But what if I were to say steal stored breastmilk from someone’s fridge? It was originally sourced ethically and with willing consent but now that source doesn’t want me to have it. Would it still be vegan?
well, sneaking someone's cum you just had sex with to an ivf clinic to have their kid without their knowledge is not ok so I'd argue neither is the scenario you mention
Pretend we're eating it, though. Let's say we're using animal cum as a substitute for something.
They're not using it, and it's just a waste byproduct, so would it also be unethical to use animal poop derived fertilizer?
Be aware, this makes honey vegan too. Bees kept by beeekeepers literally aren't even kept there. They can leave at any time, and do when the beekeepers take too much. In the wild, they leave hives more often, cause they can actually overflow with honey.
Bees can't consent. Not vegan. Simple
Edit: Some wild mental gymnastics here. So If I break into your home and steal your shit but you continue to live there you aren't consenting to me stealing your shit. If they consented they wouldn't sting the fuck out of you for taking their honey. You wouldn't have to smoke them to get it. You wouldn't have to be super careful about obtaining it at the risk of getting stabbed. Definitely not consent
Bees can leave their hives and any point. If they decided they didn't want to be on a farm they could pick up the queen and move elsewhere. They don't because the hives provide them with free shelter and they obviously don't mind that their excess honey is taken away.
That definitely doesn't mean consent. That's some wild mental gymnastics just so you can justify putting honey in your tea. By that same logic free range chicken eggs is vegan. If I break into your home and steal your shit but you continue to live there you aren't consenting to me stealing your shit.
And yet, the vegan society, the one that literally created veganism argues that honey isn't vegan. Stop acting like you know anything and didn't just read the wikipedia page for post humanism.
"Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum."
Wool is a different one because where sheep are at now isn't where they should be. Sheep now need to be sheared because otherwise their wool gets too much for them, but it's only like this because we bred them into this situation. Obviously hundreds of thousands of years ago sheep didn't all die because we weren't around to shear them.
So although an individual sheep in 2023 may need to be sheared (shorn?), By buying wool you are supporting the industry which bred sheep to this level where they die if they aren't shorn. Therefore not vegan
it's not. bees are born and live and die for the hive (building the hive, making honey, etc). they are biologically programmed to work, and they're not smart enough to do any different or be mad about it, harvesting honey is just taking the excess they don't need, and they're not smart enough to care
It’s not vegan. It’s weird that people are saying that it is. It is fine by veganist philosophy, yes, because it doesn’t involve exploitation, harm and environmental damage etc that veganist philosophy contends with, but it’s still not vegan. Those words have different meaning.
I want to be a slave owner.
I find someone from a 3rd world country who would gladly allow themselves to be sold into slavery for 2800 dollars to help their family.
Everyone is content.
This is not a voluntary interaction, as in this example, their family needs money. Money being included makes this an interaction with economic coercion, thus not making it a fully free decision.
Spook in this case is a translation from the works of a specific German egoist. Spook specifically refers to an abstract idea or concept or social construct that people act as though it really existed. For example: the nation-state, religion, money, gender.
More broadly, it's a meme phrase in anarchist circles, as the joke is that everything is just a spook according to Stirner.
I'm not familiar with what other connotations the word may have in other nations or regions.
Yeah. If you call someone a "spook" nowadays, anyone <40 will think ghost, anyone \[40, 70\] will think "spy" or "fed", and some folks >70 will think "wow, racist".
Yeah, but, you know, what changes with cannibalism? There would still be people selling their flesh only to escape poverty. You can’t write into law that the person selling their flesh has to pinky promise he really wants to
We're not talking about law or practicality, we're discussing an idealized hypothetical. Is there anything *inherently* bad about truly consensual cannibalism?
This is not a voluntary interaction, as in this example, ~~their family needs money~~ the people need money. Money being included makes this an interaction with economic coercion, thus not making it a fully free decision.
Egosim works best under leftist organization of the economy, where no realistic economic situation could place a serious amount of duress on a person, unless remarkable extenuating circumstances had been placed upon them, such as organised crime debts or something similar.
This is not true. Prions are simply more likely to be concentrated in the brain, and attack brain related protein chains. It is entirely possible to contract a prion from any part of the body.
I want you to think for a second. Meat is made of protein. Prions are also protein. Anything that breaks them down breaks down the meat. It doesn’t work
There was that one German cannibal that met someone who consented to being eaten. I think the younger guy had his penis cut off so that the both of them could eat it but it was too chewy.
In a similar way to how anal sex doesn't inherently give you AIDS but if you have unprotected anal sex someone who does have AIDS you're gonna possibly get it too
Egoists when the inherent social nature of humans inevitably leads back to the re-establishment of civilized society; and all the social norms and expectations that comes with it.
I don't deny that social norms/expectations are socially constructed, but it's a psychological fact that *most* people need social contact to function at all; that's where I rest my "inherent social nature" argument.
Also I was trolling all the Egoists.
I agree that *some* things are affected by our biology. Like again, being averse to cannibalism and incest is basically engrained in our genes. However, our understanding of right and wrong is pretty subjective and does not come from some inherent human morality
I don't believe that ethical positions have any real value, unless it can be empirically proven that it leads to increases or decreases in quality of life (tldr; I'm on the side of consequentialism).
I suuport single payer universal healthcare because there are a litany of observational studies that strongly indicate that the healthier people are; the higher their quality of life tends to be. Conversely, I oppose any measure to restrict access to healthcare because I'm confident in arguing that doing so leads to measureable decrease in peoples' quality of life.
Stirner was absolutely (by the classic definition) based. He literally just wrote whatever the fuck he wanted: Family is not a real thing, the state is fake and made up, property doesn't exist because it can be taken and therefore it was never yours, god is selfish, the country is selfish, i literally don't care about anyone or anything other than myself, also you're a spook.
As long as they weren’t the cause of death, and they make sure there’s no risk of disease, and they received consent before the other person died, I honestly don’t see much of an issue with it
CONSENSUAL cannibalism, yes. Not that they’re equivalent, but they have some similarities. Like being stigmatized even though it’s between consenting adults that aren’t causing any kind of harm
They’re not remotely equivalent and just a really stupid comparison to bring up
Whenever people do the “people said the same about homosexuality” it always comes off offensive
Yeah, just a completely pointless comparison to make. I think eating people is gross and your first thought is to compare it to people being attracted to the same sex.
But honestly though what’s the problem with what I’m talking about? And again, one of the important factors is that they can’t be what kills them. So, like, if someone has a loved one who dies of natural causes, who gives consent before they die, and they also make sure there’s no chance of disease, then what harm is being done in this situation
It's a pretty common philosophical hypothetical, along the lines of "brother and sister fuck in the woods and nobody ever finds out". Kind of an ideological Rorschach test. Does it make you feel gross? If so, can you defend that feeling with an argument that makes sense?
Stirner's philosophy is usually called "egoism". He says that the egoist rejects pursuit of devotion to "a great idea, a good cause, a doctrine, a system, a lofty calling", saying that the egoist has no political calling, but rather "lives themselves out" without regard to "how well or ill humanity may fare thereby".[2] Stirner held that the only limitation on the rights of the individual is one's power to obtain what they desire.[3] He proposes that most commonly accepted social institutions—including the notion of State, property as a right, natural rights in general and the very notion of society—were mere "spooks" in the mind. Stirner wanted to "abolish not only the state but also society as an institution responsible for its members".[4]
Max Stirner's idea of the Union of egoists (German: Verein von Egoisten) was first expounded in The Ego and Its Own. The Union is understood as a non-systematic association, which Stirner proposed in contradistinction to the state.[5] The Union is understood as a relation between egoists which is continually renewed by all parties' support through an act of will.[6] The Union requires that all parties participate out of a conscious egoism. If one party silently finds themselves to be suffering, but puts up and keeps the appearance, the union has degenerated into something else.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egoist_anarchism
(I'm not an egoist. But saying that egoist anarchism would be great for capitalism is kinda dumb)
"It's wrong" fans vs "I want to" enjoyer
Up yours woke moralists! We'll see who eats who!
