unofficial mascots... even chicken crossing signs. They are believed to have escaped from a farm many many years ago, and just wandered around since. Strangely enough, the chickens make their rounds to Popeye's Chicken where the staff feeds them scraps- I think they eat leftover biscuits, I'm sure. Maybe it creeps people out to be eating at Popeyes and see chickens walk by, who knows...). It just doesn't make sense. Some vegans arguements are that humans and animals are the same- and this is based on a kernel of truth: humans are animals. Then they turn around as say, they do not believe in consuming animal products. Yet breast milk is an animal product (BTW... I could make a rather crude arguement that oral sex isn't vegan, either...). Or how about organ donation. That new heart you get because you ate one too many coconut... Or how about donated blood? All animal products. Perhaps vegans need to change their definition of what is a vegan, or they need to explain their ethical reasoning (perhaps they are arguing Peter Singer style utilitarianism, donating milk or organs hurts "no one"... then it would make sense ( BTW, can anybody actually prove Peter Singer is a vegetarian? I bet he isn't). But this is also the guy who says that severely retarded children should be considered "non-persons", and their organs should be harvested for the healthy. ...who needs Jack Kevorkian for that creepy Halloween ambience when you have such "compassionate" people like Dr. Singer). That's something I'll save for another thread. This is just my question, as a non-vegan vegetarian. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"John Coleman" > wrote in message ... > It's not about consuming animal products, but *animal exploitation*. > > Mothers consciously consent to give their milk, cows do not. So, in other words, the definition of vegans as "people who do not consume animal products" is false. And again, what is animal exploitation? Is eating a dead cow (ie, a cow that I did not necessarily kill) vegan? 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? Rice growing could, theoretically, involve the deaths of animals. So could growing wheat for that matter. Vegetarian is easy to define- it's somebody that doesn't eat animal flesh. Vegan is alot harder to define, it would seem. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> 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. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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 ... > 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. <..> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 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. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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 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. [..] |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Blue Heron" > wrote in message news
> pearl wrote: > > "Digger" > wrote in message ... > > > >>On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 22:57:03 -0400, "magnulus" > wrote: > >> > >>>"Digger" > wrote in message ... > <snip> > > Doesn't 'vegetarian' in the UK, simply mean those who > > abstain from meat, as in 'lacto-ovo-vegetarians', (whilst in > > the US, 'vegetarian' means what we call 'vegan')? Maybe > > we should just call nursing babies, of any species, 'lactarians'? > > (There's probably already an accepted definition, though  .> > No, Digger is just trolling here. Looking for a 'good' argument I think. .. :-| > Vegetarian in both the UK and North America genereally refers to ovo > lacto vegetarianism. Sometimes in North America (particularly in French > Canada and the midwest) vegetarian is considered pisca/pollatarian, > which makes it a pain in the ass, but never has it gone the other way, > where vegetarian is considered vegan/strict-vegetarian. I've somehow gathered otherwise. .. Thanks for the clarification. > -- Blue |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Blue Heron" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote: > > "BlueHeron" > wrote in message ... > > > >>pearl wrote: > >> > >>>"Blue Heron" > wrote in message news > <snip> > > If you explain that [you] prefer "rabbit & bird food", they might get the idea. > > Hum... it's a thought. What has actually helped quite a bit is that two > of their close friends, who actually live in Montreal (closer to us), > are very open about their food, and like to experiment with vegetarian > fare. They have doing the hard work of educating my in-laws for me! Understood. Whilst I inform folks of the basic required food items, I'll ask that they acquire and use a vegan or vegetarian recipe book. > >>I do understand that in parts of India and the Mediterranean > >>"vegetarian" usually refers to lacto vegetarianism, as eggs are > >>generally not consumed by vegetarians there. > > > > > > Stop! lol. > > <grin> Just kidding. Between you and magnulus we've a FAQ in the making.  > <snip> > > > S'great to see you again, Blue. Cheers. > > Thanks!> > I even have some recipes for a.f.v. Crazy, I know! Maybe we can get > this newgroup turned around again! A nice place a.f.v, or so I'd thought.. (I'm posting from a.a.e.v). I was aware that the usual suspects were trolling that group, but thought the residents of a.f.v had it under control/ignore. Shucks. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
pearl wrote: > "Blue Heron" > wrote in message ... > >>pearl wrote: >> <snip> >>Hum... it's a thought. What has actually helped quite a bit is that two >> of their close friends, who actually live in Montreal (closer to us), >>are very open about their food, and like to experiment with vegetarian >>fare. They have doing the hard work of educating my in-laws for me! > > > Understood. Whilst I inform folks of the basic required food items, > I'll ask that they acquire and use a vegan or vegetarian recipe book. Actually, that's not a bad gift idea. I do post a lot of recipes on my blog, so friends and family members have access to some of my fave recipes, however, the in-laws that I have the most trouble with are unilingual French. I have been having a hell of a time finding a /good/ vegan cookbook in French, or even just a vegan cookbook in French! Slowly, ever so slowly, I am converting my recipes to French. <snip> > Just kidding. Between you and magnulus we've a FAQ in the making. > Funny you should mention that... I came across the rec.food.veg FAQ just the other day (maybe it was even yesterday!): http://www.faqs.org/faqs/vegetarian/faq/ Very well put together, imho. > >><snip> >> >>>S'great to see you again, Blue. Cheers. >> >> Thanks!>> >>I even have some recipes for a.f.v. Crazy, I know! Maybe we can get >>this newgroup turned around again! > > > A nice place a.f.v, or so I'd thought.. (I'm posting from a.a.e.v). > I was aware that the usual suspects were trolling that group, but > thought the residents of a.f.v had it under control/ignore. Shucks. Aye, a.f.v has actually been slowing down a lot recently with some longtime members leaving, and the trolls growing exponentially. Shame really. But this past month has given me renewed hope. I haven't perused a.a.e.v in the longest time. Though, I might start up again after November. Cheers! -- Blue |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
