Apparently The New Fiver Isn't Vegetarian

[sparkeh]

It does seem a little odd that 40,000 people are more upset that their fivers contain a trace amount of animal fat than they are about the thousands of Badgers being killed?

Not wanting to eat animals doesn't neccessarily mean that you like them

And this was in post #52!

I put it down to meat rage

[MrMat]

Not wanting to eat animals doesn't neccessarily mean that you like them

But you don't eat five pound notes? So surely you have no issue?

[Seb1780]

Its called dipalmethyl hydroxyethylammoinum methosulfate if you are interested

 

Which is a Palm Oil derivative, so instead of offending the bunny lovers we'll upset the tree huggers

[Hokalus]

Which is a Palm Oil derivative, so instead of offending the bunny lovers we'll upset the tree huggers

 

And helping to remove the last bits of habitat of the critically endangered orangutan

[elsiegee40]

And helping to remove the last bits of habitat of the critically endangered orangutan

 

Sad, but true. Given the choice between tallow and palm oil, I'd go for tallow. Neither is good for the planet from a climate change point of view, but palm oil/ cutting down the rainforests is probably worst.

[sparkeh]

And helping to remove the last bits of habitat of the critically endangered orangutan

Easy, use Certified Sustainable Palm Oil (CSPO). Its not a choice between using tallow or killing orangutans

[Garacesh]

Its not a choice between using tallow or killing orangutans

But now what slacktivist pursuit can I rage about?!

[LeMarchand]

But now what slacktivist pursuit can I rage about?!

 

You could boycott new sitcom "The Great Outdoors": Millennials outraged over TV show portraying millennials as outraged | The Independent

[pcstru]

Not sure what that is supposed to mean - the Bank of England doesn't make notes with poo so that is a pointless statement.

Restaurants may prepare dishes without nuts, but if they are aware that there is a risk of contamination because either a) they are preparing foods which do contain nuts or they are preparing food which they cannot guarantee does not contain nuts, they must inform the customers of the risk. I'm asking if this apparent right to know what the ingredients are in money should be on a similar basis? How far should it extend. Your view would seem to be that they do not have a duty to warn you that money may be contaminated with meat but they do have a duty to tell you if it is part of the manufacture.

 

Does this apply to any and every product? Should your library tell you that your books may contain meat products etc?

 

I'm having one very quick say in all this and that's me done. I don't get why the comment 'people who've handled meat have touched the money'. That's not at all relevant to something that's been made of an animal product.

 

As above, the claim of vegetarians who are objecting to this is, at minimum they should have been told. There are many possible reasons for being a vegetarian. Unless you presume to know the reasons of all the people who are objecting to money containing tallow AND insisting that the Bank of England has a duty to inform customers of what their money might contain, then I don't see how you can rule out such containments as an issue. However, the point was meant to illustrate some limits on the duty to inform, where that duty ends and where the duty of the individual to be responsible for what they come into contact with begins.

 

The cry so far has been mainly vegetarian outrage that a) Money may contain animal products. b) people should at least be informed of that c) the BOE should not use meat products at all because vegetarians shouldn't have to put up with that.

 

With a&b there is a implication that vegetarians are ignorant that tallow (or other things rendered from animal carcases) might be used in various processes and then appear in various goods. I'm curious that there seems to be very little talk of personal responsibility in the objections (i.e. do vegetarians not have some responsibility to find out about products and then avoid those that are incompatible with their chosen moral code?) and I'm curious about how far the obligation on suppliers to list ingredients on non food products should go. I don't think those are unreasonable questions. When we get to C, there are a number of arguments that could be made about discrimination and inclusion in the provision of goods generally or perhaps just 'state sponsored'. I don't think I've touched on them yet but there has to be some interesting debate on where the line should be drawn.

[sted]

With a&b there is a implication that vegetarians are ignorant that tallow (or other things rendered from animal carcases) might be used in various processes and then appear in various goods. I'm curious that there seems to be very little talk of personal responsibility in the objections (i.e. do vegetarians not have some responsibility to find out about products and then avoid those that are incompatible with their chosen moral code?) and I'm curious about how far the obligation on suppliers to list ingredients on non food products should go. I don't think those are unreasonable questions. When we get to C, there are a number of arguments that could be made about discrimination and inclusion in the provision of goods generally or perhaps just 'state sponsored'. I don't think I've touched on them yet but there has to be some interesting debate on where the line should be drawn.

fair point what happens if somewhere in the production of a roller used in a biscuit plant had tallow in its production?

[pcstru]

It's funny, I've never understood why some meat eaters get so irate about vegetarians/vegans. I've had the discussion often enough to know that this is generally the way it goes. On the whole I've found us veggies to be a pretty relaxed bunch. Is it too much to ask for a bit of consideration for those who want to avoid animal products for whatever reason (ethical, religious etc). Hey ho people are weird right?

