this study is about individual purchasers, not institutions.
this study is about individual purchasers, not institutions.
no, it’s not.
Are you …defending deforestation of the Amazon?
no. I’m pointing out a lie about Amazon soy being fed to cows
it would be if it caused the industry to pollute less or even just stop growing. it doesn’t.
it’s better than “threadiverse” which at once includes the name of a Facebook product and seems to also give Facebook all the credit for mastodon, Lemmy, pixelfed, peer tube be etc, while also making them appear to be second class citizens.
but I am not endorsing this “social web” thing yet, either.
almost all soy that becomes animal feed is a byproduct of pressing soybeans for oil. about 80% of all soybeans are pressed for oil and the byproduct is what is fed to animals. but cattle, as you can see in the chart I provided, hardly get any of the global soy crop
why is your “update” over a decade old? how often are they released?
ignoring corruption is gross. trying to distract from it with a whataboutism Is some degree worse
hardly any soy goes to cows at all.
https://ourworldindata.org/images/published/Global-soy-production-to-end-use.png
stop wasting both of our time.
you’re free to not respond at any time.
Approximately 0.01% of lemmy’s user base would conflate simple “use” with exploitation.
can you substantiate this?
I’m surprised you don’t have a better understanding of exploitation
you have no idea what my understanding is. that’s not the subject of our discussion. don’t make this personal.
we are discussing the vegan society’s understanding.
the barest definition is a synonym of “use”. the vegan society could clear up this ambiguity but they have chosen not to do so, and there is no reason to assume they prefer a special definition of exploitation.
The absence of exploitation is indicated through consent,
no, it’s not. it’s exploitation by the barest definition, like exploiting a fallow field or a forest. the definition of exploitation can by synonymously defined as “use”. using a corpse is exploiting it. using a corpse which has, with informed consent, been consigned for use is still exploitation.
if the vegan society wants to create an additional carve-out for consensual exploitation in addition to its exceptions for practicability and possibility, it’s not as though they are unaware of these concepts. they have not done so, and there is no reason to believe they mean to do so.
Your assertion was that consent isn’t at all relevant to veganism in regards to exploitation. However, if there exist situations in which consent could relieve the existence of exploitation then it must be relevant to consider.
it’s not clear that the vegan society would allow for any exploitation, consensual or otherwise, and to the extent that sometimes people consent to being exploited, there is no reason to believe that exploitation ceases to exist in those cases.
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.
to be clear, dictionaries record the most common uses of terms. consulting a philosophy encyclopedia is not a good way to understand a term as it is used in vulgar vernacular.
this is how blocking should work. if you are publishing something to the public, there is no reason to expect others can’t see it comment on it