pearl wrote: > "Blue Heron" > wrote in message ... > >>pearl wrote: >> <snip> >>Hum... it's a thought. What has actually helped quite a bit is that two >> of their close friends, who actually live in Montreal (closer to us), >>are very open about their food, and like to experiment with vegetarian >>fare. They have doing the hard work of educating my in-laws for me! > > > Understood. Whilst I inform folks of the basic required food items, > I'll ask that they acquire and use a vegan or vegetarian recipe book. Actually, that's not a bad gift idea. I do post a lot of recipes on my blog, so friends and family members have access to some of my fave recipes, however, the in-laws that I have the most trouble with are unilingual French. I have been having a hell of a time finding a /good/ vegan cookbook in French, or even just a vegan cookbook in French! Slowly, ever so slowly, I am converting my recipes to French. <snip> > Just kidding. Between you and magnulus we've a FAQ in the making. > Funny you should mention that... I came across the rec.food.veg FAQ just the other day (maybe it was even yesterday!): http://www.faqs.org/faqs/vegetarian/faq/ Very well put together, imho. > >><snip> >> >>>S'great to see you again, Blue. Cheers. >> >> Thanks!>> >>I even have some recipes for a.f.v. Crazy, I know! Maybe we can get >>this newgroup turned around again! > > > A nice place a.f.v, or so I'd thought.. (I'm posting from a.a.e.v). > I was aware that the usual suspects were trolling that group, but > thought the residents of a.f.v had it under control/ignore. Shucks. Aye, a.f.v has actually been slowing down a lot recently with some longtime members leaving, and the trolls growing exponentially. Shame really. But this past month has given me renewed hope. I haven't perused a.a.e.v in the longest time. Though, I might start up again after November. Cheers! -- Blue |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Dutch" > wrote in message
... > "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). Some do, some don't. Most would prefer not to depend on the destructive agricultural practices of meatarians, but that is not practical at present. If the destructive practices of these meatarian farmers bothers you, then I suggest you broach the subject with them, and not here with vegans who just have to consume their fare. Suggesting they are not bothered is incorrect. With 90% of the worlds resources held by a tiny percentage of the population, and no "revolution" in site, the reality is that many vegan cannot live up to their ideals. Some do though, a hopefully much more in time. > This is where vegans nearly always let themselves down. No it is the global capitalist system that lets us down. Many vegans I know are concerned about ecological and environmental issues and would love to buy locally grown veganic produce. Indeed the original vegans were well into producing on their own local allotments. > 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? That's enough for me Dutch, I don't entertain moral debates. Morality is highly subjective and arises through very egocentric desires IMO. I am not concerned about a little poaching personally, and used to have a buddy who poached figuring it was better than shopping at the supermarket. I'm fine with that. However it is not a scalable solution to the food system problem, rather a priviledge that only a few can enjoy without detrimentally impacting the biosystems around them. While I have many concerns about agriculture it is a fact that it is more efficient than hunting - agriculture will support many times more people on less land, killing less animals (perhaps not withstanding insects?). There are all manner of argumentum ad absurdem hecklers on the list, they always avoid discussing the perfectly reasonable central themes of veganism. John |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"BlueHeron" > wrote in message ...
> > > pearl wrote: > > "Blue Heron" > wrote in message ... > > > >>pearl wrote: > >> > <snip> > >>Hum... it's a thought. What has actually helped quite a bit is that two > >> of their close friends, who actually live in Montreal (closer to us), > >>are very open about their food, and like to experiment with vegetarian > >>fare. They have doing the hard work of educating my in-laws for me! > > > > > > Understood. Whilst I inform folks of the basic required food items, > > I'll ask that they acquire and use a vegan or vegetarian recipe book. > > Actually, that's not a bad gift idea. I do post a lot of recipes on my > blog, so friends and family members have access to some of my fave > recipes, however, the in-laws that I have the most trouble with are > unilingual French. I have been having a hell of a time finding a /good/ > vegan cookbook in French, or even just a vegan cookbook in French! > > Slowly, ever so slowly, I am converting my recipes to French. > <snip> Hey, .. maybe you should consider publishing it. > > Just kidding. Between you and magnulus we've a FAQ in the making. > > > > Funny you should mention that... I came across the rec.food.veg FAQ just > the other day (maybe it was even yesterday!): > > http://www.faqs.org/faqs/vegetarian/faq/ > > Very well put together, imho. That's excellent. Thanks. <..> > >>I even have some recipes for a.f.v. Crazy, I know! Maybe we can get > >>this newgroup turned around again! > > > > > > A nice place a.f.v, or so I'd thought.. (I'm posting from a.a.e.v). > > I was aware that the usual suspects were trolling that group, but > > thought the residents of a.f.v had it under control/ignore. Shucks. > > Aye, a.f.v has actually been slowing down a lot recently with some > longtime members leaving, and the trolls growing exponentially. Shame > really. But this past month has given me renewed hope. How's that? > I haven't perused a.a.e.v in the longest time. Though, I might start up > again after November. You're always welcome. Bring a strong lance and shield with you. