hmmmm, so I read over this thread after reading sirdiddy's post regarding KMK and AC and I decided that neither one of them contributed to this post in any condescending way.  Whenever I choose to post on any debate thread i go into it knowing that the topic will very likely go into a discussion with varying opinions, some that i may not like and some that I find make complete sense. 

I think the important thing to keep in mind, as KMK did mention, is that anything that is said on this board is obviously an opinion and I dont necessarily think it is that important to add an "I" whenever we are stating our beliefs.  Also, I dont see KMK's comment "Drinking milk from ANY cow isn't vegan" as being a catalyst for shutting down a discussion, that comment indeed is a fact.  in its most simplest form vegan is defined as "someone who eats no animal or dairy products at all" that would include milk from any type of cow, even the ones considered sacred.

Again, this is a discussion and as someone mentioned before we are not discussing our opinions on peoples character we are simply discussing the opinion on the topic stated.   Lets try and keep to a debates original topic and steer clear of any tangents regarding the discussion of the people behind the opinion.  A healthy debate consist of varying opinions, the discussion may get heated but it is important to remember that at the end of the debate there are no personal attacks intended.

I can wholly respect (said sincerely) that you (or anyone else who feels the same) might not find it important for someone to state "such and such is my opinion" while at the same time, speaking for myself only - i think communication is very important, and is the responsibility of the communicator and there's a big difference between stating subject matter at fact/statement versus presenting it as personal opinion - it can potentially change the entire context of a conversation.  It's a ~very important~ tool to use when communicating.  If it's not used, one should really not be surprised when the essence of what they're trying to say does not come across properly which then results in further aggravation and then casting negativity onto the responder "oh...so and should should know what i'm trying to say"... 

Communication is also a two way street (or rather, moreso - in public forums such as this) - so it's important to consider the context and tone of one's comments before posting them on a public forum.  If that is ignored, i don't see any logic in being surprised when the communication deviates from the original subject matter.  Self responsibility - it's a key component of any communication.  I take full responsibility for for my post that may have perhaps steered the conversation off course - while at the same time, in my eyes - the post was hardly without just cause - it just happened to be on this particular thread that it took place.

The difficulty with saying "drinking milk from ANY cow isn't vegan" is that it's not a statement (and that *was* presented as a statement, not an opinion) that lends itself to further communication.  If someone says "i don't believe drinking milk...is vegan" - can say interject but when it's posted as a be all end all statement, i presume the person has made up their mind and that their is no conversation to be had.

I think there's a danger in picking a word and then attaching ourselves to that word so vehemently, that we become incapable of seeing someone's else opinion with respect and/or clarity.  Forget about agreeing with someone else's opinion - we're totally blind to even seeing it. To borrow the example from my previous post, this is what happens in religion quite often - we get caught up in what it means to be a Christian, or Jew, or Sikh - that we can't see that other's may have differing but equally valid viewpoints. Then we shut down, and then when anyone presents a perception that challenges us to think outside of the box, we dismiss it right away - without even giving creedence to why someone thinks a certain way.  We don't have to agree with the other person, but lack of agreeing doesn't have to equate with blocking out why a person may feel a certain way. 

This is why, i've not used.....the word "is this or that *vegan*" but instead i try to use more rounded concepts such as "living within vegan principles" (whatever that may mean on a personal basis).

As i've mentioned before, on a technical level - i agree that "vegan" is generally recognized as one that refrains from consumption of dairy/animal products and refrains from wearing animal goods, etc.  I'm not saying everyone has to agree to that, but myself - i can agree that is probably what most people think of, when they think vegan. 

The problem for me is that - that concept is too limiting. I think there are many grey areas that are worth discussing that don't fall neatly under the word "vegan". When i say discussing, i mean simply that, discussing.  We're not on this board to make mandates for every self professed vegan around the world - we're simply here to have discussions (hopefully, but not always, conflict free).  There are buddhists who, one might label as vegetarian - however, when they go to remote villages and are offered meat - they accept the meat with gratitude - because that is what is offered to them.  For me, those are higher ideals worthy of discussion, these areas that don't fall neatly into one pre-defined "safe zone" word, discussion what it means to try and live as a vegetarian, vegan, etc ..(insert your label here) - as opposed to "are you adhering to the supposed strict-definition of the technical meaning of what the word means".

The word, words themselves - all words, mean nothing - absolutely nothing, except for the life that we, each and every one of us, breathe into them...

