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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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 impossible to know
I've amended it to be accurate. Would you like to argue against the proof I've laid out now?
I don't believe you've ever encountered this argument before. your accusation of bad faith is, itself, bad faith
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.
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.