"The petition against the £5 note, hosted on the change.org website, stated that tallow was "unacceptable to millions of vegans, vegetarians, Hindus, Sikhs, Jains and others in the UK".
They forgot to mention that it's 'acceptable to many, many millions more'.
"The petition against the £5 note, hosted on the change.org website, stated that tallow was "unacceptable to millions of vegans, vegetarians, Hindus, Sikhs, Jains and others in the UK".
They forgot to mention that it's 'acceptable to many, many millions more'.
"The petition against the £5 note, hosted on the change.org website, stated that tallow was "unacceptable to millions of vegans, vegetarians, Hindus, Sikhs, Jains and others in the UK".
They forgot to mention that it's 'acceptable to many, many millions more'.
"The petition against the £5 note, hosted on the change.org website, stated that tallow was "unacceptable to millions of vegans, vegetarians, Hindus, Sikhs, Jains and others in the UK".
They forgot to mention that it's 'acceptable to many, many millions more'.
So anything is ok if a majority are ok with it?
History says otherwise.
I didn't say that. By saying that's it's acceptable to many, many millions more does not mean I said that 'anything is okay if a majority are okay with it'. You made that parallel.
It'd be like me saying, by you disapproving of the make up of the note, you believe that small minority groups should dictate how the note is made. I don't believe that to be the case, although I could be wrong.
"The petition against the £5 note, hosted on the change.org website, stated that tallow was "unacceptable to millions of vegans, vegetarians, Hindus, Sikhs, Jains and others in the UK".
They forgot to mention that it's 'acceptable to many, many millions more'.
So anything is ok if a majority are ok with it?
History says otherwise.
First they came for the £5 note, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a £5 note.
Then they came for the £10 note, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a £10 note.
Then they came for the £20 note, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a £20 note.
Then they came for me, the £50 note—and there was no one left to speak for me.
All the argument on this has been done to death. I find it repugnant that the state forces me to compromise my core beliefs. When there are alternative ingredients for the fiver. Some think that is funny. We're not going to change our minds so I'm going to try not to respond about this anymore.
All the argument on this has been done to death. I find it repugnant that the state forces me to compromise my core beliefs. When there are alternative ingredients for the fiver. Some think that is funny. We're not going to change our minds so I'm going to try not to respond about this anymore.
All the argument on this has been done to death. I find it repugnant that the state forces me to compromise my core beliefs. When there are alternative ingredients for the fiver. Some think that is funny. We're not going to change our minds so I'm going to try not to respond about this anymore.
All the argument on this has been done to death. I find it repugnant that the state forces me to compromise my core beliefs. When there are alternative ingredients for the fiver. Some think that is funny. We're not going to change our minds so I'm going to try not to respond about this anymore.
And you lost...
And you are how old?
Bugger, came back already. Must ignore this thread from now on.
All the argument on this has been done to death. I find it repugnant that the state forces me to compromise my core beliefs. When there are alternative ingredients for the fiver. Some think that is funny. We're not going to change our minds so I'm going to try not to respond about this anymore.
And you lost...
And you are how old?
Bugger, came back already. Must ignore this thread from now on.
All the argument on this has been done to death. I find it repugnant that the state forces me to compromise my core beliefs. When there are alternative ingredients for the fiver. Some think that is funny. We're not going to change our minds so I'm going to try not to respond about this anymore.
No it's not, here's another argument.
We share 67% of our genetic material with fungi. We both evolved from the slime that crawled from the sea onto land and did not synthesis chlorophyll. So if you eat Quorn you are eating material that is more animal than plant.
Vegetarianism is an emotional state based on a subjective perception of what is animal, what is plant and what is sentient and what is not. Would slug slime in a fiver be against vegetarian beliefs? Is a slug more sentient than a mushroom just because it can move? Is it OK to swat a fly that annoys you or an insect that spreads disease?
The only reason vegetarianism can exist is because the original plants which our prehistoric ancestors had available have been genetically bred to provide nourishment that makes eating them worth the effort. Try living off grass seed, parsley roots, crab apples and chickweed if you think vegetarianism is the true human state we were designed to live. We burned energy and survived on the fat from animals, not meagre amounts of carbohydrates from the naturally evolved plants available. We were also struggling to source imported soya beans, quinoa and goji berries from 2 thousand miles away.
No one is denying freedom of belief, but expecting others to accommodate and adapt normal activities to conform to an idiosyncratic and contradictory belief system because you demand it, is arrogance.
No problem vegetarians upholding the faith on the (theoretical) grounds of helping the planet, but moral grounds and offence at tallow in a fiver cannot be taken seriously by non believers. We have more in common with a mushroom than a fiver has with a cow.
All the argument on this has been done to death. I find it repugnant that the state forces me to compromise my core beliefs. When there are alternative ingredients for the fiver. Some think that is funny. We're not going to change our minds so I'm going to try not to respond about this anymore.
No it's not, here's another argument.
We share 67% of our genetic material with fungi. We both evolved from the slime that crawled from the sea onto land and did not synthesis chlorophyll. So if you eat Quorn you are eating material that is more animal than plant.
