The Vegan Thread

toe overlap is a massive problem

I apologise in advance for the massive number of posts from me that are about to turn up in this thread. Luckily, I can't make any of them very long owing to restricted typing ability. Please do skip the page if you're not interested. 0:)

I certainly agree with tynan that the legislation seems like a bit of a sledgehammer to crack a nut, certainly in the case of veganism. I don't think that there are many instances of discrimination against vegans. I don't believe that a lack of catering for vegans counts as discrimination except where vegans have no choice, as in the prison example. It will, however, cover those instances of discrimination, and I must admit that I don't know how this sort of thing would best be treated other than by an Act of Parliament--I don't think that starting with lower-order directives would really cut it.

A friend of mine once said: 'If you have to talk about rights, something's already gone wrong.'

I think that's correct, and that, moreover, the proliferation and formalisation of rights does lead to a creeping conflict with personal ethics and personal responsibility.

However, having said that, anti-discrimination legislation has worked very well in some areas, such as disability, where there has traditionally been a lot of discrimination. It doesn't remove the need for hard work to reduce discrimination alongside it, but it's a useful cornerstone and I've experienced it as very highly beneficial in my work in the sector.

The key concept to understand about 'equality' legislation is not, I think, 'equality', but inclusion or inclusiveness. For instance, building regulations now specify measures to make access to buildings inclusive rather than specifically aimed at benefiting disabled people. This is because it benefits everyone. For instance, a wheelchair access ramp with a shallow and even gradient will benefit people making deliveries to a building. It is triggered by the discrimination inherent in having inaccessible buildings, but can be made to be something much more positive.

The key aim, I think, is to maximise agreement on what is universally beneficial. It's not going to lead to agreement in all areas, much as that might not even be desirable, but it's a decent objective.

(Quite apart from discrimination, I would certainly make the point that good vegan catering is more inclusive than parcelling out the catering between different dietary tribes. The vast majority of people can enjoy vegan food. Some people might say that that would be discriminating against omnivores, as they would have no choice but to accept the vegan catering. However, there are very few omnivores who have ethical objections to eating vegan, and there is certainly plenty of evidence about the health and other benefits of a (more) vegan diet. The proposed legislation, of course, would not cover this sort of case, not only owing to the absence of discrimination against vegans, but also because vegans would be adequately catered for by separate catering, as above.)

I certainly agree with tynan that the legislation seems like a bit of a sledgehammer to crack a nut, certainly in the case of veganism. I don't think that there are many instances of discrimination against vegans. I don't believe that a lack of catering for vegans counts as discrimination except where vegans have no choice, as in the prison example. It will, however, cover those instances of discrimination, and I must admit that I don't know how this sort of thing would best be treated other than by an Act of Parliament--I don't think that starting with lower-order directives would really cut it.

A friend of mine once said: 'If you have to talk about rights, something's already gone wrong.'

I think that's correct, and that, moreover, the proliferation and formalisation of rights does lead to a creeping conflict with personal ethics and personal responsibility.

However, having said that, anti-discrimination legislation has worked very well in some areas, such as disability, where there has traditionally been a lot of discrimination. It doesn't remove the need for hard work to reduce discrimination alongside it, but it's a useful cornerstone and I've experienced it as very highly beneficial in my work in the sector.

The key concept to understand about 'equality' legislation is not, I think, 'equality', but inclusion or inclusiveness. For instance, building regulations now specify measures to make access to buildings inclusive rather than specifically aimed at benefiting disabled people. This is because it benefits everyone. For instance, a wheelchair access ramp with a shallow and even gradient will benefit people making deliveries to a building. It is triggered by the discrimination inherent in having inaccessible buildings, but can be made to be something much more positive.

The key aim, I think, is to maximise agreement on what is universally beneficial. It's not going to lead to agreement in all areas, much as that might not even be desirable, but it's a decent objective.

(Quite apart from discrimination, I would certainly make the point that good vegan catering is more inclusive than parcelling out the catering between different dietary tribes. The vast majority of people can enjoy vegan food. Some people might say that that would be discriminating against omnivores, as they would have no choice but to accept the vegan catering. However, there are very few omnivores who have ethical objections to eating vegan, and there is certainly plenty of evidence about the health and other benefits of a (more) vegan diet. The proposed legislation, of course, would not cover this sort of case, not only owing to the absence of discrimination against vegans, but also because vegans would be adequately catered for by separate catering, as above.)

Bit of a drama queen as it looks like your injury is not that bad ;p

Veganism is a lifestyle choice, just like religion. It does not need to be protected against discrimination by law. The rest of us shouldn't really have to suffer at the expense of a tiny minority. Why is this government obsessed with making everybody equal, pandering to every minority out there? So nobody hurts their feelings?

