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.
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.
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
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