Why wouldn't it? That's strictly correct. It's not his definition, her definition, my definition or your definition: it's the definition. It's what the word means.
Shaker
Yes, I do know the difference between vegetarian and vegan, and have known it for at least the last 50 years. My response was really a gentle prod at Sriram, just to see what his take on the matter was. I was again specifically Sriram I directed my rather flippant final comments to, since he being a 'pantheist' Hindu is likely to endow plants and fungi with rather more 'sensibility' than you or many of the spiritually sceptic camp are likely to. He may for all I know believe that even rocks have consciousness, but no doubt he'll inform us on that.
My only serious comment was the one concerning the production of milk - and it is a very serious one, for anyone with grand hopes for humanity adopting a principally vegetarian diet. The fact remains that if people want milk (from whichever mammal), there is going to be a huge surplus of male offspring which will have to be slaughtered, unless the pastures of the world are to be munched away in a very short time. There is also the possibility of genetic engineering for more female offspring, but that's a can of worms (incidentally, I think that unusual sources of
animal protein should definitely be explored, including locusts, which can otherwise bring about great areas of famine in hours).
The proposition that much of the world be given over to the growth of legumes - such as soya bean - to replace animal farming has largely resulted in giving an opening to shameless and morally bankrupt opportunists going to make a quick buck - as in Argentina. It also tends to favour the development of huge monocultures, which have often had disastrous agricultural results.
Is "Butbutbutbut what about the plants feeling pain?" a dickheadish non-question typically posed by people more interested in point-scoring than anything substantive such as non-human pain, environmental degradation and so forth? Hell yes.
Yes, it is a dickheadish question, as I've pointed out above, but the second aspect of your comment is so riddled with complexities, that I don't see any point in trying to reduce the argument to a binary 'vegetarian versus omnivorous' option for human sustenance. As I've said, the environmental degradation matter is well underway in some areas as direct consequence of going for the vegetarian option.