Apparently The New Fiver Isn't Vegetarian

[DJ-1701]

Personally, I am just looking at the back and forth between you both and going to myself... TL;DR.

 

I think we are dancing around that 'everyone is different'.

[Garacesh]

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.

Correct.

 

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.

Incorrect. Perhaps some would consider it pedantic but I feel it a pertinent distinction to make. Just because somebody does something I believe to be immoral, that isn't enough for me to declare their entire character immoral.

Killing is immoral. I do not consider war veterans immoral people (despite them being directly involved in, or be linked to, situations that resulted in many deaths). And no, I can't tell you where this distinction ends. I can't tell you at what point somebody ceases to be "a person committing an immoral act" and becomes "an immoral person". Just because I think something you do (box-farm lambs for veal) is immoral, doesn't mean I think you as a person are immoral.

However, I fail to see why this is a problem. Every judgement made in accordance with any code (be it legal, moral, religious, etc) infers judgement on everybody. That's the nature of judging. Godwin's Law! Nobody takes issue with you saying the Nazi's were nasty people because they did immoral things (unethical human experimentation, mass genocide, etc) so why should anything else be any different? If I think something somebody does is immoral, they have to understand that. Of course, they are free to plead their case against my moral code, just as they are free to disregard it entirely. It's like this silly notion that you shouldn't be able to offend anybody. "You're saying something I do is immoral!". Well so what? I'm not stopping you doing it. I'm not saying you're not allowed to do it (as I agree to abide by this countries laws, of which I do not create, and the laws say it is legal).

 

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.

This seems to be the stem of your arguments, and I think I see where you've misunderstood now. I am not declaring vegetarians to be moral people. I am not declaring meat-eaters to be immoral people. I am declaring a specific act to be immoral in accordance with my ethical codes. And yes, that does infer that anybody committing that act is an immoral act. Such is the way of the world. Safe spaces don't exist out here, you're going to find people who have differences in opinion with you. That's life, really.

 

Edit: A thank you to my mysterious rep benefactor.

Edited December 2, 2016 by Garacesh

[pcstru]

Personally, I am just looking at the back and forth between you both and going to myself... TL;DR.

Well if it is too long for you or anyone else to read, please don't feel you have to. I'm not sure why that is worthy of comment but given you have posted it, you obviously feel it needs saying.

I think we are dancing around that 'everyone is different'.

No. The issue is very specific and distinct and that is not it. Perhaps if you eliminate the DR in your TL;DR that might resolve itself without further elaboration and unnecessary length after all, I'd hate to bore you further.

[HarryMonkey]

Hmmmm, time for a bacon sandwich methinks

[pcstru]

Incorrect. Perhaps some would consider it pedantic but I feel it a pertinent distinction to make. Just because somebody does something I believe to be immoral, that isn't enough for me to declare their entire character immoral.

I don't see that it is necessary to introduce the idea of "entire character" (and the necessary debate on what exactly that might mean) and I was careful to avoid such a thing when I said : "There would seem to be no question that you must believe they are engaged in an immoral act from your point of view".

 

However, I fail to see why this is a problem. Every judgement made in accordance with any code (be it legal, moral, religious, etc) infers judgement on everybody.

It seems to be a problem that people do not recognise that there is such an inference when they take a moral position on the food they eat as evidenced by the surprise and disdain here from vegetarians that others seem to want to engage in passionate arguments with them about the subject (and how tiresome that is for them).

 

That's the nature of judging. Godwin's Law! Nobody takes issue with you saying the Nazi's were nasty people because they did immoral things (unethical human experimentation, mass genocide, etc) so why should anything else be any different? If I think something somebody does is immoral, they have to understand that. Of course, they are free to plead their case against my moral code, just as they are free to disregard it entirely. It's like this silly notion that you shouldn't be able to offend anybody. "You're saying something I do is immoral!". Well so what? I'm not stopping you doing it. I'm not saying you're not allowed to do it (as I agree to abide by this countries laws, of which I do not create, and the laws say it is legal).

In the case of me having a choice to have five pound notes with tallow, it would seem that Vegetarians do want to stop that choice. As a taxpayer, I will potentially be forced to a more expensive substitute, regardless of the fact that I do not find it immoral, unethical or in any way a problem. If that can be applied to currency, what other things might it be applied to? Where does this slippery slope start and end?

 

This seems to be the stem of your arguments, and I think I see where you've misunderstood now.