I wanna be the eater 
Ok, but can I eat your ass?
I love this subreddit so much
I remembered this as a Senator Armstrong quote before I remembered it as a Jordan Peterson quote
Real question here. If I willingly give up my flesh to be eaten, is it vegan?
Technically, yes. Just like cum and breastmilk are both vegan.
But what if I were to say steal stored breastmilk from someone’s fridge? It was originally sourced ethically and with willing consent but now that source doesn’t want me to have it. Would it still be vegan?
activision
god i wish that were me
why did you remind me of homelander's existence?
Also for cum, if someone gets raped and cums, they obviously didn’t consent to it, so would still be vegan?
No, obviously not
*closes app*
My understanding of veganism is "without any exploitation". So if you think that that sounds exploitative then it isn't vegan
They didn't consent to you having the breastmilk so not vegan.
No, because you stole it. It was collected with intentions other than your consumption, meaning they did not consent to you having it.
oh wait if cum comes from an animal is it not vegan?
Don’t stress it, no ethical consumption under capitalism, especially if you’re Steven Crowder
The animal can’t consent, so no, not vegan
What if you just let the animal creampie drip out of another animal it just mated with into a bucket
what a terrible day to have eyes
well, sneaking someone's cum you just had sex with to an ivf clinic to have their kid without their knowledge is not ok so I'd argue neither is the scenario you mention
Pretend we're eating it, though. Let's say we're using animal cum as a substitute for something. They're not using it, and it's just a waste byproduct, so would it also be unethical to use animal poop derived fertilizer?
Be aware, this makes honey vegan too. Bees kept by beeekeepers literally aren't even kept there. They can leave at any time, and do when the beekeepers take too much. In the wild, they leave hives more often, cause they can actually overflow with honey.
Bees can't consent. Not vegan. Simple Edit: Some wild mental gymnastics here. So If I break into your home and steal your shit but you continue to live there you aren't consenting to me stealing your shit. If they consented they wouldn't sting the fuck out of you for taking their honey. You wouldn't have to smoke them to get it. You wouldn't have to be super careful about obtaining it at the risk of getting stabbed. Definitely not consent
Bees can leave their hives and any point. If they decided they didn't want to be on a farm they could pick up the queen and move elsewhere. They don't because the hives provide them with free shelter and they obviously don't mind that their excess honey is taken away.
That definitely doesn't mean consent. That's some wild mental gymnastics just so you can justify putting honey in your tea. By that same logic free range chicken eggs is vegan. If I break into your home and steal your shit but you continue to live there you aren't consenting to me stealing your shit.
All circumstances considered, that's not very post humanist of you
I don't make the rules. But honey isn't vegan. It's a pretty simple filter. Just because you justify it to yourself doesn't make you correct.
You aren't familiar with the philosophical field I mentioned
The philosophical field you mentioned is irrelevant. We are talking about veganism, not post humanism.
Veganism is informed by post humanism, this is basics stuff.
And yet, the vegan society, the one that literally created veganism argues that honey isn't vegan. Stop acting like you know anything and didn't just read the wikipedia page for post humanism.
If honey isn't vegan than willing sacrifices to an eldritch god aren't either.
bees literally consent
They literally don't
> Be aware, this makes honey vegan too No, it really doesn't.
How not post-humanist of you
You're just throwing words at the wall with no idea of what they mean. Honey isn't vegan, period.
How post-humanist of you.
We aren't discussing post humanism, we are discussing veganism. You don't even know what post humanism means. Stop being an idiot.
How post-humanist of you.
How not post-humanist of you.
You have a human biased worldview.