Vegetarianism is an emotional state based on a subjective perception of what is animal, what is plant and what is sentient and what is not. Would slug slime in a fiver be against vegetarian beliefs? Is a slug more sentient than a mushroom just because it can move? Is it OK to swat a fly that annoys you or an insect that spreads disease?
The only reason vegetarianism can exist is because the original plants which our prehistoric ancestors had available have been genetically bred to provide nourishment that makes eating them worth the effort. Try living off grass seed, parsley roots, crab apples and chickweed if you think vegetarianism is the true human state we were designed to live. We burned energy and survived on the fat from animals, not meagre amounts of carbohydrates from the naturally evolved plants available. We were also struggling to source imported soya beans, quinoa and goji berries from 2 thousand miles away.
No one is denying freedom of belief, but expecting others to accommodate and adapt normal activities to conform to an idiosyncratic and contradictory belief system because you demand it, is arrogance.
No problem vegetarians upholding the faith on the (theoretical) grounds of helping the planet, but moral grounds and offence at tallow in a fiver cannot be taken seriously by non believers. We have more in common with a mushroom than a fiver has with a cow.
Thank you for schooling me in what I should and shouldn't do or believe. In a non arrogant way as well.
And yes I know I can't avoid coming back. I must be eating the wrong protein.
All the argument on this has been done to death. I find it repugnant that the state forces me to compromise my core beliefs. When there are alternative ingredients for the fiver. Some think that is funny. We're not going to change our minds so I'm going to try not to respond about this anymore.
No it's not, here's another argument.
We share 67% of our genetic material with fungi. We both evolved from the slime that crawled from the sea onto land and did not synthesis chlorophyll. So if you eat Quorn you are eating material that is more animal than plant.
Vegetarianism is an emotional state based on a subjective perception of what is animal, what is plant and what is sentient and what is not. Would slug slime in a fiver be against vegetarian beliefs? Is a slug more sentient than a mushroom just because it can move? Is it OK to swat a fly that annoys you or an insect that spreads disease?
The only reason vegetarianism can exist is because the original plants which our prehistoric ancestors had available have been genetically bred to provide nourishment that makes eating them worth the effort. Try living off grass seed, parsley roots, crab apples and chickweed if you think vegetarianism is the true human state we were designed to live. We burned energy and survived on the fat from animals, not meagre amounts of carbohydrates from the naturally evolved plants available. We were also struggling to source imported soya beans, quinoa and goji berries from 2 thousand miles away.
No one is denying freedom of belief, but expecting others to accommodate and adapt normal activities to conform to an idiosyncratic and contradictory belief system because you demand it, is arrogance.
No problem vegetarians upholding the faith on the (theoretical) grounds of helping the planet, but moral grounds and offence at tallow in a fiver cannot be taken seriously by non believers. We have more in common with a mushroom than a fiver has with a cow.
I'm a non-believer (I had a very nice sausage sandwich for lunch), but I can and do to take the offence at tallow in a fiver very seriously.
All the argument on this has been done to death. I find it repugnant that the state forces me to compromise my core beliefs. When there are alternative ingredients for the fiver. Some think that is funny. We're not going to change our minds so I'm going to try not to respond about this anymore.
No it's not, here's another argument.
We share 67% of our genetic material with fungi. We both evolved from the slime that crawled from the sea onto land and did not synthesis chlorophyll. So if you eat Quorn you are eating material that is more animal than plant.
Vegetarianism is an emotional state based on a subjective perception of what is animal, what is plant and what is sentient and what is not. Would slug slime in a fiver be against vegetarian beliefs? Is a slug more sentient than a mushroom just because it can move? Is it OK to swat a fly that annoys you or an insect that spreads disease?
The only reason vegetarianism can exist is because the original plants which our prehistoric ancestors had available have been genetically bred to provide nourishment that makes eating them worth the effort. Try living off grass seed, parsley roots, crab apples and chickweed if you think vegetarianism is the true human state we were designed to live. We burned energy and survived on the fat from animals, not meagre amounts of carbohydrates from the naturally evolved plants available. We were also struggling to source imported soya beans, quinoa and goji berries from 2 thousand miles away.
No one is denying freedom of belief, but expecting others to accommodate and adapt normal activities to conform to an idiosyncratic and contradictory belief system because you demand it, is arrogance.
No problem vegetarians upholding the faith on the (theoretical) grounds of helping the planet, but moral grounds and offence at tallow in a fiver cannot be taken seriously by non believers. We have more in common with a mushroom than a fiver has with a cow.
Feelings, beliefs and personal choices are the new facts.
Dipps' point about what is sentient and what isn't was kind of my point at the beginning of this thread. Would a vegan Buddhist treat a warble larvae infected dog? And if so, how did they come to the decision that a dog is more sentient than a warble fly?
Just a rhetorical question really, it's not meant to start a whole new argument....
Dipps' point about what is sentient and what isn't was kind of my point at the beginning of this thread. Would a vegan Buddhist treat a warble larvae infected dog? And if so, how did they come to the decision that a dog is more sentient than a warble fly?
