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.
It is a fact that I consume animal products wherever possible It is a fact that there are animal product-containing banknotes It is a fact there are animal-containing soaps It is therefore a fact that I face a moral dilemma daily when I have to use animal-free hand wash at work and have to use animal-free banknotes when there alternatives.
- Something non-vegetarian is pushed on vegetarians - Vegetarians get offended (to varying degrees) - We awkwardly, and begrudgingly give in - Vegetarians not quite dismounted high horse, but essentially accept it - But wait, it's not vegan! - Vegan now offended and chimes up [having unchained themselves from the nearest tree to do so] - Everyone: "Do one, you're just being awkward"
[in the past] Veggie sister comes home from uni, everything is vegetarian for the next week, but it's being cooked for me so whatever... cue grumbles of "this would be better if it had chicken in it".
Edit: In this case with the fivers though I think people get it, it's gonna cost a load to change process and is generally aggro. but fine - someone should have thought about this, it has dead animal in (I mean, we're hardly feeding thousands of puppies into a 'fiver machine', but still) and I think on a whole meat eaters more-or-less accept that some people aren't cool with that.
If people are like... 'but we exploit the bees!' then the standard response is (rightly or wrongly) 'no, get a grip'.
So you're talking about your family rather than society in general. I'd be interested if you had anything more societal though.
Edited the post if you're still interested.
It's also just one person's opinion... I think people generally draw the line at vegans and I find it pretty funny. They get a bad rap... Dairy farming is f***ing brutal, but if you're vegan you're a delicate flower living in a fantasy world according to a lot of people.
So you're talking about your family rather than society in general. I'd be interested if you had anything more societal though.
Edited the post if you're still interested.
It's also just one person's opinion... I think people generally draw the line at vegans and I find it pretty funny. They get a bad rap... Dairy farming is f***ing brutal, but if you're vegan you're a delicate flower living in a fantasy world according to a lot of people.
I think vegans tend to be quite tough actually. Constantly being ridiculed but sticking to their beliefs. I admire them. And of course many of them willing to risk their personal safety in the pursuit of animal rights. Especially in hunt sabbing and stopping animal experimentation.
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.
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.
Rubbish, and largely irrelevant, facts.
So who decides the allowable facts then?
Or is it not about facts at all, just impose group think on everything.
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.
Rubbish, and largely irrelevant, facts.
Evidently not rubbish and largely irrelevant facts to iainment. He's entitled to his opinion and beliefs, same as each one of us.
It is a moral dilemma to some people though. And it's a fair point that in this day and age, why is it necessary to use such a primitive product as tallow when technology is so advanced?
There's no doubt a synthetic substance available. After all, they are polymer bank notes.
More inforced vegetarianism! It's like when vegetarian guests come round for a meal and we don't eat meat. How comes as a strict carnivore I don't get the same treatment when we go round there gaff ?
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.
But you can eat meat that has been killed by others.
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.
The genetic material statement may no doubt be true. However it is 67% you say. Dare I suggest the missing 33% contains the central nervous system usually associated with animals. The CNS enables sentience, in that it is then possible to experience emotions, most particularly things such as fear and attachment. A plant has 'sensitivity' in as much as it might turn to the light for example, but that is not the same as the CNS which as I say, I think creates sentience. Most people accept there is a difference between plants and animals even if genetic material is shared. Indeed to move the argument along a bit in terms of theory. If for example (and I don't know the exact figure) a pig and a human share 99% of the same genetic material, the gap is much closer than that of a mushroom and a cow. One strand of logic might say if it's the done thing to eat a pig, why not a person? Not much difference really. We don't eat each other because amongst other things we assert our genetic material must be preserved, and at the expense of said pig if necessary. Many factors of that assertion would be on moral grounds as well of course practical ones. As a vegetarian one consideration I am comfortable with, is that there is a significant difference between plants and animals, including fungi.
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.
But you can eat meat that has been killed by others.
No you can eat meat not killed for you. Slight but important difference.
Vegans don't face ridicule because of their diets.
They face ridicule because of getting outraged over stuff like this.