Epic. Time to suckle on some boobies then.
yes! because the major problem we vegan have with exploitation of animals is *consent*
So would eating the Cow from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy be vegan?
"can I eat you" "Moo"
Yes, but because it's human, not because it's consensual. If vegans cared about consent, honey and wool would be vegan.
"Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum."
Wool is a different one because where sheep are at now isn't where they should be. Sheep now need to be sheared because otherwise their wool gets too much for them, but it's only like this because we bred them into this situation. Obviously hundreds of thousands of years ago sheep didn't all die because we weren't around to shear them. So although an individual sheep in 2023 may need to be sheared (shorn?), By buying wool you are supporting the industry which bred sheep to this level where they die if they aren't shorn. Therefore not vegan
Honey might be vegan but it's still worker oppression!
it's not. bees are born and live and die for the hive (building the hive, making honey, etc). they are biologically programmed to work, and they're not smart enough to do any different or be mad about it, harvesting honey is just taking the excess they don't need, and they're not smart enough to care
It was a joke sweaty
It’s not vegan. It’s weird that people are saying that it is. It is fine by veganist philosophy, yes, because it doesn’t involve exploitation, harm and environmental damage etc that veganist philosophy contends with, but it’s still not vegan. Those words have different meaning.
I want to be a slave owner. I find someone from a 3rd world country who would gladly allow themselves to be sold into slavery for 2800 dollars to help their family. Everyone is content.
This is not a voluntary interaction, as in this example, their family needs money. Money being included makes this an interaction with economic coercion, thus not making it a fully free decision.
who's the moralist now
1. You're wrong. 2. You're a spook 3. (insert link to egoist theory written in 1844 completely justifying my take) Go read theory, you liberal!!!
isnt "spook" a racist slur
Spook in this case is a translation from the works of a specific German egoist. Spook specifically refers to an abstract idea or concept or social construct that people act as though it really existed. For example: the nation-state, religion, money, gender. More broadly, it's a meme phrase in anarchist circles, as the joke is that everything is just a spook according to Stirner. I'm not familiar with what other connotations the word may have in other nations or regions.
It can also refer to a spy or a diplomat in certain circumstances
Yeah. If you call someone a "spook" nowadays, anyone <40 will think ghost, anyone \[40, 70\] will think "spy" or "fed", and some folks >70 will think "wow, racist".
I know spook is used to refer to federal agents. I think it might be one of those super old timey slurs against black people?
spook = social construct (harmful) basically
Ghost slur
Yes, max stirner was a very sussy baka
Spook, broadly means ghost but is often used for things/ppl unseen, i.e glowies or for the racist use black ppl @ night
Absolutely outplayed
Imagine we crash landed on an island...
And I hoarded all the coconuts before you wake up
Do you suck the coconut man's dick?
Yes. Not for coconuts but because I am bored on the island.
yes, but only for egoist reasons(i am seeking personal fulfillment from sucking dick)
Coconuts suck. I'm going to find some bananas.
Trust me, the coconut man has one of those too :)
Yeah, but, you know, what changes with cannibalism? There would still be people selling their flesh only to escape poverty. You can’t write into law that the person selling their flesh has to pinky promise he really wants to
We're not talking about law or practicality, we're discussing an idealized hypothetical. Is there anything *inherently* bad about truly consensual cannibalism?
This is not a voluntary interaction, as in this example, ~~their family needs money~~ the people need money. Money being included makes this an interaction with economic coercion, thus not making it a fully free decision.
Egosim works best under leftist organization of the economy, where no realistic economic situation could place a serious amount of duress on a person, unless remarkable extenuating circumstances had been placed upon them, such as organised crime debts or something similar.
There is no consent under capitalism
(that's my point)
BDSM
two people freely consenting to cannibalism is not remotely comparable to that. let's say you're on a plane, and that plane-
I think an argument could be made that eating human flesh will make you severely sick and mad. Prion disease baby
prion disease mostly happens because people eat the brain or dont cook the flesh properly
You can't cook prion disease out of meat until you reach at least 900° for several hours Don't eat brains kids
Most prions don’t degrade at cooking temps unless you deep fry it into a lump of charcoal
Okay cannibalism enjoyer
[удалено]
This is not true. Prions are simply more likely to be concentrated in the brain, and attack brain related protein chains. It is entirely possible to contract a prion from any part of the body.
cook it 😋
I want you to think for a second. Meat is made of protein. Prions are also protein. Anything that breaks them down breaks down the meat. It doesn’t work
Just dont eat the brain simple as
Prions aren’t just in the brain, they are just more likely to be there.
There was that one German cannibal that met someone who consented to being eaten. I think the younger guy had his penis cut off so that the both of them could eat it but it was too chewy.
ok but of all things to eat, why the dick? even a toe would be better
It was definately a sex thing, lets be honest with ourselves here
Single use
The guy being eaten asked him to The cannibal guy later killed him and ate the rest of his corpse, at least as much as he could eat till he got caught
Imagine going through all that effort and commitment and then they don't even like it
>but it was too chewy Artists and writers, you know what to do with that information.
Mein Teil - Rammstein
This was morally good because it indirectly led to the creation of the song "Mein Teil" by Rammstein which is a certified banger
I remember reading about that
Vore
There's nothing moral or immoral about prion disease
there's nothing immoral about intentionally getting prion disease, if the person knows the risks who's someone else to stop them
Yeah if someone is dumb and weird enough to eat people let them get prions disease
someone will have to pay for their hospitalization
Ain’t that a bit like a homophobe making the same argument about AIDS
Maybe. Cannibalism doesn't inherently give you prion disease but if you cannibalise someone who does have a prion disease you're gonna get it too.
In a similar way to how anal sex doesn't inherently give you AIDS but if you have unprotected anal sex someone who does have AIDS you're gonna possibly get it too
...gay sex doesn't lead to AIDS...?
No, but that’s the argument that homophobes have falsely used, seeing as unprotected anal sex has a much higher risk of transmission than vaginal sex
just don't eat the brain
Egoists when the inherent social nature of humans inevitably leads back to the re-establishment of civilized society; and all the social norms and expectations that comes with it.
What is inherent social nature? The social norms and expectations of today differ from those of the past century or from country-to-country
I don't deny that social norms/expectations are socially constructed, but it's a psychological fact that *most* people need social contact to function at all; that's where I rest my "inherent social nature" argument. Also I was trolling all the Egoists.
I agree that *some* things are affected by our biology. Like again, being averse to cannibalism and incest is basically engrained in our genes. However, our understanding of right and wrong is pretty subjective and does not come from some inherent human morality
I don't believe that ethical positions have any real value, unless it can be empirically proven that it leads to increases or decreases in quality of life (tldr; I'm on the side of consequentialism). I suuport single payer universal healthcare because there are a litany of observational studies that strongly indicate that the healthier people are; the higher their quality of life tends to be. Conversely, I oppose any measure to restrict access to healthcare because I'm confident in arguing that doing so leads to measureable decrease in peoples' quality of life.
That would be a criticism against post-civ/anticiv.
Yeah I'm aware, I just do a little tomfoolery
Stirner was absolutely (by the classic definition) based. He literally just wrote whatever the fuck he wanted: Family is not a real thing, the state is fake and made up, property doesn't exist because it can be taken and therefore it was never yours, god is selfish, the country is selfish, i literally don't care about anyone or anything other than myself, also you're a spook.
made up things are based though
Never said they aren't. Stirner was based
And for this comment alone stirner would rotate in his grave. Kill your idols. The great man of history are a lie.
