They are choosing to abstain from using artificial intelligence for environmental, ethical and personal reasons. Maybe they have a point, writes Guardian columnist Arwa Mahdawi
It’s like how they put the word gate after something to say that it is a scandal involving the former word.
Somesort of political scandal involving road maintenance? Oh yes well that’s roadgate then. Even though the Watergate scandal was in fact it scandal in the watergate hotel, rather than a scandal about water.
If the human you’re fucking consented, then consuming their fluids is vegan. Hell if they consent, eating them would be vegan too.
Animals do not consent to having fluids extracted or their lives taken and flesh consumed. Animal agriculture keeps animals in filthy, torturous conditions too, which no animal would ever consent to either.
It was kept in captivity by you though, which is not it’s natural habitat so any choices it made were, arguably, under duress.
If you lived by a creek and regularly recognised a fish swimming by, and one day this fish killed itself in front of you- you still shouldn’t eat it as fish contain a lot of parasites and there’s very likely also something toxic in the water causing the fish to harm itself this way.
But yeah, sure, hypothetically: if for a year or so you knew a wild fish that lived in an unpolluted and ecologically healthy body of water, and one day this fish chose to kill itself in front of you. You could, if you really wanted to eat a suicidal fish, eat the fish and say it was vegan because the only harm that came to the fish was through the un-coerced choices of said suicidal fish.
Abstaining from animal products is just vegetarian. Veganism requires an extremely strict adherence to a very specific set of rules concerning animals.
A vegetarian who eats plant products only, especially one who uses no products derived from animals, as fur or leather.
There is an environmental parallel, and it made me read the article to see what they were on about – so I guess it worked.
To be clear, I am very pro environment (I live in it); I just feel like this is crossing the streams of related, but completely different movements, isn’t particularly helpful.
Abstaining from a thing does not make one a vegan. That’s not how any of this works.
But it makes people come off as extremely annoying. So that’s working.
It’s like how they put the word gate after something to say that it is a scandal involving the former word.
Somesort of political scandal involving road maintenance? Oh yes well that’s roadgate then. Even though the Watergate scandal was in fact it scandal in the watergate hotel, rather than a scandal about water.
I’m sex vegan. Cry about it virgins
No animals harmed during sex…hmm
Disagreed. I am an animal.
I’m a sex vegetarian gotta be a bit open
I’m a sex pescatarian. I will not be answering questions.
Sex flexitarian is where it’s at
No mayo in the bedroom? Why even bother.
Vegan aioli just doesn’t cut it
“Vegan sex” is actually a different thing. It’s penetration but you stop before you cum.
If the human you’re fucking consented, then consuming their fluids is vegan. Hell if they consent, eating them would be vegan too.
Animals do not consent to having fluids extracted or their lives taken and flesh consumed. Animal agriculture keeps animals in filthy, torturous conditions too, which no animal would ever consent to either.
I had a fish that died by suicide. We didn’t eat it, but arguably
It was kept in captivity by you though, which is not it’s natural habitat so any choices it made were, arguably, under duress.
If you lived by a creek and regularly recognised a fish swimming by, and one day this fish killed itself in front of you- you still shouldn’t eat it as fish contain a lot of parasites and there’s very likely also something toxic in the water causing the fish to harm itself this way.
But yeah, sure, hypothetically: if for a year or so you knew a wild fish that lived in an unpolluted and ecologically healthy body of water, and one day this fish chose to kill itself in front of you. You could, if you really wanted to eat a suicidal fish, eat the fish and say it was vegan because the only harm that came to the fish was through the un-coerced choices of said suicidal fish.
Awe so the article author has a vendetta against vegans got it.
I mean, abstaining from animal products makes someone a vegan, right? If you abstain from AI products then it would follow that you’re an “AI vegan”.
Abstaining from animal products is just vegetarian. Veganism requires an extremely strict adherence to a very specific set of rules concerning animals.
Vegetarians can eat cheese, which is an animal product.
It follows, but it is also feels like click bait.
A definition of vegan is:
There is an environmental parallel, and it made me read the article to see what they were on about – so I guess it worked.
To be clear, I am very pro environment (I live in it); I just feel like this is crossing the streams of related, but completely different movements, isn’t particularly helpful.