this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2025
114 points (89.6% liked)

No Stupid Questions

44432 readers
1074 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Per the title. If an animal dies out in nature without any human involvement, shouldn't it be considered vegan to harvest any of the useful parts from it (not nessicarily meat, think hide), since there was no human-caused suffering involved?

Similarly, is driving a car not vegan because of the roadkill issue?

Especially curious to hear a perspective from any practicing moral vegans.

Also: I am not vegan. That's why I'm asking. I'm not planning on eating roadkill thank you. Just suggesting the existence of animal-based vegan leather.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] toomanypancakes@piefed.world 82 points 2 days ago (9 children)

Hi, ive been vegan for a bit over 10 years. I don't think animal parts are for us to use at all. I'm not really sure why you'd harvest animals at all, I don't think normalizing the commodification of others' bodies is a good thing to be doing. If you really can't live without animal parts, that's probably the least harmful way of acquiring them. I wouldn't recommend eating anyone you find lying on the ground though, that sounds like a good way to contract horrible diseases.

Veganism is about doing the most that is possible and practicable. We probably kill insects just by walking, but it's not reasonable to never move again to avoid that. Similarly, driving a car for many people is a necessity to be able to access goods and services, and its not at all practicable to avoid driving for them.

Ultimately, veganism is a moral stance about reducing harm to others as much as you can. It's not a competition, so don't feel like you have to be perfect at it to do good.

[–] OfCourseNot@fedia.io 26 points 2 days ago (1 children)

We probably kill insects just by walking, but it's not reasonable to never move again to avoid that.

There's this Hindu sect whose adherents wear veils, sweep the floor before them, and/or tread very slowly and carefully to avoid injuring, killing or eating any small insects. As you said, it's about doing as much as you can, but if it were a competition they'd win for sure.

[–] FoxyFerengi@startrek.website 29 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I think you mean Jainism? It isn't Hindu.

They also have a very strict vegetarian diet, they won't even eat root vegetables so burrowing insects aren't disturbes

[–] faintwhenfree@lemmus.org 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I mean defining new religion is always tricky, Hinduism is such a large collection of beliefs, if you go too wide Jainism and Buddhism and Sikhism would unfold into Hinduism and if you go too narrow Hinduism is at best group of 12-13 separate religion.

The deeper you look the more confusing it is, while Jain texts acknowledge certain "Hindu" deities like Indra, other parts of universe building are entirely different, and if they are different where did Indra come from?

Anyway I like the distinction of dharmic religions and then defining sects such as Jain, Vaishnav, shaiva, Buddhism etc etc. They all have the concept of Dharma, Karma and Moksha. So they are all kind of interoperable in terms of lifestyle. There are sects of Hinduism that are more different than mainstream to the point it'd be hard to call them Hindu, but they self identify as Hindu, while there are sects of buddishm that are so similar to Hinduism, it's unclear why they consider themselves a separate religion. I think at the end the distinctions between dharmic religion are always because of some geopolitical power game.

Yeah but if you ask a jain they'd say they're not Hindu. So take it for it means.

[–] ReiRose@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I would argue Jainism, Buddhism and Hinduism are as distinct as Islam, Christianity and Judaism.

Which are the sects of Buddhism that are so similar to Hinduism? (Curiosity, not attack - i studied Buddhism in depth for my degree, but that was 20 years ago)

[–] tree_frog_and_rain@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

I would argue that Buddhism is as distinct from Hinduism as an agnostic is from the abrahamic faiths.

If you really look at Buddhism, it's a critique of Hindu concepts such as Atman.

Of course it incorporates a lot of those concepts, because the Buddha was communicating his critique to folks who used those concepts.

For example, the four brahmavajara's are framed in a Hindu understanding of the godhead. That doesn't mean the Buddha believed in Brahma beyond it's conceptualization by Hindus.

He was merely using it as a teaching device to point out the importance of the four immeasurable minds to a Brahmin who asked him what the mind of God is like.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

If you don't make a moral distinction between humans and other animals, it seems difficult to justify scavenging with any logic that couldn't also be used to justify grave robbing, cannibalism, or even necrophilia.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] baggins@lemmy.ca 14 points 2 days ago

Thank you for this perspective!

Thank you for your well rounded and ernest perspective. That final sentence really gave me pause. And it’s nice to find a corner of the internet where vegans aren’t vilified immediately for existing

[–] QuinnyCoded@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 days ago (5 children)

i saw a really interesting video about biking jackets and the design of them, the conclusion is that molecularly leather is the safest material for abrasion and there's not really any synthetic replacement that comes close.