My advice to vegetarians who want to avoid 'dinner party' arguments about ethics and morals (both personal value judgements, so ripe for heated debate) is, when asked why they are vegetarian to just reply it is because they do not like meat. As an argument to support a personal choice it is unassailable and quick. Watch the eyes of tipsy the party debater light up as you tell them you are vegetarian and then watch the instant deflation as you tell them why.

 

I'm glad that the bank has seen sense and is looking to change the notes now. I mean why use tallow, we aren't living in the Middle Ages and there are plenty of serviceable substitutes around now.

 

The BOE say they were unaware that tallow was used by their subcontractor and for manufacturers substitutes are more expensive. There really is no law that says a supplier of (say) paper pulp has to list trace ingredients and if they do, be able to distinguish between chemicals that were produced from animal carcases or produced by other means (mining and refining say). So for example, animals contain a reasonable amount of salt - certainly enough to fill an average family salt cellar. Salt, NaCl, is Salt; given 100g of salt you will be unable to tell where it came from, it might be expensive Waitrose "evaporated on maidens knees in the tropical sun and then hand picked crystal by crystal etc" or hacked out in huge quantities by huge hairy miners in dark caverns or rendered from animal products. Currently companies would have to tell you that salt contains salt, they are obliged to do so by law because salt is sold as a foodstuff. They do not have to tell you how that salt was arrived at (for the pedants please do note that salt is just an example to illustrate the point).

[2ilent8cho]

My advice to vegetarians who want to avoid 'dinner party' arguments about ethics and morals (both personal value judgements, so ripe for heated debate) is, when asked why they are vegetarian to just reply it is because they do not like meat. As an argument to support a personal choice it is unassailable and quick. Watch the eyes of tipsy the party debater light up as you tell them you are vegetarian and then watch the instant deflation as you tell them why.

 

Thats what i do, i generally don't like the taste, texture and all the other bits that come with eating meat like bones, blood and gristle, and the smell of bacon cooking makes me want to puke. Its easier to just do without and say i'm vegetarian.

[Bompalompalomp]

My advice to vegetarians who want to avoid 'dinner party' arguments about ethics and morals (both personal value judgements, so ripe for heated debate) is, when asked why they are vegetarian to just reply it is because they do not like meat. As an argument to support a personal choice it is unassailable and quick. Watch the eyes of tipsy the party debater light up as you tell them you are vegetarian and then watch the instant deflation as you tell them why.

 

Pretty much what I already do. Of course then comes "well I didn't like vegetables as a kid but I still had to eat them" and "HOW CAN YOU NOT LOVE MEAT IT'S SO DELICIOUS" and watch them rant about how the only correct way to cook a steak is how they have it.

[Garacesh]

Pretty much what I already do. Of course then comes "well I didn't like vegetables as a kid but I still had to eat them" and "HOW CAN YOU NOT LOVE MEAT IT'S SO DELICIOUS" and watch them rant about how the only correct way to cook a steak is how they have it.

 

Everybody's opinion is wrong except mine. Fairly standard, especially when everyone's had a tipple.

[LeMarchand]

watch them rant about how the only correct way to cook a steak is how they have it.

 

I think you'll find that this will generally degenerate into a macho p**ing contest over just how raw they like it.

[pcstru]

Pretty much what I already do. Of course then comes "well I didn't like vegetables as a kid but I still had to eat them"

I'd have to resist quipping "well, when you grow up, I do hope you will be able to choose what you eat".

and "HOW CAN YOU NOT LOVE MEAT IT'S SO DELICIOUS" and watch them rant about how the only correct way to cook a steak is how they have it.

Part of the reason why there is contention is because for some people being a vegetarian IS a moral and ethical position. Regardless of the actual reasoning behind that, there is an implication that eating meat is an immoral/unethical choice, so a vegetarian is not simply declaring themselves moral, they are declaring the meat eating world immoral. Even if you take the position that you don't "force your views on others" etc, the implication is still there. So it is not really surprising that the subject (like many other personal choices about lifestyle and belief) can be contentious and heated. However, they can always be sidestepped by simply denying the choice is predicated on moral considerations.

[Garacesh]

I think you'll find that this will generally degenerate into a macho p**ing contest over just how raw they like it.

Urgh, can't stand that. Happy meat-eater, but I need my meat actually cooked. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the taste of a medium-rare.. My gastrointestinal tract takes significant issue with the idea.

 

so a vegetarian is not simply declaring themselves moral, they are declaring the meat eating world immoral.

To be fair, though..

 

Eating meat in of itself is not intrinsically immoral, but the way a lot of meat is farmed kinda is.

[unixman_again]

I think you'll find that this will generally degenerate into a macho p**ing contest over just how raw they like it.

Curries are the same - who can stand the hottest. A korma does me.

[pcstru]

To be fair, though..

 

Eating meat in of itself is not intrinsically immoral, but the way a lot of meat is farmed kinda is.