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"John Coleman" > wrote > "Dutch" > wrote >> "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). > > Some do, some don't. Do you have any evidence that more vegans "do agriculture" than the rest of the population? In fact many consumers of meat also patronize organic and freedom foods and other "friendly alternatives" > Most would prefer not to depend on the destructive > agricultural practices of meatarians, It's not sufficient that you demonize others for their diets, you attack them for *your* food choices also. Blaming seems to be a clear pattern with vegans. > but that is not practical at present. That's no excuse. If you choose convenience over the suffering of animals you lose the moral foundation that you claim to have. > If the destructive practices of these meatarian farmers bothers you, then > I > suggest you broach the subject with them, and not here with vegans who > just > have to consume their fare. But it's vegans who are posturing that they are "doing all they can" do minimize animal suffering when they clearly are only doing what is easy and convenient. > Suggesting they are not bothered is incorrect. I'm not suggesting it, I am stating it unequivocally. Vegans spend so much time pointing fingers and attacking the morals of others they have no time or energy left to focus on their own shortcomings and contradictions. > With 90% of the worlds resources held by a tiny percentage of the > population, and no "revolution" in site, the reality is that many vegan > cannot live up to their ideals. Some do though, a hopefully much more in > time. Vegans must start owning up to the reality of the food and other products they consume before they can begin to criticize others. >> This is where vegans nearly always let themselves down. > > No Yes, vegans lose all credibility before they begin, because their claims of personal ethical purity far outstrips reality. > it is the global capitalist system that lets us down. Are you suggesting a global communist system might do better, or are you just using "global capitalist system " as a catch-phrase to avoid personal responsibility? > Many vegans I know > are concerned about ecological and environmental issues and would love to > buy locally grown veganic produce. Indeed the original vegans were well > into > producing on their own local allotments. And I once lived self-sufficiently, but I don't now, and neither do you and 99% of your vegan buddies. It's reality check time. >> 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? > > That's enough for me Dutch, I don't entertain moral debates. Morality is > highly subjective and arises through very egocentric desires IMO. Nonsense, your words drip with moral self-righteousness. The condescending way you use the non-word "meatarian" is just one example. > I am not concerned about a little poaching personally, and used to have a > buddy who poached figuring it was better than shopping at the supermarket. I don't advocate "poaching". > I'm fine with that. I'm not. > However it is not a scalable solution to the food system > problem, rather a priviledge that only a few can enjoy without > detrimentally > impacting the biosystems around them. This is a strawman, I never suggested that hunting (not poaching) was a scalable solution to any food system problem. What you need to argue convincingly is that veganism *is*. I have yet to hear a vegan argument that does this in anything beyond simplistic terms as you do right below. > While I have many concerns about > agriculture it is a fact that it is more efficient than hunting - > agriculture will support many times more people on less land, killing less > animals (perhaps not withstanding insects?). That is categorically incorrect and very naive. > There are all manner of argumentum ad absurdem hecklers on the list, they > always avoid discussing the perfectly reasonable central themes of > veganism. It's vegans who refuse to discuss veganism rationally. Despite your hollow protestations, to you veganism is the be-all and the end-all. In fact veganism, because it fails to entertain any use of animals, is a completely unsustainable system, except on the very limited scale it exists right now. And just as I knew you would, you have failed to answer my original question. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
John Coleman wrote:
> "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 > > Even if you are speculative enough to ignore the scientific evidence, the simple fact that we CAN, it is COMPLETELY POSSIBLE, to thrive on a meatless diet. isn't it the humane thing to do to not have to include murder with our sustenance. gideon |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
John Coleman wrote:
> "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 > > Even if you are speculative enough to ignore the scientific evidence, the simple fact that we CAN, it is COMPLETELY POSSIBLE, to thrive on a meatless diet. isn't it the humane thing to do to not have to include murder with our sustenance. gideon |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Gideon Stargrave" > wrote in message .. . > John Coleman wrote: > > "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 > > > > > Even if you are speculative enough to ignore the scientific evidence, > the simple fact that we CAN, it is COMPLETELY POSSIBLE, to thrive on a > meatless diet. isn't it the humane thing to do to not have to include > murder with our sustenance. ====================== Then why do you include 'murder' in your daily life? Afterall, here you are 'murdering' animals for nothing more than your entertainment, and our amusment at your ignorance and hypocrisy, killer.... Now, go have that nice blood-drenched lunch, killer. > > gideon |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Gideon Stargrave" > wrote in message .. . > John Coleman wrote: > > "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 > > > > > Even if you are speculative enough to ignore the scientific evidence, > the simple fact that we CAN, it is COMPLETELY POSSIBLE, to thrive on a > meatless diet. isn't it the humane thing to do to not have to include > murder with our sustenance. ====================== Then why do you include 'murder' in your daily life? Afterall, here you are 'murdering' animals for nothing more than your entertainment, and our amusment at your ignorance and hypocrisy, killer.... Now, go have that nice blood-drenched lunch, killer. > > gideon |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
pearl wrote:
> "BlueHeron" > wrote in message ... > >> >>pearl wrote: >> >>>"Blue Heron" > wrote in message ... <snip> >>Slowly, ever so slowly, I am converting my recipes to French. >><snip> > > > Hey, .. maybe you should consider publishing it. Hum... it's a thought. I would have to weed out the recipes that I obtained from commercial sources, except maybe from the ones that I have greatly modified. Since I am getting involved with http://www.ilesansfil.org/ a local grassroots wireless organization that aside from providing free WiFi is focused on using their captive portals as community interest pages. Since I am running my own access point, I am going to be starting a weekly recipe column, all strict-vegetarian, with instructions in French and English. If it has any level of success, then I might just consider putting together that book... First I want to get through NaNoWriMo (http://www.nanowrimo.org/), though. The rest can wait. <snip> >>http://www.faqs.org/faqs/vegetarian/faq/ >> >>Very well put together, imho. > > > That's excellent. Thanks. Np! I actually really liked it myself. <snip> >>Aye, a.f.v has actually been slowing down a lot recently with some >>longtime members leaving, and the trolls growing exponentially. Shame >>really. But this past month has given me renewed hope. > > How's that? > Well, some of the old members have been back, posting a little, and there has been some actual discussion, which is nice. Though still, I have taken most of my posting to Live Journal communities. As they are moderated, there is much, much less trolling. >>I haven't perused a.a.e.v in the longest time. Though, I might start up >>again after November. > > > You're always welcome. Bring a strong lance and shield with you. Lol, thanks for the warning! -- Blue |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
