i am more than willing to engage on any positive claim you want to make (i probably agree with a lot of them). what i’m not willing to do is tolerate personal attacks and dogpiling.
- 8 Posts
- 747 Comments
0·21 days agothe more I dig into this paper the worse it gets. it’s calculating inputs from feed and land use change. this is as bad as poore-nemecek. but it’s not even using data from the operations, instead it’s just guessing.
no one should take this paper seriously, except academic rhetoricians who need to show their colleagues how the trappings of science are used to spread claims without evidence.
if they could prove it, this would be worth discussing. these are just guesses.
1·2 months agostop wasting both of our time.
you’re free to not respond at any time.
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.
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
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
, 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
this is just recycled poore nemecek. it’s bad science gaining entrenchment.