Danielinthewolvesden, you said that the purpose of fruit was to spread seed, not to be eaten by humans. I was merely pointing out that the two are not mutually exclusive. Fruit evolved to spread seed by becoming human food. (And ape food and squirrel food and so on. Fruit doesn’t distinguish between humans and other animals the way we do.)
Secondly, the fact that some fruit- and grain-bearing plants have been artificially bred for agriculture only highlights the success of this competitive strategy. By providing humans with something to eat, these plants have recruited us not only to disperse their seeds, but also to fertilize them, irrigate them, treat their diseases, and protect them from pests. From the plant’s perspective, this is more than just a good tradeoff, it is an evolutionary coup.
And this was exactlySouthernStyle’s point. Milk is an animal product, but since it is meant to be food anyway, it should be considered acceptable for vegetarians.
We actually disagree about very little here. If my reaction was unnecessarily harsh, I apologize. Truce?
Wow, I didn’t realize this would get so many replies. I guess what I meant in the OP was why people who are vegetarians for self-proclaimed moral reasons don’t give more thought to this issue. I wondered how they justified eating dairy products to themselves. Why would they have to justify it to anyone else?
In any case, the point posters made about not having to be consistent makes some sense.
But I still don’t have an answer to my question. It seems to me that even if you have the kindest, smallest, best run, cleanest dairy in the world, you are still going to have male calves that you have to do something with. I suppose you could have them neutered and keep them as pets, but that seems unrealistic.
So how are all people who consume dairy products not somehow responsible for the eventual fate of these male calves?
OK, DumbOx.
YosemiteBABE, how nice to hear from you! And fancy seeing you in a thread about vegetarianism. (But I still say if those folks for religous reasons include fish, but still want to call THEMSELVES “vegetarians”, they can, but WE will call them “semi-vegetarians”, Ok?)
taddycat: yep, and if you have the nicest, most well run farm, it still means the death of millions of bugs. To eat is to kill. And if you drink the milk, I will happily eat the beef, so I will take on the blame for that, OK? If you have a child, he/she WILL eventually die, so are you responsible for that death? Everythings gotta die sometime.
And fancy seeing your here first, and actively participating! You are far more active on this thread than me! Imagine that!
They can call themselves the Queen of Sheba, Shaft, Yoda or Princess Diana for all I care. As long as they don’t expect me or other veggies to consider them “real” vegetarians…
taddycat, I would agree with Danielinthewolvesden. (How 'bout that? :D) He said,
What “moral” vegetarians try to do is limit the amount of harm they do, to the best of their ability. Some are able to forgo dairy, others aren’t. Those who do eat dairy don’t say to themselves, “Well, if I can’t give up milk, then I can’t be ethically consistent, so I’ll just keep eating meat, too.” They say, “At least by not eating meat, I am preventing some suffering, and that is better than nothing, even if I can’t be perfectly consistent.”
