• agitatedpotato@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    There are plenty of vegans who would tell you they abstain from any products of animal suffering, otherwise they would use products that were tested on animals. Just because you test lipstick on animals, doesn’t make the lipstick a product of animals, its a product of animal suffering. Your definition is not the only one and doesn’t exclude animal tested products, which many vegans go out of their way to avoid.

      • agitatedpotato@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        And those are both products of animal suffering, a common definition many vegans use. Come on, now you’re just being obtuse on purpose.

        • Moobythegoldensock@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Venus flytraps aren’t products. They’re organisms.

          You’re the one being obtuse. Killing a plant is not killing an animal. Killing a plant that eats animals is not humans doing something to an animal. It’s actually the opposite: it’s humans saving animals.

          If you want to get that granular, whatever device you’re using to type your pedantic replies was made of parts that were shipped. At some point, the vehicle they were shipped on killed a bug. You caused way more animal deaths typing your replies to me than anyone ever did killing a venus flytrap, because killing a venus fly trap does not actually kill any animals.

          • agitatedpotato@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            When you eat that organism, its cells that feed you were produced because it ate flies, those cells are not products of the flies death? No one said killing a plant was killing an animal, What I said was if you avoid products of animal suffering why would you not avoid the biological products of animal suffering? And if humans eating things that harm animals is saving animals then why don’t vegans eat carnivorous animals? Because that not what veganism is about. Also the amount of animal death I cause has nothing to do with the debate at hand. One thing does not become vegan simply because something else causes more animal death, I don’t even know what point you’re trying to make talking about vehicles.

            • rwhitisissle@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              When you eat that organism, its cells that feed you were produced because it ate flies, those cells are not products of the flies death?

              Isn’t the logical extension of this that nothing is vegan? Think about it: animals in nature get preyed upon constantly. A wolf kills an elk, eats part of it, and then its corpse decomposes. The carbon from the decomposing body is then used by plants in the biosphere to build new cells. These plants are now the products of dead animals. Are these unethical to eat because they had their cells built from recycled carbon that once belonged to an animal? Probably not. And this is true of all plants everywhere. And if you were to say “yes, but those plants didn’t kill any animals themselves,” then that argument would also have to apply for humans eating venus flytraps: humans didn’t kill any animals themselves; they’re just consuming something that did.

              • agitatedpotato@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                humans didn’t kill any animals themselves; they’re just consuming something that did.

                But wouldn’t that argument only hold up for flytraps found in the wild? Any that have been cultivated by humans, especially for human consumption, would likely be fed by humans to ensure any food the plant gets is not going to negatively effect the quality of the food. But vegans also wouldn’t eat eggs found in the wild, even if they could somehow know that they were unfertilized and abandoned. At the very least this is not a black and white case, I think it’s very easy to imagine groups of vegans abstaining from these if they were a food product. Not everyone’s definition of vegan is the same I’ve acknowledged that from the beginning, some vegans go as far as some Jainists do, breathing through cheesecloth to avoid killing as many microorganisms as they can. Everyone draws their own line somewhere, I’m just convinced that if people actually ate flytraps, plenty of vegans would abstain.

                • rwhitisissle@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  In that case, your issue seems more to be with a semantic definition of veganism. You’ve framed it in the terms of “is eating a plant that eats meat non-vegan,” but conceptually what you’re asking about is the transitive nature of suffering and accountability and how that intersects with a particular, very specific lifestyle choice. Which is a fine and ostensibly interesting discussion to have, but the way you elected to frame that conversation is…less than ideal.

                  • agitatedpotato@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Or, hear me out, people shouldn’t get defensive in a thread explicitly about a fabricated hypothetical. It’s meant to be examined and I’m not sorry for examining it.

    • ursakhiin@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      There are two separate concepts your are talking to here.

      The first is what a vegan is. A vegan is a defined as

      a person who does not eat any food derived from animals and who typically does not use other animal products.

      Why they chose that lifestyle is the second concept you are taking about and it does not alter the definition for anything other than the individual person.