The Vegan Thread

I be back shorty. I just gotta get my muthafuckin vegan stew and dumplings outta the oven......

Epistemology is concerned with ways of knowing. It is not concerned with whether or not you happen to understand something ;)

Tosspot bit: me too, no worries at all. But you are pretty wrong here.

Obligations generally: too long, a debate for another time. But I bet I could convince you otherwise.

Vegan bit: it's really interesting that you say the state has too much involvement already. Most people when they say that mean that the state is already encroaching too much on our ability to do what we want and be who we are.

This kind of legislation is quite non-statist in that way, it basically includes the state telling itself to back off and not get involved. It is therefore not illiberal because it is an attempt to protect the negative liberty of individuals.

But maybe you don't like the state telling people who they can discriminate against? In that case, you are saying that the state shouldn't get involved when either (a) the state or (b) other persons want to behave a little capriciously.

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.

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.

:)

Will, you silly knob.

When I say 'real' rights (not the the best technical turn of phrase) I mean the rights that are important.

How is it that you are managing to see someone who is saying there is a dismantling of our rights as reactionary ?

I love the 'that sounds like something someone might say in the Daily Mail, so it's wrong' genetic fallacy, get's me every time.

You shut up now, you Northern lunatic, unless you have a point to make, don't make me phone your office up and book you for a 30kg lead ingot for St Albans.

You think you are saying that there is a "dismantling of our rights" but this is about the tension between (what people might perceive to be their) rights.

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.

It works for all of these cases. This legislation is the state coming down on the side of some rights (freedom from discrimination on the basis of personal characteristics, freedom of thought, freedom of religion) instead of others.

This is how I be rollin' tonight

Vegan muthafuckin stew and herb dumplings - how you like me now?

https://www.lfgss.com/picture.php?albumid=880&pictureid=7346

yo, that nigga be talkin straight, vegan to tha core.

yeh. vegan...'cept the muthafuckin Quorn....cos that got little biddy baby birds eggs inside y'all

seen me some o them mad march hares today yall, you done too?

Hush yo mouth, can't you see I'm eating my vegan muthafuckin stew and dumpling?

Epistemology is concerned with ways of knowing. It is not concerned with whether or not you happen to understand something ;)

ZZzzzzzzz, this is getting boring, I know what the word means, it was after all me who used it, let me re-phrase removing the word you are struggling with and let's call it a day on that one:

[The law] kicks in only once a problem arises.

My new response:

No way ! You have me in a tangle with regard to my justified beliefs, I didn't realise the law only came into play when it was needed . . . etc

Obligations generally: too long, a debate for another time. But I bet I could convince you otherwise.

You could convince me that there are things the state could make me do with physical force, but I suppose all we would be doing is kicking around the meaning of the word 'obligations'.

Vegan bit: it's really interesting that you say the state has too much involvement already. Most people when they say that mean that the state is already encroaching too much on our ability to do what we want and be who we are.

Yep, that's what I am saying.

This kind of legislation is quite non-statist in that way, it basically includes the state telling itself to back off and not get involved.

You'd have to give me an example to make it clear what it is you are saying.

But maybe you don't like the state telling people who they can discriminate against?

They can't. They can only legislate to mitigate the effects of discrimination in a few areas (commerce, employment and so on).

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.

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.

You think you are saying that there is a "dismantling of our rights"

I know I am saying this.

It works for all of these cases. This legislation is the state coming down on the side of some rights (freedom from discrimination on the basis of personal characteristics, freedom of thought, freedom of religion) instead of others.

That's all great, but if I could return to my point, I can't see the real need for legislation in areas like the protection of atheism and veganism.

Can vegans eat wafer thin ham?

Can vegans eat wafer thin ham?

Only if the pig was vegetarian.

What if you'd been growing cumquats in the hollowed out chest cavity of your local conservative MP? Are they still ok for vegans to chow down on?

:)

Will, you silly knob.

Sorry, I forget, you are never wrong. I mean, sorry, you never admit you are wrong. Same thing really.

Now does anyone have a recipe for Pea soup? seriously, I want to make green pea soup.

I know a recipe for pee soup.
It's a German thing.

What if you'd been growing cumquats in the hollowed out chest cavity of your local conservative MP? Are they still ok for vegans to chow down on?

Vegans can only eat fruit, nuts and berries, although some vegans do eat fish and a bit of Chicken at Christmas and Easter, but only really eat hamburgers and hotdogs at the most - once or twice a year.

http://www.hub-uk.com/specials/special0002.htm

This looks nice, Will. Mushy pea soup! Begging for a pork pie to float in it...

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.

It's ok for vegans and vegetarians to eat the fucking stupid.

I hope they start with bodybuilders.

That's a fight I'd buy tickets to see.

I know what the word means, it was after all me who used it, ...

That's always a guarantee that someone knows what a word means.

*No way ! You have me in a tangle with regard to my justified beliefs *

This really makes no sense. If you are referring to the [true] justified belief approach to what is knowledge then it is (a) out of place here and (b) not equivalent to using the word "epistemic".

You could convince me that there are things the state could make me do with physical force, but I suppose all we would be doing is kicking around the meaning of the word 'obligations'.

That's not what I meant. I meant that I could convince you that you owe obligations to people. Like an obligation not to stab everyone you pass with a knife.

But maybe you don't believe that because you think that the only liberty of any value at all is the right that everyone has to do whatever the fuck they want to other people?

Well firstly atheism and veganism are not a belief systems

To the extent that you are right, the Equality Bill is not interested in protecting them (as far as I understand it anyway). In other words, someone who merely doesn't like a certain type of food would not be protected. The E&HRC guidance merely proposes that for some people, a persons beliefs about how they perceive the world or how they ethically choose to live can go beyond supernatural powers and encompass other moral/ethical choices which may be just as important.

Sorry, I forget, you are never wrong. I mean, sorry, you never admit you are wrong. Same thing really.

Will, if you have a point to make, then make it, so far you have not done anything other a bit of name calling, I don't even know exactly what it is I am meant to be defending.

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

You are still a knob.

Vegans can only eat fruit, nuts and berries

Vegans can also eat twigs and dirts.

Sorry, I forget, you are never wrong.

Clearly not accurate, as illustrated above.

Mmm... yummy dirts. Can they eat lint?

I'm really sorry to everyone else who must be bored out of their minds by this.

I thought that by engaging, I might persuade someone that the particular piece of legislation was not what some people seemed to think it was.

I think it may be better to stop now.

Lint contains dust mites, so no.

Hey, how do you vegans feel about vaccination?