this is posturing and the rhetoric. it is not evidence.

calling me names doesn’t make what I’m saying any less true

this isn’t proof. it’s story telling

prove it

we can’t know

it’s not causal

why did the cost go up? what other variables are at play?

And a tariff on it will increase the price, because that is just how economics works.

this is not very scientific.

we could have a more robust economy where we do make everything and they make everything and nothing needs to be more expensive, if we just let it be less profitable

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

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.

encyclopedias are not dictionaries

you can leave

common definitions of exploitation make no mention of consent either.

veganism eschews all exploitation. there is no carve out for consent in the vegan society’s definition