SubscribeThis 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.And also that ethical consumption relies on having accurate information about the products you're consuming. Unless you have really good information or are willing and able to do the research yourself, it's really hard to know if you're really making ethical consumer choices.
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.I could be totally wrong, but I think that the problem is that these restaurants are basically upscale fast food, and that model relies on having a lot of stuff prepared in advance. I think that processed foods are more amenable to being made in advance and then heated up later. It's not that it's difficult to make delicious vegan food. It's that it's difficult to make delicious vegan fast food to be sold in a fast food restaurant.
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.Yup. She nailed it! My diet is different from hers because I simply don't care about the world.
orme: you've made an ethical/moral decision that exploiting animals is bad. Can you map out how you suport that decision.Oh come on. You could say the same thing about my belief that human slavery is wrong. All of our ethical systems are based on first principles that can't be rationally proven. You seem to be equating "ethical" with "religious," which seems problematic to me. I think that secular people would want to claim that they can have ethics without having religion.
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?I'm not convinced this is right, either. I don't think that they'll ever achieve all of their goals, but I think the animal rights movement has done a lot to publicize the evils of factory farming and stuff like that. And I do think that we might eventually see change in some practices, although I don't think we'll ever live in a vegan world. At any rate, I'm pretty wary of predicting the future, and I sort of hate the idea that people shouldn't join social movements just because they seem unlikely to affect change. The surest way to make sure that your social movement fails is to drop out of it because you're convinced it will fail.
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.Ok, so by your definition everyone who isn't completely amoral has a religion. That's fine, but I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish or prove by telling vegetarians that their belief system is a religion. That doesn't make them any different from anyone else: it just means that they have a slightly different religion from those of us whose ethical systems are based on an aversion to human, rather than animal, exploitation. So what? What does this add to the discussion, other than making me reflect on the fact that you must be a ton of fun at parties?
Please go read a basic text on human biology, thanks.Oh, stuff it. This is bullshit. The AmericanDietetic Association, not exactly an organization known for its radicalism on these issues, says that vegan diets are fine.
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.I think that the difference is that there's a more-established process for certifying that food is kosher. It's not like kosher certification was bestowed on observant Jews like a gift. The Jewish community established practices for certifying that products and restaurants were kosher. If you're a really observant Jew, you don't eat anything that hasn't been certified by someone reputable (either a local rabbi or a kosher-certification agency like the OU or Star K) as kosher. Maybe the vegan community should look into kosher certification processes for inspiration.
They check the packages in the kitchen, and they trust the manufacturers' kosher certifications.Not in my experience. Observant Jews don't just trust what the manufacturer says, which is why a simple "K" isn't enough. Food needs to bear the mark of an independent kosher certifying agency.
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 don't know why they should. Every culture in the world has rules about what you can eat, even if it's just a taboo on routine cannibalism. None of those rules are logically defensible. In the end, it always comes down to having to draw a line somewhere. So vegans draw the line at insects and things produced by insects. Why should they be any more required to justify that rationally than I am to justify my aversion to eating dogs and primates?
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.I haven't noticed that. Vegans are, in my experience, people who don't eat meat or other animal products. The problem with honey is not that it contains animal parts, but that it's something created by animals for their own benefit. Vegans don't think that people are entitled to take the things that animals make for their own purposes and use them for ours.
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.Ok, see, that is my position, because my aim is to reduce animal suffering. I try to avoid animal products that are created in factory farming conditions. But I think that most vegans do not adhere to the animal-suffering-reduction paradigm. They believe in animal rights, not anti-cruelty. They believe that animals are entitled to life and self-ownership, much like humans are. Humans shouldn't kill animals, and we shouldn't take the things they make without their permission. Since animals can't give permission, we shouldn't take their milk or honey or eggs. We also shouldn't think that we own them. They own themselves.
« 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
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:18 AM on July 5 [1 favorite has favorites]