enkers

Would you rather take on 30 otter-sized horses, or one horse-sized otter?

Approximately 0.01% of lemmy’s user base would conflate simple “use” with exploitation. I warned you about sophistry before. If you have knowledge relevant to the domain at hand, put it to use, or stop wasting both of our time.

If you want the barest understanding, I guess the barest definitions are “good enough”. If you want a more sophisticated understanding then you have to take the time to understand the actual philosophical lexicon that the definition relies upon, since, as it points out itself, “Veganism is a philosophy”.

Y’know, considering your username is commie, I’m surprised you don’t have a better understanding of exploitation, as Marx was really pivotal in developing that philosophical concept.

That would imply that vegans could not have sex with each other because it “uses” the body of an animal.

Exploitation involves one using the vulnerability of another in order to gain something in an unfair manner. It’s not simply “use”.

We’re not talking about consensual exploitation. Were talking about behaviors that aren’t exploitation due to, or perhaps shown not to be so by consent. There’s no need to explicitly mention consent because a) it would needlessly complicate the definition, b) as a practical matter, it almost never actually arises except in these sorts of thought experiments, and c) it’s already included implicitly in the concept of exploitation.

Let’s look at our original thought experiment: “It’s vegan to eat someone who has consented to being eaten.”

Usually we don’t put too much thought into this sort of stuff because it doesn’t really come up much outside of tongue in cheek mention, but I digress.

OK, so off the bat, if you think about it, there are indeed some problems with this statement. There could be systemic issues that made them consent to something harmful because the transactional benefit outweighs the harm to them. So in that sense, you’re right, looking directly for exploitation is the more objectively vegan thing to do.

However what if they have a genuine desire to be eaten (non-injuriously or posthumously, hopefully) where there are no confounding influences like above? The absence of exploitation is indicated through consent, in this case, and indeed, without any form of consent the other party would have no way to know of their desire to be eaten.

I think maybe a more realistic example than eating someone would be “Is it vegan to honour someone’s organ-donor card?” That seems to me to be a fairly clearcut case of accepting consent as implying non-exploitation.

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.

Also, not that it matters, but there are 10 mentions if you also search for “consensual”, but that’s not really here nor there.

If you don’t wish to debate, you’re free to not respond at any time.

If we we’re having a discussion about physics, presumably we would use the terminology of physics. If we are having a discussion about morality and ethics (fields of philosophy, that is) we should probably use the terminology of philosophy. If you want to play semantic games, play them by yourself.

Veganism is an ethical position and as such can only be properly understood in the context of ethics.

An astute observation. Good thing I get all my knowledge from dictionaries so I can have a paper thin understanding of everything.

Decent video, but regarding your comment, I’m not sure exactly how long each stop takes, or how much a fully kitted police officer’s time costs, but I’d be willing to wager that 10 million $1 stops would lose them an awful lot of money.

It does make me wonder what the average net and gross profit are per car stopped, though.

Yeah, we need to be asking what the purpose of trying the child in question as an adult here is:

Rehabilitation - I think the juvenile system would probably be better suited for this purpose, so no.

Deterrence - I don’t think the knowledge that they might be tried as an adult has much bearing on their decision to commit the crime. I’d be willing to wager that people who do this sort of thing don’t much care what the consequences are. They’ve given up on themselves and their own lives.

Removal - This strikes me as the main motivator. If the system has no way to rehabilitate, and recidivism is likely, then what other option is there?

Retribution - As much as the US loves its retribution, usually it’s less keen to enact it on children. I’m sure some people would be happy about this aspect though.

Retaliation - I’ll let y’all judge off of the tone of the rest of the comments for this one.

What? Where are you looking, the dictionary?

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/exploitation/

Consent is mentioned plenty.

It’s implicit. If consent was given, it wouldn’t be exploitative. (And obviously, that’s contingent upon non-coersion.)

This is a meta-discussion about beans though. We’re not talking about beans, we’re talking about talking about beans.

I didn’t realize I wasn’t being calm. Maybe I’ll have to get my b12 levels checked. Nice talking with ya.

Profiting off the suffering of others isn’t acceptable behavior. Establishments that do so should be boycotted where possible and practicable. I think protest is a justified response.

Given two scenarios where I’m potentially wrong, the one where I’m mistaken and vegan is the one with a substantially more ethical outcome than the one where I’m mistaken and not vegan.

Where does the vegan fanatics self-absolution end? Fire bombing restaurant? Pipe bombs wrapped in nails in crowded restaurants that serve meat?

Usually it ends at the terrifying act of talking with people, because harming them would be explicitly against their own philosophy.

But yeah, it’s totally like a jihad or something.

I suspect the mountain to die was the admin actions removing moderators. Vegan cat food is pretty rarely discussed amongst actual vegans. It just happens to appear to be a “wedge issue” that kind of looks like a gotcha if you squint, thus it’s beloved by anti-vegan trolls.

Speaking from experience, I really resented all the “toxic vegans” I experienced while I was becoming vegan, but looking back I’m quite thankful for them. The reason they seemed so toxic was because they kept highlighting my own moral inconsistencies. This raised cognitive dissonance which felt like a personal attack. It’s an unpleasant experience.

Of course there were also a lot of “good vegans” I’m thankful of as well who would patiently answer any of my questions, and this is the approach I try and take myself (although sometimes I don’t succeed, I’m sure).

Yet without the radicals that are willing to rock the boat, our society would be morally stagnant and unable to progress. We’re literally having the conservative/progressive debate.

I assume the case you’re referring to is the recent Just Stop Oil case? I personally see the judge’s decision as incredibly short sighted. He’s put short term convenience above averting global catastrophe for all life on earth. In my view, it is he who has caused his fellow citizens harm, and on a much wider scale.

We’re not simply talking about pain, though. I like the painful sensation from hot peppers, for example, but I wouldn’t ever wish to subject myself to the systematic violence and awful conditions that farmed animals face.