I always find it bewildering how completely without a solid definition the term "vegan" is for most that use the term.
For some it's: No animal products whatsoever.
And yet I still see many "vegans" who will eat eggs. Or fish.
For others it's: Only produce given freely/not taken without consent.
Ironically this often means certain sex acts are considered vegan [swallowing], while glossing over the fact that consent is quite literally a human social construct because animals due to being not human cannot engage in human concepts as humans do through simply existing. It still requires anything non-human to adhere to human understanding and definitions.
Then there are the groups that are wearing horse blinders and hyperfocus in on how the product is made because if they for one moment look to the sides their entire façade comes crashing down because suddenly the reality about those "doesn't not harm animals" products comes out as being the result of deforestation [palm oil and orangutans for example], displacement, and general disturbances towards the animals many "vegans" claim to care about.
They don't of course, it's the same rhetoric used by [Western] feminists about how important various topics are to women [in the West] because if they were to actually attempt to apply their arguments on a global scale 3 main issues would be encountered.
They'd have to actually do something. Better to just post on social media and complain until a company does the work for them.
They'd have to learn about and understand the actual differences between where they are and where they are saying things need changed [political, geographical, environmental, etc].
And the big one that deserves a topic all to itself despite being a subsection of the second point regarding politics and related matters: Islam.
The term "Islam is right about women" works specifically because it ends up creating a catch 22 for any wokester that looks at it. So of course they ignore it. They ignore how slaves are very much still a thing in parts of Africa and the UAE. They ignore how women in many countries have no rights. They ignore how many people in general are just treated as little more than expendable because it's their "culture".
Regarding the hypocrisy of vegans, an older tv show from 2002 with Dominic Purcell named 'John Doe' had a /thathappened style takedown of such a character and while fictitious is still quite cathartic. Moreso when you realize the annoying hippy in the episode would later play Kavanagh in Stargate Atlantis, yet again another annoying character - albeit one who wasn't always wrong.
This but with the caveat that while I've only seen 'vegans' be extremely ideologically militant, in my experience 'vegetarians' -- outside of foregoing meat -- have a very wide spectrum, with some even being OK with fish.
Ironically this often means certain sex acts are considered vegan [swallowing], while glossing over the fact that consent is quite literally a human social construct because animals due to being not human cannot engage in human concepts as humans do through simply existing. It still requires anything non-human to adhere to human understanding and definitions.
I would hope in the case of sex acts the fact that consent is a human construct would be a moot point.
Vegans are scum and should be persecuted.
I always find it bewildering how completely without a solid definition the term "vegan" is for most that use the term.
For some it's: No animal products whatsoever.
And yet I still see many "vegans" who will eat eggs. Or fish.
For others it's: Only produce given freely/not taken without consent.
Ironically this often means certain sex acts are considered vegan [swallowing], while glossing over the fact that consent is quite literally a human social construct because animals due to being not human cannot engage in human concepts as humans do through simply existing. It still requires anything non-human to adhere to human understanding and definitions.
Then there are the groups that are wearing horse blinders and hyperfocus in on how the product is made because if they for one moment look to the sides their entire façade comes crashing down because suddenly the reality about those "doesn't not harm animals" products comes out as being the result of deforestation [palm oil and orangutans for example], displacement, and general disturbances towards the animals many "vegans" claim to care about.
They don't of course, it's the same rhetoric used by [Western] feminists about how important various topics are to women [in the West] because if they were to actually attempt to apply their arguments on a global scale 3 main issues would be encountered.
They'd have to actually do something. Better to just post on social media and complain until a company does the work for them.
They'd have to learn about and understand the actual differences between where they are and where they are saying things need changed [political, geographical, environmental, etc].
And the big one that deserves a topic all to itself despite being a subsection of the second point regarding politics and related matters: Islam.
The term "Islam is right about women" works specifically because it ends up creating a catch 22 for any wokester that looks at it. So of course they ignore it. They ignore how slaves are very much still a thing in parts of Africa and the UAE. They ignore how women in many countries have no rights. They ignore how many people in general are just treated as little more than expendable because it's their "culture".
Regarding the hypocrisy of vegans, an older tv show from 2002 with Dominic Purcell named 'John Doe' had a /thathappened style takedown of such a character and while fictitious is still quite cathartic. Moreso when you realize the annoying hippy in the episode would later play Kavanagh in Stargate Atlantis, yet again another annoying character - albeit one who wasn't always wrong.
This but with the caveat that while I've only seen 'vegans' be extremely ideologically militant, in my experience 'vegetarians' -- outside of foregoing meat -- have a very wide spectrum, with some even being OK with fish.
Same! I thought it was pretty clearly supposed to be "no animal or animal-derived products".
I would hope in the case of sex acts the fact that consent is a human construct would be a moot point.