Thousands of people struggle to put food on the table so they might find it slightly ridiculous that vegans seem to be more outraged over a tiny inedible by-product than the fact they can barely afford to buy the food they want.
More inforced vegetarianism! It's like when vegetarian guests come round for a meal and we don't eat meat. How comes as a strict carnivore I don't get the same treatment when we go round there gaff ?
I never expect meat eaters not to eat meat if I'm out with them or eating in their house. I'm happy to eat just veg if necessary. But as I don't ever have meat other than cat food in my house they would have to eat a vegetarian meal. But I would let people know in advance. If that means they can't visit then so be it.
Vegans don't face ridicule because of their diets.
They face ridicule because of getting outraged over stuff like this.
Thousands of people struggle to put food on the table so they might find it slightly ridiculous that vegans seem to be more outraged over a tiny inedible by-product than the fact they can barely afford to buy the food they want.
There are vegans and vegetarians struggling to put food on their table as well. We're not all rich. I know I'm not.
More inforced vegetarianism! It's like when vegetarian guests come round for a meal and we don't eat meat. How comes as a strict carnivore I don't get the same treatment when we go round there gaff ?
I never expect meat eaters not to eat meat if I'm out with them or eating in their house. I'm happy to eat just veg if necessary. But as I don't ever have meat other than cat food in my house they would have to eat a vegetarian meal. But I would let people know in advance. If that means they can't visit then so be it.
I've not been following this discussion, but I thought some vegans were very upset that they have to handle £5 notes with tallin in (or something like that).
Yet you will quite happily handle cat meat ? Is this correct, because if so why is it so distressing for one and yet not the other actual meat product ? (If I've got this wrong sorry).
More inforced vegetarianism! It's like when vegetarian guests come round for a meal and we don't eat meat. How comes as a strict carnivore I don't get the same treatment when we go round there gaff ?
I never expect meat eaters not to eat meat if I'm out with them or eating in their house. I'm happy to eat just veg if necessary. But as I don't ever have meat other than cat food in my house they would have to eat a vegetarian meal. But I would let people know in advance. If that means they can't visit then so be it.
I've not been following this discussion, but I thought some vegans were very upset that they have to handle £5 notes with tallin in (or something like that).
Yet you will quite happily handle cat meat ? Is this correct, because if so why is it so distressing for one and yet not the other actual meat product ? (If I've got this wrong sorry).
Because the part of the brain that processes rational thoughts is powered by meat.
More inforced vegetarianism! It's like when vegetarian guests come round for a meal and we don't eat meat. How comes as a strict carnivore I don't get the same treatment when we go round there gaff ?
I never expect meat eaters not to eat meat if I'm out with them or eating in their house. I'm happy to eat just veg if necessary. But as I don't ever have meat other than cat food in my house they would have to eat a vegetarian meal. But I would let people know in advance. If that means they can't visit then so be it.
I've not been following this discussion, but I thought some vegans were very upset that they have to handle £5 notes with tallin in (or something like that).
Yet you will quite happily handle cat meat ? Is this correct, because if so why is it so distressing for one and yet not the other actual meat product ? (If I've got this wrong sorry).
Because the part of the brain that processes rational thoughts is powered by meat.
Now now. Between this and your adoption of alt-right vocab ('snowflakes' etc) I'd accuse you of a return to trolling. Dull week?
I believe I have gone through several stages of enlightenment, because if any thread is guaranteed to bring out needless vitriol about a minority of people it is one regarding vegetarianism. However my level of enlightenment just now means I don't give a damn about the critics any more, pour it on boys and girls, pour it on.
Vegans don't face ridicule because of their diets.
They face ridicule because of getting outraged over stuff like this.
Thousands of people struggle to put food on the table so they might find it slightly ridiculous that vegans seem to be more outraged over a tiny inedible by-product than the fact they can barely afford to buy the food they want.
There are vegans and vegetarians struggling to put food on their table as well. We're not all rich. I know I'm not.
You don't need to be rich to put food on the table. Christ, how I loathe that expression.
More inforced vegetarianism! It's like when vegetarian guests come round for a meal and we don't eat meat. How comes as a strict carnivore I don't get the same treatment when we go round there gaff ?
