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.
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.
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.
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.
In the UK, it’s the norm for fried chicken shops to have a cartoon mascot that’s typically a chicken, often wearing a cowboy hat, and nominally if not explicitly promoting the taste of the flesh of its species.
14 Comments
tyler@programming.dev · 22 pts · 71d
Douglas Adams did a great play on this in The Restaurant at the End of the Universe.
qualia@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 71d
I was also going to comment that the wikipedia page omits the cow who wishes to be eaten!
Pat_Riot@lemmy.today · 8 pts · 71d
Meet the meat
_haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works · 7 pts · 71d
I was just about to mention this...
bizarroland@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 71d
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.
neidu3@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 71d
Does that mean that it's technically vegan to eat roadkill or other carrion?
bizarroland@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 71d
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.
jerkface@lemmy.ca · 0 pts · 71d
I don't know what you think makes you an authority on this subject but once again you are just making shit up.
bizarroland@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 71d
username checks out
jerkface@lemmy.ca · -1 pts · 71d
No. It is not vegan to exploit the body of an animal, even if it already happens to be dead.
jerkface@lemmy.ca · -2 pts · 71d
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.
emeralddawn45@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 pts · 71d
I think they're saying if the animals were sentient, as they're clearly depicted. It's a silly hypothetical not a philosophical argument.
Seleni@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 71d
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.
AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space · 5 pts · 71d
In the UK, it’s the norm for fried chicken shops to have a cartoon mascot that’s typically a chicken, often wearing a cowboy hat, and nominally if not explicitly promoting the taste of the flesh of its species.