• starman2112@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/exploit

            Scroll down to verbs. When you’re talking about someone else, there’s an implication of unfairness. This is why vegans don’t eat animals or use animal products. If the animals could consent, there would be nothing wrong with it.

            I reiterate: it would not be unfair for Astarion or Lenore to drain several pints of blood from my neck

            • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              4 months ago

              The definition from the vegan society doesn’t mention unfairness at all. it prohibits exploitation carte blanche

              • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                And exploitation, when talking about living things, implies unfairness and nonconsent

                You realize the word becomes entirely useless if we use your definition, yeah? Virtually every interaction between living things becomes exploitation under your silly definition. It’s not very useful. I’ll stick with the more widely used definition, wherein it would be exploitation for Nosferatu to suck my blood, but not Mavis Dracula or her dad

                • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  Virtually every interaction between living things becomes exploitation under your silly definition.

                  yea. it is. but the vegan society’s definition doesn’t prohibit exploiting living things: it prohibits exploiting animals.

                • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  the word becomes entirely useless if we use your definition, yeah?

                  i disagree. i think it draws sharp contrasts that help us understand both the standard and whether we are meeting it.

        • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          exploitation and consent are unrelated. I exploit water resources every day, and consent is an absurd topic to raise in this context. the definition of veganism requires the abstention from exploitation of animals for food. there is no exemption made for consenting animals

          • embed_me@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            4 months ago

            Exploit does mean “use/utilize” but I assumed the common subtext of “use unfairly or in a manner not conducive to overall welfare”

            • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              the ambiguity does not seem to be helpful in defining veganism, and the definition should probably be updated

          • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            The way that people use the word “exploit” when talking about living things is different from the way we use it when talking about nonliving things. It implies a lack of consent from the one being exploited.