Per the title. If an animal dies out in nature without any human involvement, shouldn’t it be considered vegan to harvest any of the useful parts from it (not nessicarily meat, think hide), since there was no human-caused suffering involved?

Similarly, is driving a car not vegan because of the roadkill issue?

Especially curious to hear a perspective from any practicing moral vegans.

Also: I am not vegan. That’s why I’m asking. I’m not planning on eating roadkill thank you. Just suggesting the existence of animal-based vegan leather.

  • Beacon@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    12 hours ago

    I’m not vegan and I’m here to tell you that your argument isn’t valid. Whoever invented a word doesn’t get to permanently declare exactly what it means down to the tiniest detail. Words change meaning over time. I would guess that especially new words change over time. The word “awful” originally meant full of awe. The word “terrible” originally meant a thing caused terror.

    It doesn’t matter what the creator of the word thought.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      11 hours ago

      It doesn’t matter what the creator of the word thought

      Yeah…

      That’s why I said:

      You can just keep using his word, but not care about his rules.

      Thanks for aggressively agreeing with me I guess?

      Weird move, and I think it’s more likely you were just confused, it works better if you ask questions when you’re confused.