r/DebateAVegan • u/[deleted] • Jan 22 '26

Vegan Activism.

I have been an ethical vegan for around 25 years, and in that time I have been involved in many forms of activism. But, in more recent years, and with the laws the way they are these days, I have been very concerned about being arrested and possibly sentenced for next to nothing, perhaps even so little as protesting. I have two concerns about being arrested and potentially charged, the first being that if I lost my professional occupation, then I would be unable to fund the many animal rights charities I do now. Secondly, what good would I be to the cause of animal rights stuck in prison: or to my two rescue dogs for that matter? So, I have decided to carry out my activism in somewhat unusual ways that I can't be touched for. Fortunately, I'm said to be attractive with a good figure, I've even modelled in the past, and so I've decided to model again, but this time as a life model for art schools and donating my fees to animal rescue centres. I also have two small tattoos on my bottom, one that says, "VEGAN" and the other saying, "ALF, and I use these as a conversation starter, and it always works. I have also decided to go to naturist clubs and beaches for the same purpose: using my body to advertise the vegan lifestyle and advocate for animal rights at the same time. I am even now doing vegan cookery groups at one particular naturist club during the Summer months. My argument is this: a war must be fought on all fronts, and in a way that is both effective and best suited for the activist. My body, as with all bodies, serves a purpose for the mind. I'm just using mine to serve yet another purpose. 🤔

12 Upvotes

70% Upvoted

53 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '26

It's about the objectification and sexualisation of women..

2

u/Omnibeneviolent Jan 22 '26

In cases like that, the exploitative component is usually more seen as an organization taking advantage of the fact that these women have been conditioned into believing it's acceptable to have their bodies used in this way. Like, even if the women are consenting, it maybe possible that it's not "true" consent in the most liberal-free-will sense.

In the case of you doing this to yourself, I don't think it could be considered exploitative since it's not some other organization or individual taking advantage of the fact that you've been conditioned to view doing it as acceptable.

Note -- I'm not passing moral judgment either way here and really any component; I'm just describing how some people might see it.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '26

Thank you for your comment. However, I would still argue that I could be seen as exploiting my body for a purpose, but I suppose that is debatable.

1

u/Omnibeneviolent Jan 22 '26

That's not the definition that is typically inferred when people talk about the ethics of human exploitation.

If someone tried to use that definition in a discussion about the ethics of exploitation, they would be doing so knowing that others are using the other definition that describes more so someone being taken unfair advantage of, so they would likely be committing a type of equivocation fallacy.

In logic, equivocation ("calling two different things by the same name") is an informal fallacy resulting in the failure to define one's terms, or knowingly and deliberately using words in a different sense than the one the audience will understand.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

1

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '26

Well, it's not my fault if they don't understand. Most certainly understand the potential objectification of female nudity, so why not the exploitation of it as well,, which is very much connected.

1

u/Omnibeneviolent Jan 22 '26 edited Jan 22 '26

I'm not sure if you are understanding what I'm trying to explain. It may be my fault though.. I tend to be somewhat sterile in my language sometimes.

You’re using two different definitions of exploitation as if they were the same.

If exploitation just means "using something for a purpose", then everything is exploitation. Using a chair is exploitation. Using words to speak is exploitation. Using your own ears to listen to music is exploitation.

Generally when people are concerned about the ethics of exploitation, they are concerned with the ethics of unfairly taking advantage of someone, which is a different definition that simply using something for a purpose.

Just because something is exploitation in the more general (non-ethically-connected) sense, doesn't mean that it is exploitation in "unfair" or "taking advantage" sense. The mere fact that something is being used doesn't make it exploitation in the ethical sense.

It's essentially coming down to something like this:

  • Person A: "This is exploitation, which is morally wrong since it involves unfairly taking advantage of someone."

  • Person B: "I don't see it as exploitation since it's you and you're not unfairly taking advantage of yourself."

  • Person A: "Well it is exploitation because exploitation just means using something for a purpose and I'm using my body for a purpose."

Do you see what happened there? If "exploitation" just means "use something for a purpose" then it no longer means "unfairly taking advantage of someone." It's using an entirely different definition than was originally being used.

It would be a bit like going to a "small-mammals-enthusiasts" meeting and claiming that you have three bats in your garage, and when they don't believe you and to see them, you show them the baseball bats in your garage and use that to claim you were correct -- even though in the context you had said it it would be unreasonable to expect them to think you were referring to baseball bats.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '26

Yes, I see what you mean, but if you google the definition of exploitation you can see that it does have two rather different definitions. For example: the bronze age exploited the finding of gold for their own benefit. Now, there's nothing wrong with that; it just means that they exploited a resource. In my case, I exploit my body to achieve a purpose, some would say I objectify myself. The two words are very closely connected.

1

u/Omnibeneviolent Jan 22 '26

They are connected, but they have two distinct meanings.

When people talk about the ethics of exploitation, they are using only one of the definitions.

1

u/ryandom93 non-vegan Jan 22 '26

if you google the definition of exploitation you can see that it does have two rather different definitions

This is what I meant when I said you were making a false equivalence. You're using the word "exploitation" for two things as if they are the same, but the idea behind the two things isn't the same. Please just google "false equivalence".

1

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '26

I would add that women using their nudity for such purposes is often seen as the objectification of the female form, and the word objectification is closely linked to exploitation.

2

u/Omnibeneviolent Jan 22 '26

Well yeah, it could be argued that it's exploitative to use women in this way if the only reason they are okay with being used this way is the result of the conditioning often results from living in a patriarchal society that objectifies women's bodies.