ANIMAL FORUM

On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 12:25:48 -0700, Dutch wrote:


Yes, he rewrote my sentence, just as he always does
when faced with an opponent or argument he cannot
tackle in the usual ethical way. Its no skin off my nose
because the reader can read the thread for himself to
see Jon fold in this way.

On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 12:23:13 -0700, Dutch wrote:


Wrong. Your definition is not the generally accepted
definition. Ive given you the definition, but as usual
you just snipped it all away and blurted out your own,
like a child, so here it is again for the readers benefit;

[The term vegan (pronounced VEE-gn) was coined
by Donald Watson in 1944, and was at once adopted
by the group who founded The Vegan Society in
England later that year. The Vegan Society was the
first organized secular group to promote a compassionate
lifestyle. Their 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.]
http://www.vegsource.com/jo/essays/namegame.htm

Read it, learn it and get used to it.

Derek wrote in message
news:7h9cc01d3ml1kcd0v8qsi7le08irmh824a@4ax.com...

No, right.


Generally accepted by whom? Themselves?

Its no great surprise that vegans put a glamorized spin on their own
stupidity. I dont accept terrorists calling themselves freedom fighters.


Once you peel away the veneers of self-aggrandizing and deluded rhetoric,
what remains of the vegsource definition doesnt differ significantly from
the description I offered.