!, err right.

I am not declaring vegetarians to be moral people. I am not declaring meat-eaters to be immoral people. I am declaring a specific act to be immoral in accordance with my ethical codes. And yes, that does infer that anybody committing that act is an immoral act. Such is the way of the world. Safe spaces don't exist out here, you're going to find people who have differences in opinion with you. That's life, really.

 

Great. you now seem to understand what I actually wrote - an immoral act. So it should be no surprise when at (say) a dinner party (or other social gathering) the reaction of someone to a statement "I don't eat meat because in my view that is immoral" might generate a rather more passionate response than "blue is my favourite colour" because the other party is implicitly designated as behaving immorally by eating meat from that point of view.

Edited December 2, 2016 by pcstru

[CAM]

I had a delicious liver and pickle salad sandwich. Best of both worlds?

[LeMarchand]

I had a delicious liver and pickle salad sandwich. Best of both worlds?

 

Offal and vegetables artificially preserved in a vinegar solution - probably the worst of both worlds!

[Garacesh]

I don't see that it is necessary to introduce the idea of "entire character" (and the necessary debate on what exactly that might mean) and I was careful to avoid such a thing when I said : "There would seem to be no question that you must believe they are engaged in an immoral act from your point of view".

You are saying that people who act in a way that is incompatible with your beliefs are, in your view, immoral.

Not as careful as you think you were

I re-arranged my post a little as I was writing it, as I found myself responding to multiple points each time. Must've moved that sentence about accidentally, too.

 

Great. you now seem to understand what I actually wrote - an immoral act. So it should be no surprise when at (say) a dinner party (or other social gathering) the reaction of someone to a statement "I don't eat meat because in my view that is immoral" might generate a rather more passionate response than "blue is my favourite colour" because the other party is implicitly designated as behaving immorally by eating meat from that point of view.

I'll be honest with you, mate, I'm getting pretty bored of this discussion, so this is going to be the last I say on it. For what it's worth, I haven't said that vegetarians who don't understand that response are right or wrong. Personally, I reckon an effervescent response is justified in theory, though I've seen a lot of people take it way too far (just as I've seen some vegetarians/vegans take their opinions too far). Just as I might suggest veal is immoral (in accordance with my moral code) and the veal-raiser can state their case in response, a vegan might suggest that eating meat is immoral and I am free to state my case in response. We're all adults here. We can handle difference in opinions.

[CAM]

Offal and vegetables artificially preserved in a vinegar solution - probably the worst of both worlds!

 

My sausage and black pudding chilli blows that out the water for terribleness.

[Homer]

I'm going to have a big juicy steak this evening, with a £5 note peppercorn sauce.

[elsiegee40]

Well if it is too long for you or anyone else to read, please don't feel you have to. I'm not sure why that is worthy of comment but given you have posted it, you obviously feel it needs saying.

 

Basically you're arguing between yourselves, and everyone else has dropped this as not worth the effort.

 

A gentle dig to point out probably circular (TL:DR for me too) arguments. I'll leave you to it as long as you both promise to play nicely

[pcstru]

Basically you're arguing between yourselves, and everyone else has dropped this as not worth the effort.

When someone posts something, the only safe assumption it that it was worth the effort to them for some reason. I personally don't write for anyone else's benefit but mine so I have no expectation that anyone else will enjoy, benefit from or otherwise get anything of value from my posts. The only thing that matters to me is that I do. I might claim here that I was also somewhat 'bored' of that particular strand of the discussion but since I was obviously failing to write well enough to be understood by the person who was definitely engaged enough to reply, I thought I might learn something in the process of trying to be clearer. So even in doing that, I don't have the expectation that this has value to others.

 

It seems rather ironic that people post to tell someone they didn't read the post they are replying to but I guess they too must get something out of doing that.

[witch]

To be fair, though..

 

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

 

THAT is exactly why I am veggie. I like meat. Humans are made to be carnivores. BUT I do not like the way we treat animals at all and the amount of meat we eat. I think it is wrong to mistreat other living creatures. So it would be very hard for me to lie and say I just don't like meat. But my reasons are my own and whilst I will happily expound them if asked, and do my best to support ethical farming of animals, I do not push my beliefs down other people's throats (so to speak!)

It is important for veggies to do their research. But I dont think it would have been easy to find out about the tallow.