pearl wrote:
> "BlueHeron" > wrote in message ... > >> >>pearl wrote: >> >>>"Blue Heron" > wrote in message ... <snip> >>Slowly, ever so slowly, I am converting my recipes to French. >><snip> > > > Hey, .. maybe you should consider publishing it. Hum... it's a thought. I would have to weed out the recipes that I obtained from commercial sources, except maybe from the ones that I have greatly modified. Since I am getting involved with http://www.ilesansfil.org/ a local grassroots wireless organization that aside from providing free WiFi is focused on using their captive portals as community interest pages. Since I am running my own access point, I am going to be starting a weekly recipe column, all strict-vegetarian, with instructions in French and English. If it has any level of success, then I might just consider putting together that book... First I want to get through NaNoWriMo (http://www.nanowrimo.org/), though. The rest can wait. <snip> >>http://www.faqs.org/faqs/vegetarian/faq/ >> >>Very well put together, imho. > > > That's excellent. Thanks. Np! I actually really liked it myself. <snip> >>Aye, a.f.v has actually been slowing down a lot recently with some >>longtime members leaving, and the trolls growing exponentially. Shame >>really. But this past month has given me renewed hope. > > How's that? > Well, some of the old members have been back, posting a little, and there has been some actual discussion, which is nice. Though still, I have taken most of my posting to Live Journal communities. As they are moderated, there is much, much less trolling. >>I haven't perused a.a.e.v in the longest time. Though, I might start up >>again after November. > > > You're always welcome. Bring a strong lance and shield with you. Lol, thanks for the warning! -- Blue |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 06:45:22 GMT, "John Coleman" > wrote:
>It's not about consuming animal products, but *animal exploitation*. > >Mothers consciously consent to give their milk, cows do not. > >John They'll sure let the farmer hear about it if he's late milking them. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 06:45:22 GMT, "John Coleman" > wrote:
>It's not about consuming animal products, but *animal exploitation*. > >Mothers consciously consent to give their milk, cows do not. > >John They'll sure let the farmer hear about it if he's late milking them. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Digger" > wrote in message ... > 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; This is my main point, Veganism IS A PHILOSOPHY, not a specific example of a dietary regime. The society says that a diet that is plant based meets the needs of the philosophy (because there is inherently no cruelty or exploitation), and I agree. No specific exclusions like a need to exclude animal products totally is suggested, but it could quite easily have been added if that was the intention. One simply adopts a practice of not promoting animal exploitation or cruelty (where practical) to obey the philosophy. Scavenging involves neither of these explicity excluded practices. Furthermore, since modern production of plant foods inherently causes a lot of collateral animal suffering, the road kill could be argued to be more vegan than the fare at your local supermarkets. A vegan cannot say that someone who eats some dead insects, or road kill or such is unvegan. Furthermore, humans who live in remote places where it is impractical to not eat animal products could still try to avoid causing excessive suffering and exploitation, and therefore be philosophical vegans. The fact that they ate animal products would not exclude them on the basis of the "practicality" clause. Similarly I am not unvegan because I eat plant foods that contain traces of insect. Veganism is an inclusive philosophy, whereas you interpret it incorrectly as exclusive. So long as that clear practically clause exists, your rigid exclusive definition of veganism is simply incorrect, and that is a fact that cannot be denied by the logic I supply above. I have nothing more to say on this topic. John |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Dutch" > wrote in message ... > > "John Coleman" > wrote > > "Dutch" > wrote > >> "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). > > > > Some do, some don't. > > Do you have any evidence that more vegans "do agriculture" than the rest of > the population? In fact many consumers of meat also patronize organic and > freedom foods and other "friendly alternatives" So what? It isn't a competition, I merely rejected the notion that vegans in general don't care about collateral damage. We do. > > Most would prefer not to depend on the destructive > > agricultural practices of meatarians, > > It's not sufficient that you demonize others for their diets, you attack > them for *your* food choices also. Blaming seems to be a clear pattern with > vegans. I don't "demonize" people, however people mostly choose to eat meat, so they ARE to blame for the consequences of it. No one else is responsible. > That's no excuse. If you choose convenience over the suffering of animals > you lose the moral foundation that you claim to have. I don't claim a "moral" foundation, rather a compassionate one. The ending of meat eating in the US alone would definately save about 1000000 animals lives and suffering per hour. > > > If the destructive practices of these meatarian farmers bothers you, then > > I > > suggest you broach the subject with them, and not here with vegans who > > just > > have to consume their fare. > > But it's vegans who are posturing that they are "doing all they can" do > minimize animal suffering when they clearly are only doing what is easy and > convenient. Yes, there is a need to take veganism much further than simply getting animal products out of the diet, and this vision was there from the start. > > > Suggesting they are not bothered is incorrect. > > I'm not suggesting it, I am stating it unequivocally. Vegans spend so much > time pointing fingers and attacking the morals of others they have no time > or energy left to focus on their own shortcomings and contradictions. The brutal murder of 1000000 animals per hour is a serious humanitarian issue IMO. > > > With 90% of the worlds resources held by a tiny percentage of the > > population, and no "revolution" in site, the reality is that many vegan > > cannot live up to their ideals. Some do