Pushing sentient coffee beans aside, non-human animals cannot give informed consent, so all exploitation of them inherently violates consent. That being said, I wouldn't necessarily describe the "core of veganism" the way @[email protected] did, so I get what you mean.

To get back on topic, when you make the core of the issue exploitation, I'd say this is overall a vegan scene, and the coffee nipple brew itself appears to be vegan.

Think about it: the coffee bean isn't actually being exploited for his coffee nipple brew. So what about the other claim that restless was getting at—that Mordecai and Rigby are having their consent violated? Well, if we want to keep it about the actual core issue veganism aims to tackle, exploitation, let's rephrase it as, "Are Mordecai and Rigby being exploited here?"

When Leslie Cross gave a definition in the writing, In Search of Veganism, he defined veganism this way:

Veganism may therefore be defined as "the principle of the emancipation of the animals from exploitation by man."

He defines the terms here:

Emancipation: the state of being set free. Exploitation: the act of using for selfish purposes. Animals: sentient animate creatures other than man.

Now, the coffee bean isn't a human ("man"), but let's neglect that aspect for a second and see if it holds up as exploitation even without that caveat.

If exploitation is the act of using for selfish purposes, you can't exactly say that Mordecai and Rigby are being used for selfish purposes here, at least not in the context of the coffee bean shooting the nipple brew in their mouths. What benefit is the coffee bean trying to extract from shooting the nipple brew in their mouths? It doesn't appear to benefit him in and of itself or even serve as a form of use at all.

That being said, I forgot the entire context of this episode, but if the contract terms contained anything exploitative, then maybe we could say they were being exploited that way, but as far as the act of the coffee bean shooting nipple brew into their mouth goes, it's all vegan.

Another point to mention is that if the coffee bean were being held against his will and forcefully "milked" for people to make use of his nipple brew, that'd definitely be exploitation of a sentient animate creature other than man, so it wouldn't be vegan in that context.

I disagree. If we take the rejection of all exploitation of animals as a core facet, which the vegan society does in their definition (aside: am I missing something about why they get to be the arbiters of the unique definition of veganism?):

"Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."

and consider that humans are animals who can consent to actions that would be exploitative in other contexts, especially without consent (e.g., solving geometry problems, listening to or performing music, creative writing, hiking), we see consent emerge. We don't think about it in decisions with respect to non-human animals because they can't consent.