• Moobythegoldensock@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    64
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think you need to look up the definition of of “vegan.” It’s not based on what your food eats: you can’t call eating a grass-fed cow “vegan.”

    Fungi is also not animals.

    • agitatedpotato@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      If a plant has to eat animals to survive then that plant is a product of animal suffering. Thats why vegans don’t drink milk or eat eggs too. So if that’s the definition of vegan that someone subscibes to then the flytrap is not Vegan.

      • Moobythegoldensock@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s not the definition of vegan. The definition of vegan is a person who abstains from animal products. Plants are not animal products.

        Eating a venus flytrap is also removing a plant that eats animals.

        • 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.

              • MadMaurice@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I think it’s a stretch to say that a venus fly trap dish is immoral because the venus fly trap ate an animal, which it is literally forced to do by nature. You don’t blame a lion either for eating meat, because it is literally a carnivore and cannot survive otherwise. I believe when they say animal suffering they mean suffering resulting from exploitation and so on by humans.

          • 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.

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

        Vegans also don’t eat honey, which is not really a byproduct of animal suffering. And a vegan also wouldn’t eat eggs, even if they kept and raised their own free range chickens who were laying unfertilized eggs which were just going to rot if not consumed. Because veganism isn’t about the “suffering” of an animal. You could genetically engineer an animal that was incapable of feeling pain or fear and made it so that it felt ecstasy while being butchered, but killing and eating it would still be unethical for a person to do, and still be in violation of veganism’s core principles, because it’s about conscious beings exploiting the labor or nature of animals without their consent. An animal like a wolf or lion (or in this case a venus fly trap) eating meat is not “unethical” because it exists outside of ethics: it’s just a component of an ecosystem in which predation is a natural element. Humans have functionally removed themselves from whatever ecosystem they evolved to be a part of, so our exploitation of animals and their natural behaviors is just that: exploitative.