sophnix mentioned you on a post “To be super clear:”
@goldhornsandblackwool no, that would not be vegan. You're still exploiting the animal even if you treat it humanely. It's not a give and take. The goal is to not exploit animals at all if we can help it, but sometimes we are placed in circumstances where it literally isn't possible for us to be 100%. idk maybe the only skin care product u can find that doesn't irritate your sensitive skin isn't vegan. and we just need to understand that we're trying our best.
Okay, I understand and thank you for the reply, but I thnk I need to restate this:
Veganism is a lifestyle since it extends beyond what a person eats and by your definition is based on the lack of exploitation of animals with the caveat that while that is the goal, systems of production often make it difficult to 100% adhere to this, which is true and fair.
However, my example was basically backyard garden chickens-- not animal by products being used in skincare products (which logically is not going to ever be humane because of the exploitation inherent in industrial animal ag.
So again, if the animals are not being inhumanely treated, industrially harmed/exploited is it possible then for someone to be lifestyle-vegan on a vegetarian diet with the example that the diet is all plants save for the inclusion of these backyard eggs? Again in the example these chickens roam a garden/farm eating bugs and providing manure.
Or, to your point that ‘it’s not a give and take’, is it your notion that there exists no acceptable mutual ‘give and take’ between humans and any animal regardless of harm?
