As the core of veganism is consent, there are several elements to consider:
Consent of the substance’s sentient source: The coffee bean seems more than willing to give this up… almost too willing. I don’t think there’s a direct issue here, but definitely warrants further consideration when other parties are involved.
Consent of the substance’s consumers: neither Mordecai nor Rigby seem to want what’s going on. While Rigby signed the contract, and could be held to its terms under ideal circumstances, it’s a rather predatory situation since it’s presented in a language he doesn’t understand. Mordecai didn’t sign anything, did not consent even on paper, and is a complete victim here.
While mostly related to point #2, contracts are often wielded as a tool of the powerful against the weak, and in an inequitable exchange ends up being little more than a justification to continue a coercive arrangement one party would back out of if given the choice.
So I’d say while the events depicted are not vegan, but the coffee itself as a substance is most likely vegan. It’s a little hard to say for certain without more context tho, for instance if the bean is also coerced to act this way by outside forces.
If you drop-in replace “x does not consent” with “x is being exploited” (making necessary grammatical adjustments), I feel like I’m still basically saying the same thing with the same takeaways
Consent violation and exploitation are fairly intertwined concepts, but exploitation generally sells better as a term to highlight injustice. For that reason perhaps it would have been better to use that term instead, but I’ve already spent enough time on my writing half-baked analysis on a 20 second clip from regular show
If you drop-in replace “x does not consent” with “x is being exploited” (making necessary grammatical adjustments), I feel like I’m still basically saying the same thing with the same takeaways
since a well or forest or ecosystem could be exploited, I feel like your perspective is being narrowed by something undisclosed. it seems obvious to me that if we were discussing groundwater or ecosystems, you would never raise consent as an objection.
Pushing sentient coffee beans aside, non-human animals cannot give informed consent, so all exploitation of them inherently violates consent. That being said, I wouldn’t necessarily describe the “core of veganism” the way @restless@hexbear.net did, so I get what you mean.
To get back on topic, when you make the core of the issue exploitation, I’d say this is overall a vegan scene, and the coffee nipple brew itself appears to be vegan.
Think about it: the coffee bean isn’t actually being exploited for his coffee nipple brew. So what about the other claim that restless was getting at—that Mordecai and Rigby are having their consent violated? Well, if we want to keep it about the actual core issue veganism aims to tackle, exploitation, let’s rephrase it as, “Are Mordecai and Rigby being exploited here?”
When Leslie Cross gave a definition in the writing, In Search of Veganism, he defined veganism this way:
Veganism may therefore be defined as “the principle of the emancipation of the animals from exploitation by man.”
He defines the terms here:
Emancipation: the state of being set free. Exploitation: the act of using for selfish purposes. Animals: sentient animate creatures other than man.
Now, the coffee bean isn’t a human (“man”), but let’s neglect that aspect for a second and see if it holds up as exploitation even without that caveat.
If exploitation is the act of using for selfish purposes, you can’t exactly say that Mordecai and Rigby are being used for selfish purposes here, at least not in the context of the coffee bean shooting the nipple brew in their mouths. What benefit is the coffee bean trying to extract from shooting the nipple brew in their mouths? It doesn’t appear to benefit him in and of itself or even serve as a form of use at all.
That being said, I forgot the entire context of this episode, but if the contract terms contained anything exploitative, then maybe we could say they were being exploited that way, but as far as the act of the coffee bean shooting nipple brew into their mouth goes, it’s all vegan.
Another point to mention is that if the coffee bean were being held against his will and forcefully “milked” for people to make use of his nipple brew, that’d definitely be exploitation of a sentient animate creature other than man, so it wouldn’t be vegan in that context.
I non-human animals cannot give informed consent, so all exploitation of them inherently violates consent
I’d say that it’s absurd to discuss consent from something that cannot possibly give it, like a lock consenting to having a key jammed in it or a car consenting to being driven.
This is a false equivalence because those are non-sentient objects being compared to sentient individuals. By your logic, having laws regarding a child’s inability to give infomred consent is “absurd to discuss.”
Also, it would maybe be some degree of more absurd if some non-vegans didn’t actually try to argue things like “My horse consents to being ridden!” but they do.
Taking that argument to its logical conclusion doesn’t hold up because, if we follow that reasoning, we’d have to ignore any laws protecting humans with cognitive impairments from having their consent violated.
Furthermore, insisting that consent is only relevant to sapient beings and not sentient ones seems like an overly rigid interpretation of a definition, done just to push a point that doesn’t really have material relevance. One could argue that animals can still express forms of consent, but even then, it wouldn’t be informed consent, so there’s no real reason to insist on that specific definition in the first place. Such clarifications, however, are important specifically because some people do try to suggest that animals can (give informed) consent, and they’re wrong.
What I don’t quite understand, though, is why you’re so fixated on debating semantics around terms like “consent” and “sentience” in the context of a shitpost about a weird Regular Show scene. It really comes off as if you’re just debating for the sake of debating, which certainly makes you seem rather insufferable.
I disagree. If we take the rejection of all exploitation of animals as a core facet, which the vegan society does in their definition (aside: am I missing something about why they get to be the arbiters of the unique definition of veganism?):
“Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.”
and consider that humans are animals who can consent to actions that would be exploitative in other contexts, especially without consent (e.g., solving geometry problems, listening to or performing music, creative writing, hiking), we see consent emerge. We don’t think about it in decisions with respect to non-human animals because they can’t consent.
