this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2024
307 points (69.3% liked)
Funny
6991 readers
506 users here now
General rules:
- Be kind.
- All posts must make an attempt to be funny.
- Obey the general sh.itjust.works instance rules.
- No politics or political figures. There are plenty of other politics communities to choose from.
- Don't post anything grotesque or potentially illegal. Examples include pornography, gore, animal cruelty, inappropriate jokes involving kids, etc.
Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
the definition of veganism says nothing about consent, only exploitation. breastmilk is as vegan an cows milk.
You're not being exploited if you consent. Cows can't consent, mothers can. That's the argument.
If we could somehow communicate w/ cows and get their consent, then cows milk could be vegan.
i think this is a tenet of so-called "anarcho" capitalism.
the definition of exploitation makes no mention of consent, and no clarification about consent is made in the vegan society definition.
It's strongly implied in the negative sense. If we want to play the definition game, here's Merriam Webster's definition:
Definition 2 is what I'm referring to. A baby consuming is certainly using milk for its own advantage, but the mother also benefits from the exchange. The mother cares about the health and comfort of the baby, and providing her milk can certainly be something she wants to do. Your argument only makes sense if you think children "unfairly" use the parents' labor for their own gain as well (they consume far more than they contribute to family finances), vs parents willingly giving food and gifts to their children because they want to see them be happy and healthy.
The point here is "meanly or unfairly," and a mother willingly giving her milk to her baby goes exactly counter to that.
Now, if the baby snuck into the mother's bed and suckled without any consent or if the husband refused to purchase alternatives and essentially forced the mother to provide milk, I could see your point. But if the mother is choosing to give it, I honestly don't see how that has anything to do with exploitation, at least in the negative sense. In the positive sense, humans absolutely exploit animals (e.g. vegans eat fruit and veggies pollinated by bees; humans are "exploiting" the bees, but the bees are also "exploiting" the flowers for pollen and nectar).
that's a contradiction for vegans to resolve.
and i'm referring to definition one, and the vegan society doesn't distinguish at all.
Maybe your point would stand if humans had been bred to massively over-produce milk and had their babies taken from them so even more milk could be taken from them for profit and they had no agency in how their life went, from being bred in captivity and then impregnated in order to cause them to produce more milk to being killed when they stop producing milk.
This is a stupid take, even for you
therefore
#3 is wrong (under normal circumstances, assuming the fluid was voluntarily given), and so obviously so that I'm going to assume you're trolling and stop responding. Have a good one ✌️
#3 is a bare fact.
it's the very definition of exploitation. consent plays no part in it.