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.
Turn about is fair play 😤
Do you want to get Kuru? Because that’s how you get Kuru!
Only if you eat the uncooked brain iirc.
Fun fact, human is the only meat that can be vegan! They just have to consent to it
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.
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
it is. consent has nothing to do with exploitation.
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.
taking something to use it is the barest definition of exploitation.
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
the vegan society says "all forms of exploitation".
But wait, why would the Vegan Society advise breastfeeding if milk isn't vegan?
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.
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.
then they should change the definition to show that some forms of exploitation of animals is ok.
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.
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.
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
Because every vegan lives as if it is the former,
this is impossible to know
I've amended it to be accurate. Would you like to argue against the proof I've laid out now?
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
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.
Not breastfeeding is possible and practicable.
according to whom? they don't say so
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.
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.
and we have established that as a fact
no, we havent
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.
The only rule you could argue this breaks is #1, be civil, and I think I was quite civil in that statement.
condescension is demeaning.
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.
My friend. If even PETA agrees that human milk is vegan, you can be damn sure that human milk is vegan.
peta is not the authority on the meaning of veganism
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.
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.
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.
Eat the person who shot the deer? Dang that's some extreme veganism.
Turn about is fair play 😤
Do you want to get Kuru? Because that’s how you get Kuru!
Only if you eat the uncooked brain iirc.
Fun fact, human is the only meat that can be vegan! They just have to consent to it
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.
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
it is. consent has nothing to do with exploitation.
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.
taking something to use it is the barest definition of exploitation.
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
the vegan society says "all forms of exploitation".
The vegan society also says
But wait, why would the Vegan Society advise breastfeeding if milk isn't vegan?
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.
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.
then they should change the definition to show that some forms of exploitation of animals is ok.
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.
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.
I don't believe you've ever encountered this argument before. your accusation of bad faith is, itself, bad faith
this is impossible to know
I've amended it to be accurate. Would you like to argue against the proof I've laid out now?
they may disagree with your assessment of practicability of not breastfeeding
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.
according to whom? they don't say so
unless there were some other carveout that allowed the exception.
none of the definitions I've found mention consent or even allude to it.
no, we havent
this is condescending. it is inappropriate conduct in this community.
The only rule you could argue this breaks is #1, be civil, and I think I was quite civil in that statement.
condescension is demeaning.
too many commas there.
No human-derived food can be vegan, as is the case with milk.
My friend. If even PETA agrees that human milk is vegan, you can be damn sure that human milk is vegan.
peta is not the authority on the meaning of veganism
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.
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.
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.