Because people are often discriminated against racially, owing to religion or disability, or owing to gender or their sexual orientation. No doubt you wouldn't disagree with legal protection in those main areas? (I realise that religion might not fit into this list for you, although I don't know what your view is.)

You seem to be using 'equal' with the meaning slipping towards 'the same'?

The key here is not that people are meant to be made equal or 'the same', full stop. It is about tackling discrimination. This actually does the opposite to making everyone 'the same'--it champions diversity. Imagine a world in which gay people had no protection--as used to be the case, and it's not too hard to realise what it was like. Many would simply stay in the closet and become very unhappy. The situation now is far from perfect but a marked advance on what things used to be like.

FYI discrimination culminates in things like racist or homophobic killings or attacks, or the murder of disabled people because of their disability, so it's an issue to be taken very seriously indeed.

It's a bit like with H&S legislation--it started because of deaths in industrial processes, e.g. people being killed in building work or in large ports, etc. Now it is applied, often owing to chronically risk-averse insurance companies, in areas where it manifestly has no sensible application--but that shouldn't distract us from the very real importance this sort of thing has. I acknowledge that the same risk exists in equality legislation, too.

Also see my earlier post--I certainly think that legislation in general is a bit of a secondary approach and that in an ideal world, people would do things right to start with, e.g. safeguard industrial workers better without legal instruments. However, we don't live in an ideal world.

Bit of a drama queen as it looks like your injury is not that bad ;p

That's a short post by my standards, and I am typing one-handedly.

State protection bit: you've already acknowledged a way in which vegans need state protection: prison food. There really might not be too many others. But the point is that belief systems like veganism and atheism can occasionally form the basis of unfair and unequal treatment and (on this basis) that it might be a good thing that they be protected as well.

I agree, with the caveats mentioned above and below.

Well firstly atheism and veganism are not a belief systems, one is a position on a single issue, the other a dietary choice - now, don't get me wrong, I understand the point that you are making and essentially have nothing against, but I think it's a waste of time and largely unnecessary.

It is correct that atheism is not a belief system in itself, but it will inevitably be bound into a belief system--unless one were to deliberately arrange their beliefs to be inconsistent, which few people do, and then mostly involuntarily. Beliefs don't tend to occur in isolation but will be supported by other beliefs, whether as part of a coherentist or foundationalist approach to beliefs, or a belief-system that has both conherence and a foundation, which is of course preferable to the fairly artificial c-f dichotomy).

Similarly, it is correct that veganism is not a belief system in itself, but to me, for instance, as for many other vegans, if not all, it is pivotal within my ethical belief system. I have more fundamental ethical views, of course, but veganism is certainly far more than a dietary choice.

(A fairly obvious but less important correction to what you're saying is that veganism goes beyond diet, to include abstaining, as far as practicable, from the use of fabrics such as wool, leather or silk, as well as animal products in all other areas in which they might be applied. It is true that owing to the greater use of animal products in diet than in other areas, this is the main aspect, though, and the Vegan Society requires of full members to be 'merely' dietary vegans.)

E.g. Ted has a right to be gay. Bill thinks he has a right to employ who he wants. Ted works for Bill. Bill hates gays and doesn't want them working for him.

Yes, but is Ted gay? ;P

I once knew a vegetarian who ate chicken regularly. I mean the awful, grey, tortured battery chicken.

I asked them how that worked.

They said it was alright because chickens were so fucking stupid.

Believe it or not, there is a serious point behind that confusion. For most people, it's fish where they will bring into play arguments like that. Fish are very dissimilar from us, and many people will decide many ethical cases on the basis of (superficial) similarity to them, e.g. 'we'd better stand by him, he's one of us'.

I will admit I am wrong if I am wrong (honestly).

This is true, by the way, Will, I'm a witness to that.

If I'm being honest, I feel bad for the vegetarian prisoners who are probably going to get stuck with vegan food because the prisons won't be bothered cooking separate meals. So no cheese or eggs for vegetarians for the term of their sentence.

Now that's a deterrent to breaking the law.

As far as I know, vegetarian catering in prisons is not really a problem.

It is certainly true that if you ask prison cooks to cater for vegans without any further training, they are not likely to understand that vegan food is just as tasty as other food or know good recipes. You need to organise training for them. On the upside, catering budgets will be less strained with vegan food. It's mostly the meat that's expensive, so they buy cheap meat, which is even more shit than other meat.

Am I on fucking ignore? Mushy pea! 10 posts up!

Look, if you have a pea soup to make then just make it; all you have done so far is a bit of lentil-soaking. I don't even know what it is I am supposed to be eating.

The most obvious form of discrimination, in human society at the moment, is against the poor.
Legislation against capitalism, whilst (utopianly) welcome, is unlikely.
What is, much, more likely is an extension of stupid laws, enacted to make it look as if Government actually has some power.
Assault is a crime, What is the point of enacting laws about 'racially aggravated assault', 'homophobic assault' or 'dietary induced assault'? Assault is illegal, end of.

http://www.veggieplaces.co.uk/vegetarian_restaurant_great_britain.html

No listings for Vegan restaurants on the IoM. First the gays and now the vegans.