[sparkeh]

THAT is exactly why I am veggie. I like meat. Humans are made to be carnivores. BUT I do not like the way we treat animals at all and the amount of meat we eat. I think it is wrong to mistreat other living creatures. So it would be very hard for me to lie and say I just don't like meat. But my reasons are my own and whilst I will happily expound them if asked, and do my best to support ethical farming of animals, I do not push my beliefs down other people's throats (so to speak!)

It is important for veggies to do their research. But I dont think it would have been easy to find out about the tallow.

 

Well said. Pretty much sums up my position. Except, and pendant mode activated, humans are not carnivores. Omnivores or herbivores (depending on which scientist you read) is more correct.

Edited December 2, 2016 by sparkeh

[witch]

@sparkeh

Yes, I know, I was trying to emphasise the fact that humans eat meat and I am OK with that

I should have used the word "carnivorous" as this means "meat-eating" but not necessarily exclusively so

[elsiegee40]

Cambridge Rainbow vegetarian cafe refuses new £5 note - BBC News

[mikeprice]

Cambridge Rainbow vegetarian cafe refuses new £5 note - BBC News

 

I admire them for taking a stance but I feel it is impossible for them to be sure that nothing in the whole cafe has animal products in it - floor boards, paint, cutlery etc etc

 

you can only go so far - they are reacting to this because they know about it now.

 

still - not sure about the legal position if I tried to pay for tea and a bun for (say)£4.90 with a fiver - if it was all I had - I would have to be a real **** to insist on using a fiver if I also had a tenner

[6Foot2]

...still - not sure about the legal position if I tried to pay for tea and a bun for (say)£4.90 with a fiver - if it was all I had - I would have to be a real **** to insist on using a fiver if I also had a tenner

 

Viable alternative in that case: Pay by card?

[mikeprice]

Just to be awkward - are debit cards vegan??

 

are the payment terminals vegan

 

I know I am being pedantic - but this points out the problem people have if they don't want ANYTHING in their lives to have animal products - including £5 notes

[Garacesh]

I suppose it's probably more about 'knowing what does have animal products in it', more than 'knowing what doesn't'

 

Yes, the paint on the walls might contain gelatin. The floorboards may be treated with beeswax. Etc. But they also might not.

They know the fivers contain animal bits, so I think it's reasonable to reject them.

[witch]

I don't think it is reasonable. Reasonable is asking the government to look into viable, ecological and safe alternatives.

Refusing the fivers is just taking it all too far IMHO

[Garacesh]

I don't think it is reasonable. Reasonable is asking the government to look into viable, ecological and safe alternatives.

Refusing the fivers is just taking it all too far IMHO

To each their own, but I reckon if this establishments entire status quo is 'not using animal products', it makes sense to me on the condition that's it's extremely visibly obvious before you place your order.

 

The legality of it, I'm not so sure about, I'd be inclined to think that it's against some law-or-other to refuse it since it's legal tender. I'm not sure you're allowed to reject an offer to settle a debt owed if their offer is with legal tender (with the exception of an amount over £10 being paid in pennies, or something like that. I'm positive I read about there being a rule against that.)

[sparkeh]

I don't think it is reasonable. Reasonable is asking the government to look into viable, ecological and safe alternatives.

Refusing the fivers is just taking it all too far IMHO

 

Their whole thing is having an animal product free environment. They kinda have to take that stance to retain credibility. And I assume that their customers would expect them to do this as well. Good on 'em.

[TechMonkey]

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned but just a reminder that there are trace amounts in the ingredients of the notes. Trace generally means less then 0.1%. So each note probably has even less than that. R4s More or less worked out that all the £5 notes in circulation now have about as much cow in them as one thigh.

 

So there is probably more animal product smeared on your windscreen, crushed on the bottom of your shoes or smeared on your door handle than there is in a single note.

[elsiegee40]

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned but just a reminder that there are trace amounts in the ingredients of the notes. Trace generally means less then 0.1%. So each note probably has even less than that. R4s More or less worked out that all the £5 notes in circulation now have about as much cow in them as one thigh.

 

So there is probably more animal product smeared on your windscreen, crushed on the bottom of your shoes or smeared on your door handle than there is in a single note.

 

At least twice already.

 

The calculation is that all the new fivers together, many of which are not yet in circulation, contain the amount of tallow you'd get from half a cow. Which means very little indeed per banknote.

 

The point is not how much of the product is there though, it's whether it needs to be there at all.