This is probably "no duh" territory, but the story is a reminder that sometimes people are more interested in making money than staying faithful to themselves or to a cause.
There are restaurants that are doing this, drawing on foods that don't need binders, artificial colors, and stabilizers to taste good. Maybe there will be more because of this investigation? It seems strange that so many of the offending restaurants in this investigation are SE Asian-ish, since this cuisine adapt to vegan so well without using imitation ingredients.
The recipe for giving up some power and starting to care about the world. Or maybe the recipes for French toast, tempeh bacon, and scrambled tofu.
orme: you've made an ethical/moral decision that exploiting animals is bad. Can you map out how you suport that decision.
And how are you about the fact that you, yourself and all your vegan friends together will never make a dent in the exploitation of animals worldwide?
Where veganism doesn't look like most religions is that it doesn't have sacraments and rituals. But it does have dogma, and it does have a pretty standard set of beliefs that are, as you say, based on first principles that you can't prove. It does typically include moral judgment of others or their actions ("meat is murder"), even if that judgment is often leavened* with tolerance.
Please go read a basic text on human biology, thanks.
It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases.
Several people have mentioned kosher diets, and I think that bears repeating. Anyone who claims to serve kosher better really be kosher or people will complain, and I don't see why this isn't taken just as seriously.
They check the packages in the kitchen, and they trust the manufacturers' kosher certifications.
Vegans without an explicit religious foundation for their beliefs and practices seem, in my experience, to often get a little flummoxed by that type of question.
I think the animosity aimed at vegans has to do with the fact that debating with one very often becomes a moving-target sort of situation. Some vegans will claim that they eat a diet that does not exploit animals, but others will claim that they eat a diet that does not contain animals. Depending on where the discussion goes, the definition will shift.
If we aim to reduce suffering, are animals really suffering if they live cushy, safe lives free from predators, fed well and groomed, and killed humanely? I realize this is not the way food is done most of the time in America, but why is the argument so wide in scope? "Meat is wrong," seems inaccurate to me, while "Meat, as it's usually done in America, is wrong," seems much more accurate.
« Older Clothes made of ceramic shards from the Ming, Yuan... | Early this morning, Two monora... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt