I disagree. If we take the rejection of all exploitation of animals as a core facet, which the vegan society does in their definition (aside: am I missing something about why they get to be the arbiters of the unique definition of veganism?):
“Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.”
and consider that humans are animals who can consent to actions that would be exploitative in other contexts, especially without consent (e.g., solving geometry problems, listening to or performing music, creative writing, hiking), we see consent emerge. We don’t think about it in decisions with respect to non-human animals because they can’t consent.
consent doesn’t appear anywhere in the vegan society definition of veganism. it’s only about exploitation of animals.
even by implication?
no synonym for it appears. I suppose most vegans interpret it in the penumbra, but it’s not a core facet
I disagree. If we take the rejection of all exploitation of animals as a core facet, which the vegan society does in their definition (aside: am I missing something about why they get to be the arbiters of the unique definition of veganism?):
and consider that humans are animals who can consent to actions that would be exploitative in other contexts, especially without consent (e.g., solving geometry problems, listening to or performing music, creative writing, hiking), we see consent emerge. We don’t think about it in decisions with respect to non-human animals because they can’t consent.
the vegan society makes no such carve-out for consent, and I see no reason to grant it.
the vegan society also says you should be vegan, and I see no reason to grant an exception to this
they do, but I find their reasoning to be specious
Your logical incoherence is a violation of Rule 3 of c/badposting