though, a hopefully much more in > > time. > > Vegans must start owning up to the reality of the food and other products > they consume before they can begin to criticize others. This is nonsense. We are all adults and can give an take criticism. When you can "justify" the brutality of modern animal farming, then it is time for vegans not to criticise. Just because we are not perfect, doesn't mean we should not speak out. Just because some people smack their kids, doesn't mean they can't criticse someone who murders their own wife. Let's get it in proportion. > Yes, vegans lose all credibility before they begin, because their claims of > personal ethical purity far outstrips reality. Name a vegan who claimed to be ethicaly pure? > > > it is the global capitalist system that lets us down. > > Are you suggesting a global communist system might do better, or are you > just using "global capitalist system " as a catch-phrase to avoid personal > responsibility? I am not "responsible" for global capitalism PERIOD I am not suggesting any global system, or any centre of power of any kind. > > > Many vegans I know > > are concerned about ecological and environmental issues and would love to > > buy locally grown veganic produce. Indeed the original vegans were well > > into > > producing on their own local allotments. > > And I once lived self-sufficiently, but I don't now, and neither do you and > 99% of your vegan buddies. It's reality check time. Vegans need to consider more a self sufficient lifestyle, and less on dietary dogma and ethics, yes. It is happening though right now, the vegan movement back to nature is growing. > > >> 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? > > > > That's enough for me Dutch, I don't entertain moral debates. Morality is > > highly subjective and arises through very egocentric desires IMO. > > Nonsense, your words drip with moral self-righteousness. The condescending > way you use the non-word "meatarian" is just one example. Why is "meatarian" any more offensive than "vegetarian"? Call a spade a spade. > > I am not concerned about a little poaching personally, and used to have a > > buddy who poached figuring it was better than shopping at the supermarket. > > I don't advocate "poaching". I don't advocate poaching either, I just don't deplore it. But do you think less animals die when you buy potatoes at the supermarket? > > I'm fine with that. > > I'm not. What do you do instead, what impact does that have on animal suffering by comparison? > > > However it is not a scalable solution to the food system > > problem, rather a priviledge that only a few can enjoy without > > detrimentally > > impacting the biosystems around them. > > This is a strawman, I never suggested that hunting (not poaching) was a > scalable solution to any food system problem. What you need to argue > convincingly is that veganism *is*. I have yet to hear a vegan argument that > does this in anything beyond simplistic terms as you do right below. The argument is fairly simple, as you eat more up the food chain, more land is required. This is inescapable logic. Any unit of land will host far more herbivores than carnivores. > > While I have many concerns about > > agriculture it is a fact that it is more efficient than hunting - > > agriculture will support many times more people on less land, killing less > > animals (perhaps not withstanding insects?). > > That is categorically incorrect and very naive. prove it > > There are all manner of argumentum ad absurdem hecklers on the list, they > > always avoid discussing the perfectly reasonable central themes of > > veganism. > > It's vegans who refuse to discuss veganism rationally. I'm discussing veganism rationally. Despite your hollow > protestations, to you veganism is the be-all and the end-all No it isn't. I have far wider and more important agendas. .. In fact > veganism, because it fails to entertain any use of animals, is a completely > unsustainable system, except on the very limited scale it exists right now. Why do you think humans have to exploit animals to be sustainable? > And just as I knew you would, you have failed to answer my original > question. Which I forgot long ago. John |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Digger" > wrote in message ... > 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? Digger, you really do not understand the significant facts of the matter. Vegetarianism of whatever shade is an exlcusively human concern because it pertains to intellectual traits that only we posses. Even a pure plant eating species like a koala is never a vegetarian. Jhn |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"John Coleman" > wrote > "Dutch" > wrote [..] > I merely rejected the notion that vegans in > general don't care about collateral damage. We do. Bullshit, of the thousands of vegetarian websites and publications out there, what proportion of the time do you suppose is spent dealing with the issue? .0001% would be a generous estimate. 99.9999% of vegan effort is aimed at interfering with the lifestyles and customs of other people. >> > Most would prefer not to depend on the destructive >> > agricultural practices of meatarians, >> >> It's not sufficient that you demonize others for their diets, you attack >> them for *your* food choices also. Blaming seems to be a clear pattern > with >> vegans. > > I don't "demonize" people, however people mostly choose to eat meat, so > they > ARE to blame for the consequences of it. No one else is responsible. You lost track of the point, above, *you* blamed "meatarians" for the "destructive agriculture practices" that support *vegan* diets. You attack others not only for their choices but for your own. >> That's no excuse. If you choose convenience over the suffering of animals >> you lose the moral foundation that you claim to have. > > I don't claim a "moral" foundation, rather a compassionate one. You're splitting hairs, compassion is a moral principle. > The ending > of meat eating in the US alone would definately save about 1000000 animals > lives and suffering per hour. That's horseshit. >> > If the destructive practices of these meatarian farmers bothers you, > then >> > I >> > suggest you broach the subject with them, and not here with vegans who >> > just >> > have to consume their fare. >> >> But it's vegans who are posturing that they are "doing all they can" do >> minimize animal suffering when they clearly are only doing what is easy > and >> convenient. > > Yes, there is a need to take veganism much further than simply getting > animal products out of the diet, and this vision was there from the start. You're spouting self-serving platitudes. >> > Suggesting they are not bothered is incorrect. >> >> I'm not suggesting it, I am stating it unequivocally. Vegans spend so >> much >> time pointing fingers and attacking the morals of others they have no >> time >> or energy left to focus on their own shortcomings and contradictions. > > The brutal murder of 1000000 animals per hour is a serious humanitarian > issue IMO. Where did you get that figure? And if we are going use sweeping global numbers, how many animals do you suppose are harmed by other forms of agriculture? I know that I can raise a couple of animals and the meat from them can feed several families for many months. >> > With 90% of the worlds resources held by a tiny percentage of the >> > population, and no "revolution" in site, the reality is that many vegan >> > cannot live up to their ideals. Some do though, a hopefully much more >> > in >> > time. >> >> Vegans must start owning up to the reality of the food and other products >> they consume before they can begin to criticize others. > > This is nonsense. We are all adults and can give an take criticism. When > you > can "justify" the brutality of modern animal farming, then it is time for > vegans not to criticise. That's bullshit John and I'm not fooled by it. This is not about "the brutality of modern animal farming", it's about using animals for food *at all*. The so-called "ethical vegan" opposes farming of animals even in the most ideal of circumstances. > Just because we are not perfect, doesn't mean we > should not speak out. Just because some people smack their kids, doesn't > mean they can't criticse someone who murders their own wife. Let's get it > in > proportion. Bad analogy. People who steal from electronics stores have no business condemning people who rob liquor stores. We all cause unecessary death and suffering of animals with our selfish choices. Vegans are no different, except that because the victims are not visible on their plates or on their feet, they pretend that they don't exist. >> Yes, vegans lose all credibility before they begin, because their claims > of >> personal ethical purity far outstrips reality. > > Name a vegan who claimed to be ethicaly pure? Vegan attacks on the lifestyles of others contain an implicit claim that they inhabit a higher moral plane. >> > it is the global capitalist system that lets us down. >> >> Are you suggesting a global communist system might do better, or are you >> just using "global capitalist system " as a catch-phrase to avoid >> personal >> responsibility? > > I am not "responsible" for global capitalism PERIOD > > I am not suggesting any global system, or any centre of power of any kind. Then explain why you used the term "global capitalist system" in such a pjorative way. >> > Many vegans I know >> > are concerned about ecological and environmental issues and would love > to >> > buy locally grown veganic produce. Indeed the original vegans were well >> > into >> > producing on their own local allotments. >> >> And I once lived self-sufficiently, but I don't now, and neither do you > and >> 99% of your vegan buddies. It's reality check time. > > Vegans need to consider more a self sufficient lifestyle, and less on > dietary dogma and ethics, yes. It is happening though right now, the vegan > movement back to nature is growing. More self-serving blather. >> >> 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? >> > >> > That's enough for me Dutch, I don't entertain moral debates. Morality >> > is >> > highly subjective and arises through very egocentric desires IMO. >> >> Nonsense, your words drip with moral self-righteousness. The >> condescending >> way you use the non-word "meatarian" is just one example. > > Why is "meatarian" any more offensive than "vegetarian"? Call a spade a > spade. Meatarian is *intended* as a slur, vegetarian isn't. People who use such manufactured words are demonstrating that they just can't pass up an opportunity to sling insults. >> > I am not concerned about a little poaching personally, and used to have > a >> > buddy who poached figuring it was better than shopping at the > supermarket. >> >> I don't advocate "poaching". > > I don't advocate poaching either, I just don't deplore it. But do you > think > less animals die when you buy potatoes at the supermarket? I don't know what you mean. >> > I'm fine with that. >> >> I'm not. > > What do you do instead, what impact does that have on animal suffering by > comparison? Instead of what? >> > However it is not a scalable solution to the food system >> > problem, rather a priviledge that only a few can enjoy without >> > detrimentally >> > impacting the biosystems around them. >> >> This is a strawman, I never suggested that hunting (not poaching) was a >> scalable solution to any food system problem. What you need to argue >> convincingly is that veganism *is*. I have yet to hear a vegan argument > that >> does this in anything beyond simplistic terms as you do right below. > > The argument is fairly simple, as you eat more up the food chain, more > land > is required. This is inescapable logic. Any unit of land will host far > more > herbivores than carnivores. You're just restating the same false and simplistic formula. Not all land is capable of supporting intensive argiculture, much of it is best used for grazing or growing grasses. You are also ignoring the fact that a large proportion of animal feeds are by-products of other processes. My own wheat crop this year is destined to be livestock feed because of the bad weather this past harvest. You would have the entire northern prairie ploughed under. >> > While I have many concerns about >> > agriculture it is a fact that it is more efficient than hunting - >> > agriculture will support many times more people on less land, killing > less >> > animals (perhaps not withstanding insects?). >> >> That is categorically incorrect and very naive. > > prove it Look at any tract of mountainous or semi-arid prairie land. >> > There are all manner of argumentum ad absurdem hecklers on the list, > they >> > always avoid discussing the perfectly reasonable central themes of >> > veganism. >> >> It's vegans who refuse to discuss veganism rationally. > > I'm discussing veganism rationally. No you're not, you're using sophistry, and you probably don't even know it. The best example from this post was the use of the phrase "the brutality of modern animal farming" when attempting to justify vegan attitudes towards use of animals for meat. > Despite your hollow >> protestations, to you veganism is the be-all and the end-all > > No it isn't. I have far wider and more important agendas. I doubt it. > . In fact >> veganism, because it fails to entertain any use of animals, is a > completely >> unsustainable system, except on the very limited scale it exists right > now. > > Why do you think humans have to exploit animals to be sustainable? Because a large proportion of the resources we use would not be available unless processed first by animals. The vast majority of the plant matter on the earth is inedible and useless to humans unless animals eat it and turn into edible muscle mass. You advocate eliminating it all from our food chain. There also happens to be large market surplus of the foods you advocate producing more of. [..] |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"John Coleman" > wrote in message >...