(e.g., solving geometry problems, listening to or performing music, creative writing, hiking
to steelman you, the strongest case, I think, is breast feeding. but that is exploitation by the barest definition, and the vegan society has never, to my knowledge, made any exception in it’s definition regarding that.
As the core of veganism is consent, there are several elements to consider:
So I’d say while the events depicted are not vegan, but the coffee itself as a substance is most likely vegan. It’s a little hard to say for certain without more context tho, for instance if the bean is also coerced to act this way by outside forces.
The Bean appears to be working. Work under capitalism is non-consensual as it is coerced by threat of homelessness, hunger and death.
consent doesn’t appear anywhere in the vegan society definition of veganism. it’s only about exploitation of animals.
If you drop-in replace “x does not consent” with “x is being exploited” (making necessary grammatical adjustments), I feel like I’m still basically saying the same thing with the same takeaways
Consent violation and exploitation are fairly intertwined concepts, but exploitation generally sells better as a term to highlight injustice. For that reason perhaps it would have been better to use that term instead, but I’ve already spent enough time on my writing half-baked analysis on a 20 second clip from regular show
since a well or forest or ecosystem could be exploited, I feel like your perspective is being narrowed by something undisclosed. it seems obvious to me that if we were discussing groundwater or ecosystems, you would never raise consent as an objection.
even by implication?
no synonym for it appears. I suppose most vegans interpret it in the penumbra, but it’s not a core facet
Pushing sentient coffee beans aside, non-human animals cannot give informed consent, so all exploitation of them inherently violates consent. That being said, I wouldn’t necessarily describe the “core of veganism” the way @restless@hexbear.net did, so I get what you mean.
To get back on topic, when you make the core of the issue exploitation, I’d say this is overall a vegan scene, and the coffee nipple brew itself appears to be vegan.
Think about it: the coffee bean isn’t actually being exploited for his coffee nipple brew. So what about the other claim that restless was getting at—that Mordecai and Rigby are having their consent violated? Well, if we want to keep it about the actual core issue veganism aims to tackle, exploitation, let’s rephrase it as, “Are Mordecai and Rigby being exploited here?”
When Leslie Cross gave a definition in the writing, In Search of Veganism, he defined veganism this way:
He defines the terms here:
Now, the coffee bean isn’t a human (“man”), but let’s neglect that aspect for a second and see if it holds up as exploitation even without that caveat.
If exploitation is the act of using for selfish purposes, you can’t exactly say that Mordecai and Rigby are being used for selfish purposes here, at least not in the context of the coffee bean shooting the nipple brew in their mouths. What benefit is the coffee bean trying to extract from shooting the nipple brew in their mouths? It doesn’t appear to benefit him in and of itself or even serve as a form of use at all.
That being said, I forgot the entire context of this episode, but if the contract terms contained anything exploitative, then maybe we could say they were being exploited that way, but as far as the act of the coffee bean shooting nipple brew into their mouth goes, it’s all vegan.
Another point to mention is that if the coffee bean were being held against his will and forcefully “milked” for people to make use of his nipple brew, that’d definitely be exploitation of a sentient animate creature other than man, so it wouldn’t be vegan in that context.
id say exploitation can be defined as “use”. a community exploits a well. plants exploit sunlight.
I’d say that it’s absurd to discuss consent from something that cannot possibly give it, like a lock consenting to having a key jammed in it or a car consenting to being driven.
This is a false equivalence because those are non-sentient objects being compared to sentient individuals. By your logic, having laws regarding a child’s inability to give infomred consent is “absurd to discuss.”
Also, it would maybe be some degree of more absurd if some non-vegans didn’t actually try to argue things like “My horse consents to being ridden!” but they do.
sentience has nothing to do with consent. since consent must be informed, it is a subject limited to sapient individuals.
Taking that argument to its logical conclusion doesn’t hold up because, if we follow that reasoning, we’d have to ignore any laws protecting humans with cognitive impairments from having their consent violated.
Furthermore, insisting that consent is only relevant to sapient beings and not sentient ones seems like an overly rigid interpretation of a definition, done just to push a point that doesn’t really have material relevance. One could argue that animals can still express forms of consent, but even then, it wouldn’t be informed consent, so there’s no real reason to insist on that specific definition in the first place. Such clarifications, however, are important specifically because some people do try to suggest that animals can (give informed) consent, and they’re wrong.
What I don’t quite understand, though, is why you’re so fixated on debating semantics around terms like “consent” and “sentience” in the context of a shitpost about a weird Regular Show scene. It really comes off as if you’re just debating for the sake of debating, which certainly makes you seem rather insufferable.
I disagree. If we take the rejection of all exploitation of animals as a core facet, which the vegan society does in their definition (aside: am I missing something about why they get to be the arbiters of the unique definition of veganism?):
and consider that humans are animals who can consent to actions that would be exploitative in other contexts, especially without consent (e.g., solving geometry problems, listening to or performing music, creative writing, hiking), we see consent emerge. We don’t think about it in decisions with respect to non-human animals because they can’t consent.
the vegan society makes no such carve-out for consent, and I see no reason to grant it.
the vegan society also says you should be vegan, and I see no reason to grant an exception to this
they do, but I find their reasoning to be specious
Your logical incoherence is a violation of Rule 3 of c/badposting
to steelman you, the strongest case, I think, is breast feeding. but that is exploitation by the barest definition, and the vegan society has never, to my knowledge, made any exception in it’s definition regarding that.
this is incoherent and you should reexamine your first principles