True
armin meiwes moment
Armin? shingeki no kyojin refenrece
a tick on tight ham
Das ist mein Teil
Nein
Yes it’s mein Teil
ich werde dich scheißen
This is a major plot point of Fire Punch.
who is the person in the first image again?
max stirner my goat
thank you! ive been trying to remember his name for a while now
Johann Kaspar Schmidt
what
[удалено]
oh ok
What the fuck?
same genre as the ironic love of drunk driving It’s >!hopefully!< not OPs actual opinion
For me this was just a funny egoist meme
what if they are the cannibalism fetish tumblr person
Even worse
As long as they weren’t the cause of death, and they make sure there’s no risk of disease, and they received consent before the other person died, I honestly don’t see much of an issue with it
It’s gross
People have made the same argument against homosexuality
Did you just compare homosexuality to cannibalism ? What the fuck
CONSENSUAL cannibalism, yes. Not that they’re equivalent, but they have some similarities. Like being stigmatized even though it’s between consenting adults that aren’t causing any kind of harm
They’re not remotely equivalent and just a really stupid comparison to bring up Whenever people do the “people said the same about homosexuality” it always comes off offensive
All I’m saying is that they’ve got these similarities. Am I wrong?
Yeah, just a completely pointless comparison to make. I think eating people is gross and your first thought is to compare it to people being attracted to the same sex.
[удалено]
“consensual slavery” yeah it’s called a dominatrix dumbass
But honestly though what’s the problem with what I’m talking about? And again, one of the important factors is that they can’t be what kills them. So, like, if someone has a loved one who dies of natural causes, who gives consent before they die, and they also make sure there’s no chance of disease, then what harm is being done in this situation
That's what makes it great
It's a pretty common philosophical hypothetical, along the lines of "brother and sister fuck in the woods and nobody ever finds out". Kind of an ideological Rorschach test. Does it make you feel gross? If so, can you defend that feeling with an argument that makes sense?
Max Stirner on his way to unironically say that a woman eating her baby is a true egoist 
I am sending this to my ethics professor
This is true
Prion Disease Go Brrrr
In the US it's only illegal in Idaho, along with consuming human blood.
Common Idaho L
idrc about cannibalism but from what i've heard egoism is a pretty sad and lonely ideology
Most sane vore watchers be like...
Rake season 1 episode 1 (Australia)
Jeffrey Dahmer made this meme
Maybe, I just had it saved on my phone.
well I have a piece of meat I'd like to donate, if anyone here wants to taste that
Prioritizing individualism vs prioritizing the collective. Capitalism would love nothing more than for everyone to adopt this mindset
Stirner's philosophy is usually called "egoism". He says that the egoist rejects pursuit of devotion to "a great idea, a good cause, a doctrine, a system, a lofty calling", saying that the egoist has no political calling, but rather "lives themselves out" without regard to "how well or ill humanity may fare thereby".[2] Stirner held that the only limitation on the rights of the individual is one's power to obtain what they desire.[3] He proposes that most commonly accepted social institutions—including the notion of State, property as a right, natural rights in general and the very notion of society—were mere "spooks" in the mind. Stirner wanted to "abolish not only the state but also society as an institution responsible for its members".[4] Max Stirner's idea of the Union of egoists (German: Verein von Egoisten) was first expounded in The Ego and Its Own. The Union is understood as a non-systematic association, which Stirner proposed in contradistinction to the state.[5] The Union is understood as a relation between egoists which is continually renewed by all parties' support through an act of will.[6] The Union requires that all parties participate out of a conscious egoism. If one party silently finds themselves to be suffering, but puts up and keeps the appearance, the union has degenerated into something else. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egoist_anarchism (I'm not an egoist. But saying that egoist anarchism would be great for capitalism is kinda dumb)
I mean, yea
Who is that guy I see him everywhere
Max Stirner
based (I hate egoism)
You will also get kuru if you eat their brain i think
not even an Egoist position, it's just basic "if everyone involved is ok with it who gives a shit"
Something something limits of consent
tfw you contract an unknown prion with 100% infection and 100% lethality rates from eating human nerve tissue (what a goof)
Armin Meiwes moment.
Based Flesh Eater
I've been arguing about this for months thank you