> "Dutch" > wrote in message > ... > > > > "John Coleman" > wrote > > > "Dutch" > wrote > > >> "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). > > > > > > Some do, some don't. > > > > Do you have any evidence that more vegans "do agriculture" than the rest > of > > the population? In fact many consumers of meat also patronize organic and > > freedom foods and other "friendly alternatives" > > So what? So aren't you the one who said: "vegans do "veganic" agriculture"? It isn't a competition, I merely rejected the notion that vegans in > general don't care about collateral damage. We do. Prove it. > > > > Most would prefer not to depend on the destructive > > > agricultural practices of meatarians, > > > > It's not sufficient that you demonize others for their diets, you attack > > them for *your* food choices also. Blaming seems to be a clear pattern > with > > vegans. > > I don't "demonize" people, however people mostly choose to eat meat, so they > ARE to blame for the consequences of it. No one else is responsible. What responsibility do you take for the animals that die to feed you? > > > That's no excuse. If you choose convenience over the suffering of animals > > you lose the moral foundation that you claim to have. > > I don't claim a "moral" foundation, rather a compassionate one. Compassion isn't a moral position? The ending > of meat eating in the US alone would definately save about 1000000 animals > lives and suffering per hour. > > > > > > If the destructive practices of these meatarian farmers bothers you, > then > > > I > > > suggest you broach the subject with them, and not here with vegans who > > > just > > > have to consume their fare. > > > > But it's vegans who are posturing that they are "doing all they can" do > > minimize animal suffering when they clearly are only doing what is easy > and > > convenient. > > Yes, there is a need to take veganism much further than simply getting > animal products out of the diet, and this vision was there from the start. > > > > > > Suggesting they are not bothered is incorrect. > > > > I'm not suggesting it, I am stating it unequivocally. Vegans spend so much > > time pointing fingers and attacking the morals of others they have no time > > or energy left to focus on their own shortcomings and contradictions. > > The brutal murder of 1000000 animals per hour is a serious humanitarian > issue IMO. Your use of the word "murder" is a silly appeal to emotion fallacy. > > > > > > With 90% of the worlds resources held by a tiny percentage of the > > > population, and no "revolution" in site, the reality is that many vegan > > > cannot live up to their ideals. Some do though, a hopefully much more in > > > time. > > > > Vegans must start owning up to the reality of the food and other products > > they consume before they can begin to criticize others. > > This is nonsense. We are all adults and can give an take criticism. When you > can "justify" the brutality of modern animal farming, then it is time for > vegans not to criticise. False. You are the one claiming it's unjust. Quit making unsubstantiated claims and then weasel out by pretending it's your opponenets responsibility to disprove them. Just because we are not perfect, doesn't mean we > should not speak out. You're being obtuse. It's quite obvious from this discussion that he meant they can't criticize without revealing their own hypocrisy. Stop looking for loopholes and make an honest response for once. Just because some people smack their kids, doesn't > mean they can't criticse someone who murders their own wife. Let's get it in > proportion. Your analogy is illogical. He was comparing apples to apples (animal deaths in meat production and animal deaths in plant production). You are comparing apples and oranges (abuse vs. murder). > > > Yes, vegans lose all credibility before they begin, because their claims > of > > personal ethical purity far outstrips reality. > > Name a vegan who claimed to be ethicaly pure? "More " ethically pure than those who disagree with them. Your desperation is telling. > > > > > > it is the global capitalist system that lets us down. > > > > Are you suggesting a global communist system might do better, or are you > > just using "global capitalist system " as a catch-phrase to avoid personal > > responsibility? > > I am not "responsible" for global capitalism PERIOD Nobody said you were. > > I am not suggesting any global system, or any centre of power of any kind. That's nice, now why don't you answer the question? Why don't you actually answer *A* question? That would at least be an improvement. > > > > > > Many vegans I know > > > are concerned about ecological and environmental issues and would love > to > > > buy locally grown veganic produce. Indeed the original vegans were well > > > into > > > producing on their own local allotments. > > > > And I once lived self-sufficiently, but I don't now, and neither do you > and > > 99% of your vegan buddies. It's reality check time. > > Vegans need to consider more a self sufficient lifestyle, and less on > dietary dogma and ethics, yes. It is happening though right now, the vegan > movement back to nature is growing. > > > > > >> 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? > > > > > > That's enough for me Dutch, I don't entertain moral debates. Morality is > > > highly subjective and arises through very egocentric desires IMO. > > > > Nonsense, your words drip with moral self-righteousness. The condescending > > way you use the non-word "meatarian" is just one example. > > Why is "meatarian" any more offensive than "vegetarian"? Because it's a non-existent word used only to demean your opponent. Call a spade a > spade. OK; you're a dodging, non-responsive, illogical buffoon. Are you happy now? > > > > I am not concerned about a little poaching personally, and used to have > a > > > buddy who poached figuring it was better than shopping at the > supermarket. > > > > I don't advocate "poaching". > > I don't advocate poaching either, I just don't deplore it. But do you think > less animals die when you buy potatoes at the supermarket? > > > > I'm fine with that. > > > > I'm not. > > What do you do instead, what impact does that have on animal suffering by > comparison? > > > > > > However it is not a scalable solution to the food system > > > problem, rather a priviledge that only a few can enjoy without > > > detrimentally > > > impacting the biosystems around them. > > > > This is a strawman, I never suggested that hunting (not