• agitatedpotato@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    There are plenty of vegans who would tell you they abstain from any products of animal suffering, otherwise they would use products that were tested on animals. Just because you test lipstick on animals, doesn’t make the lipstick a product of animals, its a product of animal suffering. Your definition is not the only one and doesn’t exclude animal tested products, which many vegans go out of their way to avoid.

        • MadMaurice@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think it’s a stretch to say that a venus fly trap dish is immoral because the venus fly trap ate an animal, which it is literally forced to do by nature. You don’t blame a lion either for eating meat, because it is literally a carnivore and cannot survive otherwise. I believe when they say animal suffering they mean suffering resulting from exploitation and so on by humans.

        • Moobythegoldensock@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Venus flytraps aren’t products. They’re organisms.

          You’re the one being obtuse. Killing a plant is not killing an animal. Killing a plant that eats animals is not humans doing something to an animal. It’s actually the opposite: it’s humans saving animals.

          If you want to get that granular, whatever device you’re using to type your pedantic replies was made of parts that were shipped. At some point, the vehicle they were shipped on killed a bug. You caused way more animal deaths typing your replies to me than anyone ever did killing a venus flytrap, because killing a venus fly trap does not actually kill any animals.