In article ,
John Cartmell writes:
In article ,
Sam Nelson wrote:
In article ,
Tim writes:
In article ,
says...
Or something cheesy.

"Vegetarian" (without further explanation) does not preclude eating
cheese.

Anyone that eats anything made with the milk of X ought to be prepared to
eat the meat of X as well. You don't get cows' milk without calves, and the
male calves won't grow up to produce milk. If you drink cow's milk or eat
cheese made with cows' milk, you're implicitly condoning the slaughter of
young male cattle for food, so you might as well eat the beef that results.

That's a separate matter and is an argument that divides vegetarians from
vegans.

Not quite. As far as I can tell, a fair number of vegetarians are that
because they don't want animals killed to feed them. That doesn't preclude
using `non-lethal' animal products---eggs, for example. My point is that
dairy products are indirectly lethal to male cattle.

Some people regard being a vegetarian as just one step they can take
in a particular direction. Others regard meat reduction in their diet as a
step towards being a vegetarian. Saying you must make an all or nothing choice
immediately is an argument well-used by the meat industry to attempt to turn
people away from reform of their diet.

All or nothing? Absolutely not. But as long as there are people drinking
cows' milk, there'll be an excess of male cattle around for no useful reason
other than to kill for beef.

There is no such requirement whether
your reform is for health or moral reasons and most reasonable religious
prohibitions expect the occasional lapse.

There wasn't the slightest hint of any religious connection in what I wrote
above, nor any intention for there to be such.
--
SAm.