Dons beret for the revolution.

Bit of a drama queen as it looks like your injury is not that bad ;p

That's a short post by my standards, and I am typing one-handedly.

bugger, I'll leave a bigger pallet out next time ;p

That was humour I was joking so don't be offended ;o))))

It is correct that atheism is not a belief system in itself, but it will inevitably be bound into a belief system

The problem here is an equivocation of the word 'belief'.

In common parlance we would use 'belief system' to point towards religious belief.

So we might agree that atheism is a position on a single issue, but I would still not say atheism itself is bound up in a belief system of any kind, there may be some commonly associated ideas, but these are not necessary for atheism, and certainly not themselves a belief system in an meaning of the term other than simply a set of ideas.

To call atheism a belief system is to call being Lib Dem a belief system or a fan of ice hockey a belief system, it renders the word meaningless as it is universally applicable.

The most obvious form of discrimination, in human society at the moment, is against the poor.
Legislation against capitalism, whilst (utopianly) welcome, is unlikely.
What is, much, more likely is an extension of stupid laws, enacted to make it look as if Government actually has some power.
Assault is a crime, What is the point of enacting laws about 'racially aggravated assault', 'homophobic assault' or 'dietary induced assault'? Assault is illegal, end of.

Yes, to all this.

Do you agree to discriminating against the hard working rich?

Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle... Positively the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable.

Atheism, pah!

Do you agree to discriminating against the hard working rich?

No, I'm opposed to discrimination.

The most obvious form of discrimination, in human society at the moment, is against the poor.

This is in every society that has every existed. There will always be the poor to be commanded and the rich to be obeyed. It's the natural order of things.

You see... I think human society has long past the natural order of things.

The problem here is an equivocation of the word 'belief'.

In common parlance we would use 'belief system' to point towards religious belief.

So we might agree that atheism is a position on a single issue, but I would still not say atheism itself is bound up in a belief system of any kind, there may be some commonly associated ideas, but these are not necessary for atheism, and certainly not themselves a belief system in an meaning of the term other than simply a set of ideas.

To call atheism a belief system is to call being Lib Dem a belief system or a fan of ice hockey a belief system, it renders the word meaningless as it is universally applicable.

Well, of course I didn't call atheism a belief-system, and I'm sure sammyo wasn't trying to use the word with great precision.

I don't know about common parlance, but the philosophical usage of 'belief-system', which I'll be prone to, isn't limited to religious applications. To pull out a definition of 'belief' at random (from the Oxford Companion to Philosophy): 'Belief. A mental state, representational in character, taking a proposition (either true or false) as its content and involved, together with motivational factors, in the direction and control of voluntary behaviour. [...]'

As a result, 'belief-system' can in philosophy likewise refer to a belief-system more generally than merely religious.

sammyo sounds as if he may be coming from a somewhat philosophical background, hence perhaps his similar usage to mine.

The Wikipedia disambiguation page seems to have been created by someone who also recognises different usages:

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_system[/ame]

'Belief-system' (in the wider sense from now on) certainly is a fairly important word, but if applied strictly (which I recognise something like the Wikipedia page doesn't, and which common parlance wouldn't) it is by no means meaningless. For starters, it will refer to complexes of beliefs which are (perhaps justifiably) claimed to be (fully) systematic. This is different from, say, a number of beliefs merely held in close association with each other, which may be incoherent and/or involve no real claim to systematicity. It is also different from belief-sets which are predominantly systematic but involve some non-systematic features, which I would call non-strictly systematic.

So, the proportion of systematic belief-sets (whether strict or non-strict) is certainly going to be much less than the proportion of unsystematic belief-sets, whatever your account, and by no means universal or meaningless. (Note: Axiomatic belief-systems can exhibit perfect strict systematicity despite making initial assumptions to ground the system--something can be systematic even if it is not ultimately soundly-grounded, or if its foundation is uncertain should the axioms be questioned.)

I would go so far as not to describe the vast majority of religious belief-sets as strictly systematic, and some not as belief-systems at all, even in the non-strict sense--see some strands of Hinduism which actively resist systematisation. (There are of course also a number of religious belief-sets that lay (strong) claim to being systematic and can be shown to fail at the strength of this claim. Quite a lot of traditional Roman Catholic church doctrine springs to mind.)

As I say, I haven't audited common usage, so I may well be wrong about that.

You see... I think human society has long past the natural order of things.

nah you always abuse someone lower down the scale whether it be in intelligence, money the amount of alcohol consumed, the size of a penis, the list goes on.........

I can always abuse someone with a smaller penis than me, but wouldn't dream of discriminating.