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.
What the fuck are you talking about? The corpse is still made up of animal parts. For the record I’m a vegetarian because I hate animals and I think they’re gross.
I’m agitated by this post not because of whatever morality question you’re trying to pull, but for linguistics sake.
Definition of Vegan from Merriam - Webster:
People like you are the reason why the word “literally” doesn’t mean “literally” anymore and we literally don’t have a replacement word.
I’m referring to veganism the moral philosophy, not the diet.
That’s not the question you asked
The answer is no, because the definition of the word. I’m sick of “vibe” people. Words have meanings.
Buddy thinks the dictionary contains all the information he ever needs to know 😂
People don’t just wake up one day and decide they’re going to abstain from animal products for no reason.
Dude asks questions to people without doing the minimal effort of a Google search.
Maybe you forgot what community this is, chief.
…
Ahhh fuck you’re right. I thought this was regular Ask Lemmy.
Well I’m a complete jackass, but my point remains.
Literally still means literally, it just ironically also means figuratively now too.
But it’s literally always meant literally.
Literally used to mean literally. It still does. It just used to a well.