Just a rhetorical question really, it's not meant to start a whole new argument....
Dipps' point about what is sentient and what isn't was kind of my point at the beginning of this thread. Would a vegan Buddhist treat a warble larvae infected dog? And if so, how did they come to the decision that a dog is more sentient than a warble fly?
Just a rhetorical question really, it's not meant to start a whole new argument....
I had a quick look on line and buddhist thinking on this is diverse. The key being the interpretation of refrain. The Buddha said you should refrain from killing sentient beings. I'm glad I'm not Buddhist as the theology seems very complicated.
All the argument on this has been done to death. I find it repugnant that the state forces me to compromise my core beliefs. When there are alternative ingredients for the fiver. Some think that is funny. We're not going to change our minds so I'm going to try not to respond about this anymore.
No it's not, here's another argument.
We share 67% of our genetic material with fungi. We both evolved from the slime that crawled from the sea onto land and did not synthesis chlorophyll. So if you eat Quorn you are eating material that is more animal than plant.
Vegetarianism is an emotional state based on a subjective perception of what is animal, what is plant and what is sentient and what is not. Would slug slime in a fiver be against vegetarian beliefs? Is a slug more sentient than a mushroom just because it can move? Is it OK to swat a fly that annoys you or an insect that spreads disease?
The only reason vegetarianism can exist is because the original plants which our prehistoric ancestors had available have been genetically bred to provide nourishment that makes eating them worth the effort. Try living off grass seed, parsley roots, crab apples and chickweed if you think vegetarianism is the true human state we were designed to live. We burned energy and survived on the fat from animals, not meagre amounts of carbohydrates from the naturally evolved plants available. We were also struggling to source imported soya beans, quinoa and goji berries from 2 thousand miles away.
No one is denying freedom of belief, but expecting others to accommodate and adapt normal activities to conform to an idiosyncratic and contradictory belief system because you demand it, is arrogance.
No problem vegetarians upholding the faith on the (theoretical) grounds of helping the planet, but moral grounds and offence at tallow in a fiver cannot be taken seriously by non believers. We have more in common with a mushroom than a fiver has with a cow.
Feelings, beliefs and personal choices are the new facts.
It is a fact that wherever possible I do not consume animal products. It is a fact that there alternatives to using tallow in the production of banknotes. It is a fact that this means I am presented with a moral dilemma daily that could have been avoided by due diligence in the production meetings before making the new fiver.
Comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38980352
Bad.
They forgot to mention that it's 'acceptable to many, many millions more'.
History says otherwise.
It'd be like me saying, by you disapproving of the make up of the note, you believe that small minority groups should dictate how the note is made. I don't believe that to be the case, although I could be wrong.
Thanks for putting words in my mouth though
Because I was not a £5 note.
Then they came for the £10 note, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a £10 note.
Then they came for the £20 note, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a £20 note.
Then they came for me, the £50 note—and there was no one left to speak for me.
I find it repugnant that the state forces me to compromise my core beliefs. When there are alternative ingredients for the fiver.
Some think that is funny.
We're not going to change our minds so I'm going to try not to respond about this anymore.
Is that the banking equivalent of wafer thin ham, then?
Bugger, came back already. Must ignore this thread from now on.
We share 67% of our genetic material with fungi. We both evolved from the slime that crawled from the sea onto land and did not synthesis chlorophyll. So if you eat Quorn you are eating material that is more animal than plant.
Vegetarianism is an emotional state based on a subjective perception of what is animal, what is plant and what is sentient and what is not. Would slug slime in a fiver be against vegetarian beliefs? Is a slug more sentient than a mushroom just because it can move? Is it OK to swat a fly that annoys you or an insect that spreads disease?
The only reason vegetarianism can exist is because the original plants which our prehistoric ancestors had available have been genetically bred to provide nourishment that makes eating them worth the effort. Try living off grass seed, parsley roots, crab apples and chickweed if you think vegetarianism is the true human state we were designed to live. We burned energy and survived on the fat from animals, not meagre amounts of carbohydrates from the naturally evolved plants available. We were also struggling to source imported soya beans, quinoa and goji berries from 2 thousand miles away.
No one is denying freedom of belief, but expecting others to accommodate and adapt normal activities to conform to an idiosyncratic and contradictory belief system because you demand it, is arrogance.
No problem vegetarians upholding the faith on the (theoretical) grounds of helping the planet, but moral grounds and offence at tallow in a fiver cannot be taken seriously by non believers. We have more in common with a mushroom than a fiver has with a cow.
And yes I know I can't avoid coming back. I must be eating the wrong protein.
Just a rhetorical question really, it's not meant to start a whole new argument....
The key being the interpretation of refrain. The Buddha said you should refrain from killing sentient beings.
I'm glad I'm not Buddhist as the theology seems very complicated.
It is a fact that there alternatives to using tallow in the production of banknotes.
It is a fact that this means I am presented with a moral dilemma daily that could have been avoided by due diligence in the production meetings before making the new fiver.