The Vegan Thread

Lentil Tax... you just fucking mark my words

It's the "you don't believe in magic so I am going to tax you" tax that I am worried about.

Although vegans should have a slightly higher carbon tax placed on them if they insist on eating only lentils and beans.

The word 'vegan' isn't even in the Bill - it's just the guidance prepared by the Equal Opportunity & Human Rights Commission.

This is about as far from an informed debate as it's possible to have.

there are no such things as giant orange ponies living under Paris

you have ruined my life.................

This is about as far from an informed debate as it's possible to have.

This is LFGSS, my friend.

The word 'vegan' isn't even in the Bill.

That's no surprise as there as there is no real need for protection of vegan rights, and I am not even sure there are vegan rights to be protected.

Vegans are just fine, they know what they are doing, no need for the state to pass yet more shit legislation and enshrine yet more unneeded regulation and rules on everyone.

you have ruined my life.................

If only there were a statute to protect your feelings.

: (

I don't think you understand the law. It doesn't seek to specifically do anything special for vegans or for people who believe in giant orange ponies. It is set out in broad terms. And it kicks in only once a problem arises (e.g., once someone is discriminated against or unable to access a particular service on the basis of their beliefs or personal characteristics).

No way !

You have me in an epistemic tangle now, I didn't realise the law only came into play when it was needed, I thought we were all on a kind of permanent trial !

This is surprising news.

There needs to be more lynching and less talking.

The word 'vegan' isn't even in the Bill - it's just the guidance prepared by the Equal Opportunity & Human Rights Commission.

This is about as far from an informed debate as it's possible to have.

This is an interesting proposition in itself,
do we believe most readers here are informed about the context?
other than with specific bikie stuff, is there real debate going on on the forum,
argue with Tynan and you will find out if you are capable of arguing coherantly which is good, but very few threads contain serious debate, have noticed its on the decline since I joined year ago.
debate that too.

have noticed its on the decline since I joined year ago.

Yeah, I noticed that too, that it all went downhill after you joined.

: P

Didn't bill protect all minorities, one example was the Ladys nights and their discount drinks being now seen as discrimination against Men.

without the law you could make a case, this is just a cheap political trick

quite.
was aware of falling into that trap as soon as I last posted.

do you think that nostalgia is a congenital disease amongst the British?

quite.
was aware of falling into that trap as soon as I last posted.

do you think that nostalgia is a congenital disease amongst the British?

It used to be, back in the old days.

Didn't bill protect all minorities, one example was the Ladys nights and their discount drinks being now seen as discrimination against Men.

Men are in a minority ? Must be a fairly slim one.

. . . this is just a cheap political trick

Yeah, most of it is just politicking.

No way !

You have me in an epistemic tangle now, I didn't realise the law only came into play when it was needed, I thought we were all on a kind of permanent trial !

This is surprising news.

Not sure what's epistemological about it but I sense you're trying to back off from your earlier indefensible positions, which is fine by me, even if you are resorting to sarcasm to do it.

Not sure what's epistemological about it

The idea that you need to point out that the law only comes into effect when it is needed is somewhat of a philosophical statement, that's all.

but I sense you're trying to back off from your earlier indefensible positions

No, I am not.

I stick to what I have said, and you can assume that is the case unless I specifically tell you I am changing my position.

which is fine by me

No, it's not fine by you, hence your post.

. . even if you are resorting to sarcasm to do it.

"***even if ***you are resorting to sarcasm" - makes it sounds like I have done something wrong or sarcasm is somehow problematic in a conversation ?

Sarcasm is a widely understood and recognised tool for getting a point across, I have no problem using sarcasm, don't let it spoil your joy of reading my responses. :P

It doesn't affect my joy in the slightest.

Perhaps you meant jurisprudential.

And I wasn't making a general statement about law. In that regard, we do all have obligations all the time both to the state/society and to each other (though we're not on trial).

Rather, I was making a point about the nature of the law under discussion. Which is focused on acts of unequal treatment rather than giving extra benefits to particular groups.

In other words, the law is concerned with negative liberty, not positive benefits.

why don't we keep this thread on the topic of veganism?

go vegan!

Viva las vegans.

Well said that man !!!

As our real rights are being reduced, limited, and taken away - we are being offered all this pointless shit instead.

Our "real" rights? You're satirising the Daily Mail aren't you? Or has someone hacked your account?
Tynan; shut up. You are making an ass of yourself. And I say that as a friend. There are enough reactionary, ill informed people on here as it is without you swapping sides. How many times have you asked people on here that you are arguing with if they have read the source material/report/legislation itself rather than relying on a second hand account? Let alone one from a Murdoch newspaper.

I been vegan....word......eatin' mamas grits and beans.....don't mean I ain't gonna kill a man if he disrespects me, little bitch

Hang on, back in a minute I forgot about Dre.....

It doesn't affect my joy in the slightest.

Good ! I wouldn't want sarcasm to throw you off the scent.

Perhaps you meant jurisprudential.

No, epistemic (ie: I was talking about my understanding, not the law).

. . .rather than giving extra benefits to particular groups.

Understood, my point was that veganism or atheism (and a whole host of other ideas or in the case of atheism - non-ideas [!]) do not need state protection in anyway. The second overarching point is that I feel the state have already far too much involvement in public and private matters.

we do all have obligations all the time both to the state/society

Not me, none, unless you are using 'obligations' to mean if I do not comply force will be used against me to get me to comply ?

(Sorry to sound like I am being an argumentative cock for the sake of it, I don't mean to be such a tosspot, it just flows out of me like that)

why don't we keep this thread on the topic of veganism?

Keep a lfgss thread on topic !? What are you a mental ?

great night on here tonight.