Comment on We can post about feeding on them just not about feeding them
Enkers@sh.itjust.works 2 months agoIt’s implicit. If consent was given, it wouldn’t be exploitative. (And obviously, that’s contingent upon non-coersion.)
Comment on We can post about feeding on them just not about feeding them
Enkers@sh.itjust.works 2 months agoIt’s implicit. If consent was given, it wouldn’t be exploitative. (And obviously, that’s contingent upon non-coersion.)
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months ago
common definitions of exploitation make no mention of consent either.
Enkers@sh.itjust.works 2 months ago
What? Where are you looking, the dictionary?
plato.stanford.edu/entries/exploitation/
Consent is mentioned plenty.
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months ago
three mentions across 2 paragraphs. all of the mentions imply that consent would somehow relieve accusations of exploitation, but that isn’t established in your article for a certainty, and at best i’d say it’s debatable. i don’t care to debate about it. it’s clear that the vulgar use of the term is unrelated entirely.
Enkers@sh.itjust.works 2 months ago
Your assertion was that consent isn’t at all relevant to veganism in regards to exploitation. If there exist situations in which consent could relieve the existence of exploitation then it must be relevant to consider.
Also, not that it matters, but there are 10 mentions if you also search for “consensual”, but that’s not really here nor there.
If you don’t wish to debate, you’re free to not respond at any time.
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months ago
encyclopedias are not dictionaries
Enkers@sh.itjust.works 2 months ago
An astute observation. Good thing I get all my knowledge from dictionaries so I can have a paper thin understanding of everything.