Doesn’t consent imply the absence of exploitative forces?
Comment on Anon wants to be a vampire
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 year agothe definition of veganism has nothing to do with consent, only exploitation.
embed_me@programming.dev 1 year ago
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 year ago
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
embed_me@programming.dev 1 year ago
Exploit does mean “use/utilize” but I assumed the common subtext of “use unfairly or in a manner not conducive to overall welfare”
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 year ago
the ambiguity does not seem to be helpful in defining veganism, and the definition should probably be updated
starman2112@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
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.
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 year ago
consenting exploitation is still exploitation.
Aux@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Nothing is vegan then.
Zozano@lemy.lol 1 year ago
I use
Archplant based alternatives BTW.commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 year ago
wrong.
starman2112@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
And if I’m consenting, then it isn’t exploitation when a hot vampire gives me the biggest fucking hickey
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 year ago
consenting exploitation is still exploitation
starman2112@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
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.
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 year ago
The definition from the vegan society doesn’t mention unfairness at all. it prohibits exploitation carte blanche