Approximately 0.01% of lemmy’s user base would conflate simple “use” with exploitation.
can you substantiate this?
Approximately 0.01% of lemmy’s user base would conflate simple “use” with exploitation.
can you substantiate this?
I’m surprised you don’t have a better understanding of exploitation
you have no idea what my understanding is. that’s not the subject of our discussion. don’t make this personal.
we are discussing the vegan society’s understanding.
the barest definition is a synonym of “use”. the vegan society could clear up this ambiguity but they have chosen not to do so, and there is no reason to assume they prefer a special definition of exploitation.
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.
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
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
you’re free to not respond at any time.