this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2025
115 points (89.7% 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 3) 31 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] allo@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I have the same repulsive reaction to eating the body of a someone, of any species, as you probably do to eating insects or humans or literal fecal balls of steaming dung.

[–] vividspecter@aussie.zone 4 points 2 days ago

A see the issue as more about habit formation and incentives, rather than the act in isolation being a problem. Those that come to rely on animal products from roadkill will inevitably turn to more conventional methods when roadkill is not available since they have become habituated to using animal products (although this is likely worse with more regular habits like meat eating).
Additionally, if this method became widespread enough, there would be an incentive to increase the amount of roadkill (or at best, not decrease it) when in reality roadkill itself is a failure of transport design and land use.

[–] CannedYeet@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

For the sake of argument I think you could say that you're depriving a scavenger of a meal. I don't know if that's how veganism is usually framed.

[–] samus12345@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Won't someone think of the bacteria??

[–] Manjushri@piefed.social 3 points 1 day ago

...and crows and vultures and eagles and bears and assorted rodents and foxes and beetles and many, many more. There is actually a rather robust eco system out there, you know. And when you gut part of it, you are just asking for trouble.

[–] notreallyhere@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

seriously the graveyard is full of them

[–] Nurse_Robot@lemmy.world -5 points 2 days ago (4 children)

For the second question, one could argue driving a car isn't vegan (unless it's electric) because gas and oil are technically animal products, even if that animal was a dinosaur

[–] baggins@lemmy.ca -1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

So veganism isn't about not causing harm to animals? Or are you suggesting humans killed the dinosaurs? is it just about blindly refusing to use animal parts?

[–] neatchee@piefed.social 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (4 children)

It's mostly about consent. We can debate when and where sentience begins, but it begins somewhere and vegans hold a moral philosophy that says using another sentient being's work product or body without their consent is immoral.

Note that I am not vegan myself but understand, if not agree with, their moral position.

And as another reply said, most vegans recognize it as a "best effort" philosophy, as they appreciate the impracticality of an absolutist stance. They are focused on "harm reduction".

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›