poaching) was a > > scalable solution to any food system problem. What you need to argue > > convincingly is that veganism *is*. I have yet to hear a vegan argument > that > > does this in anything beyond simplistic terms as you do right below. > > The argument is fairly simple, as you eat more up the food chain, more land > is required. This is inescapable logic. Any unit of land will host far more > herbivores than carnivores. True, but the world already produces more than enough food to feed the entire human population. So, while what you've said is "inescapable logic" it's also inescapably irrelevant. > > > > While I have many concerns about > > > agriculture it is a fact that it is more efficient than hunting - > > > agriculture will support many times more people on less land, killing > less > > > animals (perhaps not withstanding insects?). > > > > That is categorically incorrect and very naive. > > prove it There you go again. You made the claim, you prove it. You are asking someone to prove a negative. > > > > There are all manner of argumentum ad absurdem hecklers on the list, > they > > > always avoid discussing the perfectly reasonable central themes of > > > veganism. > > > > It's vegans who refuse to discuss veganism rationally. > > I'm discussing veganism rationally. False, you are not really discussing it at all, you are merely making unsupported claims and then acting as though it is your opponents who bear the burden of proof. > > Despite your hollow > > protestations, to you veganism is the be-all and the end-all > > No it isn't. I have far wider and more important agendas. > > . In fact > > veganism, because it fails to entertain any use of animals, is a > completely > > unsustainable system, except on the very limited scale it exists right > now. > > Why do you think humans have to exploit animals to be sustainable? > > > And just as I knew you would, you have failed to answer my original > > question. > > Which I forgot long ago. How convenient. > > John |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Digger" > wrote in message ... > On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 15:13:13 +0100, "pearl" > wrote: > > >"Digger" > wrote in message ... > >> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 22:57:03 -0400, "magnulus" > wrote: > >> >"Digger" > wrote in message ... > >> >> > >> >> "It applies to the practice of living on the products of the > >> >> plant kingdom to the exclusion of flesh, fish, fowl, eggs, > >> >> honey, animal milk and its derivatives, and encourages > >> >> the use of alternatives for all commodities derived wholly > >> >> or in part from animals." > >> >> http://www.vegsource.com/jo/essays/namegame.htm > >> >> > >> > > >> > That's actually a good definition (if quite wordy- try explaining that to > >> >anybody when they ask you what a vegan is), but if you just changed "animal > >> >milk" to "nonhuman animal milk", it would be flawless. > >> > >> I'm afraid not, because making human milk an exception > >> to the rule leaves the way clear for any man to regard > >> himself as a vegan while nourishing himself on it. 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. > > > >Doesn't 'vegetarian' in the UK, simply mean those who > >abstain from meat, as in 'lacto-ovo-vegetarians', (whilst in > >the US, 'vegetarian' means what we call 'vegan')? > > I'm not sure. The term 'vegetarian' has become so lose > now that one could nourish themselves almost entirely > on animal products these days and still qualify as one. > > The ideal would be that vegetarians feed exclusively > on vegetation while vegans do the same and abstain > from animal derived products such as leather etc. > > >Maybe > >we should just call nursing babies, of any species, 'lactarians'? > > I was hoping you'd come up with the correct definition. > I haven't a clue what to call them, apart from non- > vegetarians and non-vegans, but that seems to upset > a lot of people. Veganism is about lessening cruelty and exploitation, breast feeding has nothing to do with either of these. You are deluded with your definition of veganism. John |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Digger" > wrote in message ... > On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 15:13:13 +0100, "pearl" > wrote: > > >"Digger" > wrote in message ... > >> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 22:57:03 -0400, "magnulus" > wrote: > >> >"Digger" > wrote in message ... > >> >> > >> >> "It applies to the practice of living on the products of the > >> >> plant kingdom to the exclusion of flesh, fish, fowl, eggs, > >> >> honey, animal milk and its derivatives, and encourages > >> >> the use of alternatives for all commodities derived wholly > >> >> or in part from animals." > >> >> http://www.vegsource.com/jo/essays/namegame.htm > >> >> > >> > > >> > That's actually a good definition (if quite wordy- try explaining that to > >> >anybody when they ask you what a vegan is), but if you just changed "animal > >> >milk" to "nonhuman animal milk", it would be flawless. > >> > >> I'm afraid not, because making human milk an exception > >> to the rule leaves the way clear for any man to regard > >> himself as a vegan while nourishing himself on it. 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. > > > >Doesn't 'vegetarian' in the UK, simply mean those who > >abstain from meat, as in 'lacto-ovo-vegetarians', (whilst in > >the US, 'vegetarian' means what we call 'vegan')? > > I'm not sure. The term 'vegetarian' has become so lose > now that one could nourish themselves almost entirely > on animal products these days and still qualify as one. > > The ideal would be that vegetarians feed exclusively > on vegetation while vegans do the same and abstain > from animal derived products such as leather etc. > > >Maybe > >we should just call nursing babies, of any species, 'lactarians'? > > I was hoping you'd come up with the correct definition. > I haven't a clue what to call them, apart from non- > vegetarians and non-vegans, but that seems to upset > a lot of people. Veganism is about lessening cruelty and exploitation, breast feeding has nothing to do with either of these. You are deluded with your definition of veganism. John |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Dan Congs considered bitter? | Tea | |||
| Have You Considered Raccoon...??? | General Cooking | |||
| why is breast feeding considered vegan? | Vegan | |||
| Why is fried food considered unhealthy? | General Cooking | |||
Linear Mode
