It's a non-sequitur because you haven't sufficiently linked the subjectivity of the terminology with it being useless. If I said I feel happy, that is a subjective statement. The meaning varies from person to person. That does not make it useless.
I did. I gave plenty of examples with the carbon footprint
You said I would sign them up for torture. That is not the same thing as having used western medicine.
it is because they are being tortured in medical experiments
Again, irrelevant. My argument as to the meaning and usage of the term vegan has nothing to do with carbon footprint.
If the terminology is totally useless then how were you able to ascribe it a particular connotation to argue against. That seems to be a self-contradicting position.
Ok...that still doesn't mean I would sign them up to be tortured as you said I would. But, I don't think it's worth arguing this point anymore. You're free to think I'm a hypocrite. I definitely am in some capacities, but constantly strive to bring my actions into accordance with my principles.
As an aside, there have been significant studies in the past decade that raise questions as to the predictive performance of animal models. So there is an ongoing debate there about the extent to which those practices can be reasonably justified.
it does when the whole thing ties up with the ethos of not spilling blood, caring for the planet, yada yada yada.
Yet again, you attempt to speak with authority on the meaning of a word that you have defined as subjective and useless. I gave you a clear definition and you dismissed it because it doesn't suit your argument. It's bizarre to me to be told what my ethos is by someone who clearly doesn't fully understand it.
Ultimately, you have based your thesis on a sloppy definition of a set of words that you have also defined as useless. This undermines the logical consistency of your overall argument.
Alas, at this point we seem to be rehashing the same arguments, so I'll leave the last comment to you if you like. Good sparring. Peace.
Your definition is not better than mine or anyone's else's. this is what you don't get. we are trying to find a common ground on inclusiveness on characteristics, not exclusive close circle definitions.