you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 14 points 4 months ago (8 children)

This would technically be vegan because the animal chose to die.

However, in a slightly different note, I am far more concerned about mascots that sell their own kind. If you see a chicken talking about how good company X's chicken is, then you've got a race traitor chicken mascot.

And that is far more evil than serving suicidal pig sausage.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    Does that mean that it's technically vegan to eat roadkill or other carrion?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Some people are still against it, but technically that would be recycling material rather than killing an animal for sustenance, so, by the technical bylaws of veganism, it is not non-vegan to eat roadkill.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago* (2 children)

    This would technically be vegan because...

    It is not. Vulnerable individuals like livestock do not have the capacity to consent. Veganism does not recognize any such loophole. Veganism forbids the exploitation of animals. It doesn't matter if you convince yourself "the animal had a good life" or "the animal gets something in exchange" or "the animal likes it for some reason"; it's still exploitation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago

    Yes, we know that. The hypothetical here is that the animal is fully aware and fully consents to being killed and eaten. Obviously this is not a thing in the real world; it’s just a thought experiment.

  • source
  • parent