exploitation and consent are unrelated. I exploit water resources every day, and consent is an absurd topic to raise in this context. the definition of veganism requires the abstention from exploitation of animals for food. there is no exemption made for consenting animals
The way that people use the word “exploit” when talking about living things is different from the way we use it when talking about nonliving things. It implies a lack of consent from the one being exploited.
Scroll down to verbs. When you’re talking about someone else, there’s an implication of unfairness. This is why vegans don’t eat animals or use animal products. If the animals could consent, there would be nothing wrong with it.
I reiterate: it would not be unfair for Astarion or Lenore to drain several pints of blood from my neck
And exploitation, when talking about living things, implies unfairness and nonconsent
You realize the word becomes entirely useless if we use your definition, yeah? Virtually every interaction between living things becomes exploitation under your silly definition. It’s not very useful. I’ll stick with the more widely used definition, wherein it would be exploitation for Nosferatu to suck my blood, but not Mavis Dracula or her dad
Fun fact, human blood can be vegan, as long as the human is consenting
the definition of veganism has nothing to do with consent, only exploitation.
Doesn’t consent imply the absence of exploitative forces?
exploitation and consent are unrelated. I exploit water resources every day, and consent is an absurd topic to raise in this context. the definition of veganism requires the abstention from exploitation of animals for food. there is no exemption made for consenting animals
Exploit does mean “use/utilize” but I assumed the common subtext of “use unfairly or in a manner not conducive to overall welfare”
the ambiguity does not seem to be helpful in defining veganism, and the definition should probably be updated
The way that people use the word “exploit” when talking about living things is different from the way we use it when talking about nonliving things. It implies a lack of consent from the one being exploited.
consenting exploitation is still exploitation.
And if I’m consenting, then it isn’t exploitation when a hot vampire gives me the biggest fucking hickey
consenting exploitation is still exploitation
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/exploit
Scroll down to verbs. When you’re talking about someone else, there’s an implication of unfairness. This is why vegans don’t eat animals or use animal products. If the animals could consent, there would be nothing wrong with it.
I reiterate: it would not be unfair for Astarion or Lenore to drain several pints of blood from my neck
The definition from the vegan society doesn’t mention unfairness at all. it prohibits exploitation carte blanche
And exploitation, when talking about living things, implies unfairness and nonconsent
You realize the word becomes entirely useless if we use your definition, yeah? Virtually every interaction between living things becomes exploitation under your silly definition. It’s not very useful. I’ll stick with the more widely used definition, wherein it would be exploitation for Nosferatu to suck my blood, but not Mavis Dracula or her dad
yea. it is. but the vegan society’s definition doesn’t prohibit exploiting living things: it prohibits exploiting animals.
i disagree. i think it draws sharp contrasts that help us understand both the standard and whether we are meeting it.
deleted by creator
Nothing is vegan then.
I use
Archplant based alternatives BTW.wrong.