56
Suicide food
(en.wikipedia.org)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2026
56 points (98.3% liked)
Wikipedia
5270 readers
27 users here now
A place to share interesting articles from Wikipedia.
Rules:
- Only links to Wikipedia permitted (an exception is made for news about Wikipedia, where outside news sources are permitted)
- Please stick to the format "Article Title (other descriptive text/editorialization)"
- Tick the NSFW box for submissions with inappropriate thumbnails
- On Casual Tuesdays, we allow submissions from wikis other than Wikipedia.
Recommended:
- Use the search box to see if someone has previously submitted an article. Some apps will also notify you if you are resubmitting an article previously shared on Lemmy.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
This would technically be vegan because the animal chose to die.
However, in a slightly different note, I am far more concerned about mascots that sell their own kind. If you see a chicken talking about how good company X's chicken is, then you've got a race traitor chicken mascot.
And that is far more evil than serving suicidal pig sausage.
Does that mean that it's technically vegan to eat roadkill or other carrion?
Some people are still against it, but technically that would be recycling material rather than killing an animal for sustenance, so, by the technical bylaws of veganism, it is not non-vegan to eat roadkill.
I don't know what you think makes you an authority on this subject but once again you are just making shit up.
username checks out
No. It is not vegan to exploit the body of an animal, even if it already happens to be dead.
It is not. Vulnerable individuals like livestock do not have the capacity to consent. Veganism does not recognize any such loophole. Veganism forbids the exploitation of animals. It doesn't matter if you convince yourself "the animal had a good life" or "the animal gets something in exchange" or "the animal likes it for some reason"; it's still exploitation.
I think they're saying if the animals were sentient, as they're clearly depicted. It's a silly hypothetical not a philosophical argument.
Yes, we know that. The hypothetical here is that the animal is fully aware and fully consents to being killed and eaten. Obviously this is not a thing in the real world; it’s just a thought experiment.