commie @ commie @lemmy.dbzer0.com

About

---

Read more

Posts

12

Comments

2,789

Joined

2 yr. ago

The absence of exploitation is indicated through consent,

no, it's not. it's exploitation by the barest definition, like exploiting a fallow field or a forest. the definition of exploitation can by synonymously defined as "use". using a corpse is exploiting it. using a corpse which has, with informed consent, been consigned for use is still exploitation.

if the vegan society wants to create an additional carve-out for consensual exploitation in addition to its exceptions for practicability and possibility, it's not as though they are unaware of these concepts. they have not done so, and there is no reason to believe they mean to do so.

Your assertion was that consent isn’t at all relevant to veganism in regards to exploitation. However, if there exist situations in which consent could relieve the existence of exploitation then it must be relevant to consider.

it's not clear that the vegan society would allow for any exploitation, consensual or otherwise, and to the extent that sometimes people consent to being exploited, there is no reason to believe that exploitation ceases to exist in those cases.

three mentions across 2 paragraphs. all of the mentions imply that consent would somehow relieve accusations of exploitation, but that isn't established in your article for a certainty, and at best i'd say it's debatable. i don't care to debate about it. it's clear that the vulgar use of the term is unrelated entirely.

to be clear, dictionaries record the most common uses of terms. consulting a philosophy encyclopedia is not a good way to understand a term as it is used in vulgar vernacular.

encyclopedias are not dictionaries

you can leave

bye

common definitions of exploitation make no mention of consent either.

veganism eschews all exploitation. there is no carve out for consent in the vegan society's definition

I asked the question I meant to ask

, it is not the case that because it is not immoral for animals to kill other animals(they are not moral agents), it is ok for us to do so.

right but this is not enough evidence to assume it is immoral. we need some reason to believe it is immoral, or it is probably ok

what is a better use for grass than to feed cows?

calling me names doesn't change the fact that I'm right

no one at the store has free will, but I do?

If enough people didn’t buy the product then there wouldn’t be a demand and the person that pays the “milker” wouldn’t pay them anymore.

we made milk before we had money. there is no reason to believe it will ever stop

And I believe the “rape of animals” vegans refer to is taking their milk without consent.

milking isn't rape, either.

Buying the product increases the demand for the product making the store want to provide the product so they purchase it from the farmer.

the. store makes their own decisions. I don't decide for them

That isn’t how supply/demand works. If you are creating a demand, which you are when buying the product, you are incentivizing someone to create a supply.

supply and demand is a price seeking theory. you are misapplying the term to use it this way

You pay the store for the milk, the store pays the wholesaler and the wholesaler pays the farmer who is committing “animal abuse/ rape”.

but I'm not paying the store to pay the farmer. I'm paying for a product.

further, artificial insemination is a veterinary procedure. it is not rape.