Is not immoral to you. But people have their own individual reasoning as to the how and why of morality. For some people the act of eating meat might well be immoral but killing animals itself might be perfectly OK. For some, the way that an animal is killed and prepared makes the difference. The word vegetarian or vegan simply tells you about diet and perhaps clothing and perhaps (but unlikely) goods and possibly (but even more unlikely) containments. The word Vegetarian or Vegan does not really give you insight into the actual reasons for that stance.

[Garacesh]

Is not immoral to you.

Obligatory

I didn't think it was relevant to preface everything with "I think..", "In my opinion.." etc

[pcstru]

Obligatory

I didn't think it was relevant to preface everything with "I think..", "In my opinion.." etc

 

I understood it to be your opinion, but it was your opinion that : "Eating meat is of itself is not intrinsically immoral, but the way a lot of meat is farmed kinda is". Your opinion didn't acknowledge that morality was a personal choice and seems to imply that there is some objective measure "intrinsically immoral" (intrinsically means belonging to a thing by its very nature, the implication would seem to be that this is not a matter where opinion will make a difference - if it did then it is not intrinsic to the thing).

[Garacesh]

I know what intrinsically means, thank you.

 

Eating meat in of itself is not intrinsically immoral (morality being a philosophical construct of humanity and as such nothing is intrinsically moral or immoral) but it is my personal opinion that the way a lot of meat is farmed is immoral based upon my personal moral and ethical code. With this statement I infer no suggestion as to the reason that anybody else may or may not be a vegetarian.

 

Better?

[pcstru]

I know what intrinsically means, thank you.

From the evidence of your actual use of the word, it doesn't appear that way to me.

 

Eating meat in of itself is not intrinsically immoral (morality being a philosophical construct of humanity and as such nothing is intrinsically moral or immoral) but it is my personal opinion that the way a lot of meat is farmed is immoral based upon my personal moral and ethical code. With this statement I infer no suggestion as to the reason that anybody else may or may not be a vegetarian.

 

Better?

 

Your words were in response to "Regardless of the actual reasoning behind that, there is an implication that eating meat is an immoral/unethical choice, so a vegetarian is not simply declaring themselves moral, they are declaring the meat eating world immoral.", So I'm now totally lost as to the point of your response since it does not in any way impact on the fact that taking a stance (for whatever reason) that not eating meat is 'moral' automatically implies that those who do eat meat are, in your world view, immoral. This was offered simply as an explanation as to why these types of conversations (say at a dinner party) can be controversial and heated. Taking a moral stance might be personal but it the implications are not limited to judgements on self, in other words in taking a moral stance such as "eating meat is immoral" it is intrinsic that those who eat meat are viewed from such a perspective as immoral.

[Garacesh]

that not eating meat is 'moral' automatically implies that those who do eat meat are, in your world view, immoral

I did not say that eating or not eating was moral or immoral. I quite clearly just stated that nothing is intrinsically moral or immoral. I feel the way some meat is reared and slaughtered is immoral, in accordance with my personal code of ethics. I said nothing about vegetarians being moral, I said nothing about meat-eaters being immoral. Meat-eaters are most certainly not immoral in my world-view. I genuinely don't understand where you're getting this from.

[pcstru]

I did not say that eating or not eating was moral or immoral. I quite clearly just stated that nothing is intrinsically moral or immoral. I feel the way some meat is reared and slaughtered is immoral, in accordance with my personal code of ethics. I said nothing about vegetarians being moral, I said nothing about meat-eaters being immoral. Meat-eaters are most certainly not immoral in my world-view. I genuinely don't understand where you're getting this from.

Perhaps you should go back to my original comment that you were responding to and re-read it. You do seem to have missed the point entirely and I'm not sure I can make it any clearer. I'll give it one more try.

 

The issue as looked at from your point of view would be : you are at dinner with someone who rears animals. In conversation you tell them that you believe that the way some animals are reared is immoral. In exploring "some animals" you describe the terrible conditions inflicted on yummy veal. The person you are chatting to raises veal cattle. There would seem to be no question that you must believe they are engaged in an immoral act from your point of view.

 

The point is that in making some personal choices you are not just saying something about yourself, you are saying something about how you view the world and the people in it. You are saying that people who act in a way that is incompatible with your beliefs are, in your view, immoral.

 

Why is this relevant in the thread? My point simply relates to the comments by vegetarians on the reactions of people to vegetarians. Vegetarians seem surprised that their personal choices often engender a rather passionate response. The surprise seems to be because they think the personal choice is just a reflection on them, it doesn't matter to anyone else and they are not "forcing a view down anyone's throat" etc. What that IMO misses is the intrinsic logical implication that a judgement is made on the actions of others. You are not only declaring yourself moral as a vegetarian, you are declaring others - the person with the passionate response, immoral. That is why such conversations are more loaded than (say) a discussion over the fact that blue is your favourite colour.