What does your perspective (in regard to veganism) have on this subject?

https://youtu.be/xwuRUcAGIEU
Btw this channel is REALLY entertaining and well written, I'd recommend watching this channel if you get bored sometime

[–] toomanypancakes@piefed.world 14 points 2 days ago

I'd take the risk with synthetic materials, personally. I don't think any amount of danger I put myself in would justify killing someone else for their skin. I have a synthetic jacket with elbow and shoulder reinforcement for when I ride, and that's good enough for me.

I'll definitely check out the video later when I have more downtime though.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 31 points 2 days ago (3 children)

To me it’s not a matter of ethics but a matter of health. Unless you saw the animal die from something that clearly isn’t disease I wouldn’t trust meat I just found laying around.

[–] tyler@programming.dev 40 points 2 days ago (2 children)

It doesn’t have to be edible. Glue, gelatin for skin mimicry, clothing, and bones for weapons, etc are all non-edible uses of animals.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 21 points 2 days ago

Good point. I forgot vegans included all that stuff and not just eating animal products.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] baggins@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Neither would I but what about the hide?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] toebert@piefed.social 19 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'm not vegan myself but I had asked a similar enough question to a vegan friend a while ago and liked his answer:

He said for him it's 2 parts, 1 is that while the animal that died may not have been harmed by humans, the ecosystem that relies on scavenging carcasses will be hurt if humans effectively start removing their entire food source (same way we have driven species to extinction by hunting).

The 2nd part is that with humans everything with even the tiniest loop hole will get abused.. Imagine that we say this is okay. Today it may be the odd naturally deceased animal, in a month it'll start including animals "killed accidentally", in a year it'll be someone farming animals with some weird way of culling them so they can claim it's still natural causes by some twisted logic.. at the end of it we'd just not be able to trust any of it anyway so it's easier to not even entertain the thought - the energy to figure it all out would be better spent on improving alternatives.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] IronKrill@lemmy.ca 12 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I think it would depend who you ask. I consider myself vegan and would have no major issue with someone using roadkill for parts. I mean, I would find it disgusting and could never myself, but if they want to and still call themselves vegan, I see no problem with it as the harm has already been done to the animal. Seems the same as harvesting bones from the forest - what's dead is dead.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Seems the same as harvesting bones from the forest

Umm... Wut? Why are you being a bone harvester, what do you need them for??

[–] rc__buggy@sh.itjust.works 24 points 1 day ago

Bone stuff, why are you asking so many questions?

[–] Manifish_Destiny@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Whatever I want.

If you die in the woods I will find you.

[–] blarghly@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

Lots of people like to use things like antlers or skulls as decorations

[–] ReiRose@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago
[–] save_the_humans@leminal.space 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I had a teacher in high school ask me to bring him a deer if I ever hit one on my way to school.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] sem@piefed.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 day ago

They call themselves freegans

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (5 children)

You can do pretty much whatever you want man...

Like "vegan" isn't even a century old yet, it was made up in the 1940s by some guy who thought vegetarians weren't good enough, and he set whatever rules he wanted to.

You can just keep using his word, but not care about his rules.

Or you can make up your own name and rules.

People searching for labels they like and then conforming to every fucking aspect of that label and nothing else, doesn't work out well.

So please, if you want to eat roadkill just do it.

[–] Chozo@fedia.io 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Like "vegan" isn't even a century old yet, it was made up in the 1940s by some guy who thought vegetarians weren't good enough, and he set whatever rules he wanted to.

[citation needed]

[–] prime_number_314159@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] Chozo@fedia.io 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The concept is much older than the word we use today.

One of the earliest known vegans was the Arab poet al-Ma'arri, famous for his poem "I No Longer Steal From Nature". (c. 973 – c. 1057).

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] JustARegularNerd@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

From my end, I'm a registered organ donor because I feel that I won't need this body once I'm done with it, and if anything is useful off it for someone else, then hell, let them have my liver.

However, an animal can't consent to that and yeah, an argument could be made that who gives a fuck, it's a pig/chicken/cow, it's not gonna give a shit, but death is unfortunate for anything and I'd feel more at ease that the carcus is either left for nature to do what it does than me harvesting it for food.

[–] Beacon@fedia.io 6 points 2 days ago (4 children)

It is going to be eaten no matter what. The chance of it being eaten is essentially 100%. So i can't see how that's part of the equation.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Idk much about vegan philosophy and it is a philosophy not a diet to be clear. However, personally I see it as stealing from the vultures. The vegan solution is of course, to limit roadkill to negligable levels by making cars a redundant and antiquated form of transportation.

Also I wouldn't trust roadkill to be safe for consumption

From a materialist point of view, I can't see any harm in harvesting the hide of an already dead animal. However, wearing a real fur coat and calling yourself a vegan is never going to be an easy thing to explain lmao

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›