Namaste

while fair enough - and as i have mentioned at least once on this thread (that being said in a "matter or fact" style, not in an antagonistic one), i'll accept that the general perceived view of what it means to be "vegan" ~~ from the technical aspect of the word ~~ would be to refrain from consumption of dairy/eggs/meat/animal products etc.  This seems to be the general consensus.

I still refer back to my original statements however - in that i'm not posting this discussion as it relates to the technical definition of the word "vegan", but moreso - as it relates to a more robust concept of vegan principles.

would i still be inclined to refuse based on my perceptions/attempts at following a vegan lifestyle.

Then in my mind, i would think how the vegan principles i try to live by are (hopefully) not merely blanket principles just for the sake of standing on ceremony - but instead reflective of the notion that i would prefer not to take pleasure of something that was derived from pain.

I guess i'm hoping for discussion a bit more robust and deep then simply fall back on the default "well it's not vegan to drink milk".

As an example - when I have religious/philosophical discussions with someone - and i ask them their feelings on a certain discussion or why they perhaps live in a certain way, often times i'll get an answer synonymous with "well - in the text that i follow - this is what it tells me to do".  While that technically - is an answer, i'm generally looking for something more deep.  Like, if you perform "such and such ceremony" is there any personal feeling attached to that given ceremony or do you do it because you perceive as that being your duty (which, is fine) and so you do it out of ritual? 

So for me, this is how i differentiate in matters of vegan discussion.  To me, saying "i don't consume dairy because it's not vegan to consume dairy - ever!" is a rather circumference type of answer - it's like answering the question, without really answering it at all. 

In short, if someone is going to reply "i wouldn't drink dairy from this cow because that's not vegan" - i'm not asking you to give me your version of the technical definition of being vegan (although you're welcome to - if you desire) - i'm asking for something more deep, what does "being vegan" mean to you? Is it just a set wall of parameters that we blindly follow like sheep or do we allow ourselves the freedom of thought to always think about our current situation and never simply fall back on some default answer.  Look inside yourself, ask these questions, allow yourself the freedom to not lob everything into one lump sum and to examine each situation for it's own merits.

So, with that KMK, while i appreciate your previous post - in my perception - all of those posts just say the same thing over and over "i perform this ritual because that's what it means to be in the club" (club = veganism, religious, politics, etc).    Early in this discussion there were in fact some interesting points that did make me think - and i'd love to get back to those points, points relating to (a) how is the cow impregnanted? (b) what happens to the bull that does the impregnating? (c) what happens to the baby calves?.  I don't know if we'll necessarily have the answers to these questions ~~but~~ that level of depth is the type of reply that really stands out way above the continued robotic drone of "i am vegan. vegans don't drink milk" etc....

I'm not sure why single people are being provoked.  Six people said the same thing in the same language.  None of them prefaced it with "I think."

and sorry, i just noticed that part above.

It's not my intention to provoke, honestly.  I called what i observed.  In answer to your question - my original (provocational, if you prefer) post to you was never of the nature of "why don't you agree with me" - i never had a problem with anyone agreeing or disagreeing with me.  As a matter or fact, there's nothing to agree with because i ~never~ gave a definitive opinion on this subject - because i don't have a definitive opinion.  Further, earlier in the thread i used the phrasing "i neither agree or disagree with said comments", ...so for me to have an issue with someone disagreeing with me - there'd first have to be something to disagree with - which there wasn't.  So for every person that wrote about "it's not logical for me to get upset when someone disagrees with my post" - it actually left me shaking my head a bit and wondering what people were reading.

What i observed is this, i posted subject matter that people took exception too - without even reading thoroughly to see if i actually gave a definitive opinion on the matter - that's fine.  But conclusions were made and then disparaging remarks were made that went outside the realm of the subject matter at hand.  You personally commented about "oh, i can't believe we're having this conversation again" - there was no constructive purpose to insert that - and the only thing such a statement will do is put someone on the defensive.

Communication is like life, right - we get out of it what we put into it.  It's your choice how to communicate, you own that and no one can take that away from you.  But if we put something out there in a certain manner - i don't see the logic/reason in getting upset when someone then replies to the same, in kind.  

For me, and this is just me, i take the time to try not to disparage people's opinions, i take the time to state when things are "my opinion", i try to put everything i can into communication because, i don't want the conflicts that can ensure if i don't make the attempt to communicate effectively.  Communication is communication, there's no right, there's no wrong, everyone is different - we say things in different ways, we perceive things in different ways, etc - but it behooves us (if i said that correctly) to be aware of how our communication can be perceived by others - so that we can project in a manner that we would hope for someone to treat us.