I never expect meat eaters not to eat meat if I'm out with them or eating in their house. I'm happy to eat just veg if necessary. But as I don't ever have meat other than cat food in my house they would have to eat a vegetarian meal. But I would let people know in advance. If that means they can't visit then so be it.
I've not been following this discussion, but I thought some vegans were very upset that they have to handle £5 notes with tallin in (or something like that).
Yet you will quite happily handle cat meat ? Is this correct, because if so why is it so distressing for one and yet not the other actual meat product ? (If I've got this wrong sorry).
Because the part of the brain that processes rational thoughts is powered by meat.
Now now. Between this and your adoption of alt-right vocab ('snowflakes' etc) I'd accuse you of a return to trolling. Dull week?
Comments
It is a fact that there are animal product-containing banknotes
It is a fact there are animal-containing soaps
It is therefore a fact that I face a moral dilemma daily when I have to use animal-free hand wash at work and have to use animal-free banknotes when there alternatives.
Why are my facts not considered too?
- Something non-vegetarian is pushed on vegetarians
- Vegetarians get offended (to varying degrees)
- We awkwardly, and begrudgingly give in
- Vegetarians not quite dismounted high horse, but essentially accept it
- But wait, it's not vegan!
- Vegan now offended and chimes up [having unchained themselves from the nearest tree to do so]
- Everyone: "Do one, you're just being awkward"
Please give an example of that.
Edit: In this case with the fivers though I think people get it, it's gonna cost a load to change process and is generally aggro. but fine - someone should have thought about this, it has dead animal in (I mean, we're hardly feeding thousands of puppies into a 'fiver machine', but still) and I think on a whole meat eaters more-or-less accept that some people aren't cool with that.
If people are like... 'but we exploit the bees!' then the standard response is (rightly or wrongly) 'no, get a grip'.
I'd be interested if you had anything more societal though.
It's also just one person's opinion... I think people generally draw the line at vegans and I find it pretty funny. They get a bad rap... Dairy farming is f***ing brutal, but if you're vegan you're a delicate flower living in a fantasy world according to a lot of people.
And of course many of them willing to risk their personal safety in the pursuit of animal rights. Especially in hunt sabbing and stopping animal experimentation.
Or is it not about facts at all, just impose group think on everything.
He's entitled to his opinion and beliefs, same as each one of us.
It is a moral dilemma to some people though.
And it's a fair point that in this day and age, why is it necessary to use such a primitive product as tallow when technology is so advanced?
There's no doubt a synthetic substance available.
After all, they are polymer bank notes.
Dare I suggest the missing 33% contains the central nervous system usually associated with animals. The CNS enables sentience, in that it is then possible to experience emotions, most particularly things such as fear and attachment.
A plant has 'sensitivity' in as much as it might turn to the light for example, but that is not the same as the CNS which as I say, I think creates sentience. Most people accept there is a difference between plants and animals even if genetic material is shared.
Indeed to move the argument along a bit in terms of theory. If for example (and I don't know the exact figure) a pig and a human share 99% of the same genetic material, the gap is much closer than that of a mushroom and a cow. One strand of logic might say if it's the done thing to eat a pig, why not a person? Not much difference really.
We don't eat each other because amongst other things we assert our genetic material must be preserved, and at the expense of said pig if necessary. Many factors of that assertion would be on moral grounds as well of course practical ones.
As a vegetarian one consideration I am comfortable with, is that there is a significant difference between plants and animals, including fungi.
They face ridicule because of getting outraged over stuff like this.
Thousands of people struggle to put food on the table so they might find it slightly ridiculous that vegans seem to be more outraged over a tiny inedible by-product than the fact they can barely afford to buy the food they want.
I'm happy to eat just veg if necessary. But as I don't ever have meat other than cat food in my house they would have to eat a vegetarian meal. But I would let people know in advance. If that means they can't visit then so be it.
Yet you will quite happily handle cat meat ? Is this correct, because if so why is it so distressing for one and yet not the other actual meat product ? (If I've got this wrong sorry).