You farm the remaining humans like livestock? We mastered factory farming 100 years ago, no reason things need to change just because the animals can talk back.
Okay but among those people who choose to remain human, how many of us would be okay with donating blood every two weeks in exchange for food and rent?
Think about it. If the vampires have all the power, why would they kill their food source when the longer they let their food source live the more food they get out of it?
Let us tra-la-la and have happy-go-lucky existences, which will probably make our blood taste better to them, and they can spend their eternities competing for resources or whatever makes a vampire happy after the first 500 years.
in the gloom of mighty cities,
'mid the roar of whirling wheels,
we are toiling on like chattle slaves of old
and our masters hope to keep us
ever, thus, beneath their heels
and to coin our very lifeblood into gold.
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
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
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
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.
You farm the remaining humans like livestock? We mastered factory farming 100 years ago, no reason things need to change just because the animals can talk back.
(banned from /c/veganism)
Okay but among those people who choose to remain human, how many of us would be okay with donating blood every two weeks in exchange for food and rent?
Think about it. If the vampires have all the power, why would they kill their food source when the longer they let their food source live the more food they get out of it?
Let us tra-la-la and have happy-go-lucky existences, which will probably make our blood taste better to them, and they can spend their eternities competing for resources or whatever makes a vampire happy after the first 500 years.
I see a novel forming.
I’m sure there are multiple already in existence
There’s even a movie
I’ve been saying this since I was a kid. Every time I see a blood donation place. That’s a vampire organization and you can’t convince me otherwise :D
i’m always tempted to sing:
There’s one already, where the vampire is a head of state and religius leader. (Luminous Valentine)
Fun fact, human blood can be vegan, as long as the human is consenting
the definition of veganism has nothing to do with consent, only exploitation.
And if I’m consenting, then it isn’t exploitation when a hot vampire gives me the biggest fucking hickey
consenting exploitation is still exploitation
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
The definition from the vegan society doesn’t mention unfairness at all. it prohibits exploitation carte blanche
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
yea. it is. but the vegan society’s definition doesn’t prohibit exploiting living things: it prohibits exploiting animals.
i disagree. i think it draws sharp contrasts that help us understand both the standard and whether we are meeting it.
deleted by creator
Doesn’t consent imply the absence of exploitative forces?
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
Exploit does mean “use/utilize” but I assumed the common subtext of “use unfairly or in a manner not conducive to overall welfare”
the ambiguity does not seem to be helpful in defining veganism, and the definition should probably be updated
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.
consenting exploitation is still exploitation.
Speak for yourself! I haven’t even begun practicing yet!