431
submitted 10 months ago by throws_lemy@lemmy.nz to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] WetBeardHairs@lemmy.ml 15 points 10 months ago

Consider just eating, you know, cow, or only venison from a trusted source.

Preferably the person that shot and had it butchered.

Eat the person who shot the deer? Dang that's some extreme veganism.

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 8 points 10 months ago

Turn about is fair play 😤

[-] creamed_eels@toast.ooo 3 points 10 months ago

Do you want to get Kuru? Because that’s how you get Kuru!

[-] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Only if you eat the uncooked brain iirc.

[-] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Fun fact, human is the only meat that can be vegan! They just have to consent to it

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

it's still exploiting an animal. it's not vegan.

edit: this user seems to think theyn can poison the well so that readers will be misled about what words mean. I encourage you to actually learn.

[-] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

It's not exploitation if they consent, that's the entire point of veganism

Edit: instead of reading this entire ridiculous comment chain with commie consistently being wrong about everything they say, here's the part where I won the argument

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 10 months ago

it is. consent has nothing to do with exploitation.

[-] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

This is nonsense. If I have a thing, and I give you that thing freely and of my own volition, you have not exploited me. If we're going to say that that's necessarily exploitation, then all transactions are exploitative, and nothing could be considered vegan except for growing your own vegetables in the wild. No, human-derived food can be vegan, as is the case with milk.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 10 months ago

taking something to use it is the barest definition of exploitation.

[-] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago

Sure, it's the most braindead definition you can use, and it ignores the very concept of why vegans are vegan in the first place. Big "gender=sex is basic biology" energy here

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 10 months ago

the vegan society says "all forms of exploitation".

[-] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

When they say "all forms of exploitation," do you think they mean "exploitation in every form, be it for food, clothing, entertainment, etc.," or do you think they mean "exploitation by every conceivable definition?" Because the vegan society speaks and acts as if it is the former, and the latter is a semantic argument that's only ever made in bad faith.

So what do vegans mean when they say "exploitation?" Well, without a clear definition from them, we have to make inferences. Not breastfeeding is possible and practicable thanks to plant-based formulas, yet they don't recommend against it. Therefore, it must be the case that human milk, in the context of breastfeeding, is vegan, as if it weren't, they would necessarily recommend against it. That rules out any definition of "exploitation" that is as simple as "make use of," because if their definition were that simple, they would have to recommend against "making use of" human milk.

This leaves us with definitions that are more complex than simply "making use of." Every single applicable definition of "exploit" that's more complex than "make use of" involves something to do with unfairness, lack of consent, or some other inequality.

Now that we've established the fact that human-derived foods can be vegan (and we have established that as a fact), we can safely say that human meat can be vegan, as long as the individual consents, is not being unfairly treated, and is giving their flesh of their own volition. You were wrong. It's okay to be wrong, you can simply admit that your understanding was imperfect, and grow as an individual.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 10 months ago

and we have established that as a fact

no, we havent

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 10 months ago

You were wrong. It's okay to be wrong, you can simply admit that your understanding was imperfect, and grow as an individual.

this is condescending. it is inappropriate conduct in this community.

[-] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago

The only rule you could argue this breaks is #1, be civil, and I think I was quite civil in that statement.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 10 months ago

condescension is demeaning.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 10 months ago

Not breastfeeding is possible and practicable thanks to plant-based formulas, yet they don't recommend against it.

they may disagree with your assessment of practicability of not breastfeeding

[-] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago

They would not. Plant-based formula is available. Not breastfeeding is possible and practicable. I was pretty sure you were just trolling, but now I'm certain of it.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 10 months ago

Not breastfeeding is possible and practicable.

according to whom? they don't say so

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 10 months ago

the vegan society speaks and acts as if it is the former

this is only your interpretation of the facts. I've already given an equally supported interpretation. the only rational course is to suspend judgement until more is known.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 10 months ago

human milk, in the context of breastfeeding, is vegan, as if it weren't, they would necessarily recommend against it.

unless there were some other carveout that allowed the exception.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 10 months ago

Because every vegan lives as if it is the former,

this is impossible to know

[-] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago

I've amended it to be accurate. Would you like to argue against the proof I've laid out now?

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 10 months ago

Every single applicable definition of "exploit" that's more complex than "make use of" involves something to do with unfairness, lack of consent,

none of the definitions I've found mention consent or even allude to it.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 10 months ago

and the latter is a semantic argument that's only ever made in bad faith

I don't believe you've ever encountered this argument before. your accusation of bad faith is, itself, bad faith

[-] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)
[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 10 months ago

they also say that you only need to practice veganism in so far as it is practicable. recommending the people do the practicable thing instead of the vegan thing is perfectly in line with a vegan society's definition. that doesn't change whether it's exploitation.

[-] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago

It's perfectly practicable to not breastfeed your baby, and to only use plant-derived formula. If human milk wasn't vegan, the Vegan Society would say as much.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 10 months ago

then they should change the definition to show that some forms of exploitation of animals is ok.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 10 months ago

No, human-derived food can be vegan, as is the case with milk.

too many commas there.

No human-derived food can be vegan, as is the case with milk.

[-] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

My friend. If even PETA agrees that human milk is vegan, you can be damn sure that human milk is vegan.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

your peta link is out of date. it says that the academy of nutrition and dietetics says that appropriately planned vegan diets are appropriated at all stages, but that paper has expired and is no longer a position of the academy.

[-] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

My point was not that PETA supported breastfeeding based on a study they cited, my point was that PETA, an organization considered by many to be an extremist vegan organization, recommends breastfeeding.

I cannot fathom why I need to explain this to you. PETA hates every human activity that isn't vegan. PETA does not hate breastfeeding. Ergo, it is reasonable to assume via the transitive property that breastfeeding must be vegan, as it is a human activity that PETA does not hate. The exact same can be said for the vegan society link I provided in a different comment.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

if Peta were an authority on what is vegan, then the rest of your claim would be true. since Peta is not an authority on what is vegan it's possible that their mistaken about their take on breastfeeding.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 10 months ago

peta is not the authority on the meaning of veganism

this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2023
431 points (98.4% liked)

News

23284 readers
1863 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS