Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ECHR confirms ethical veganism is a protected philosophical belief

veganfta.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 81 posts

Re: ECHR confirms ethical veganism is a protected philosophical belief

#51

Post by BobaFloutist »

constantius wrote: post #43
zxexz wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish this form of Veganism was more well-known. I know a few Vegans who went down a similar path and who were told by a few people they were no longer Vegan. They took the easier path and stopped calling themselves Vegans, which I thought was sad given their objectives when becoming Vegan were clear from the get-go.

How is this veganism? Or a form of it? It's by definition not vegan to consume animal products. I'm happy that the term is considered so virtuous that people want to self-identify as such (I've even heard meat-eaters say they're vegan "except from time to time"), but I don't think it's intolerant/bigoted to simply look at the definition.

Basically, if you're vegan because you object to industrial farming practices, and value animal welfare, eating animal products (or even meat) that you personally produced, while personally overseeing the animal welfare and farming practices doesn't necessarily violate your values.

I get that in a literal sense you wouldn't be vegan anymore, but if you're maintaining the same ethical framework that led you to veganism, it's not unreasonable to want to express that.

Re: ECHR confirms ethical veganism is a protected philosophical belief

#52

Post by xvxvx »

SuperNinKenDo wrote: post #17
xvxvx wrote: post #2

I spent 2 weeks in the UK recently and they are light years ahead of the US in terms of veganism and cruelty free products. I was actually quite shocked about how many options the grocery stores had and how almost every restaurant had a vegan option, or even a vegan menu. The trend in the US has been to hide the word ‘vegan’ from consumers and bury it in their website somewhere. Not so in the UK. Brands seem super ha…

I was kind of surprised when I traveled to NY and SF from Melbourne. I knew Melbourne was fairly up there in vego/vegan friendliness, but took it for granted that NY and SF would be a cakewalk. Hardly appalling, but there were times I could not eat anything on the menu at some places and I'm only vegetarian, and in many instances I had only a single option. Was a little strange.

Austin, TX had a reputation for being very vegan friendly until COVID hit and many small businesses shut down. Now it’s as bad as anywhere else.

I went on a hike at a national park in Scotland a few months ago, and they had a small cafe there with limited options for everyone. Even they had solid vegan options though. Blows my mind that this cafe was more welcoming than the majority of restaurants in a major liberal city.

Re: ECHR confirms ethical veganism is a protected philosophical belief

#53

Post by aziaziazi »

constantius wrote: post #43
zxexz wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish this form of Veganism was more well-known. I know a few Vegans who went down a similar path and who were told by a few people they were no longer Vegan. They took the easier path and stopped calling themselves Vegans, which I thought was sad given their objectives when becoming Vegan were clear from the get-go.

How is this veganism? Or a form of it? It's by definition not vegan to consume animal products. I'm happy that the term is considered so virtuous that people want to self-identify as such (I've even heard meat-eaters say they're vegan "except from time to time"), but I don't think it's intolerant/bigoted to simply look at the definition.

Here's the definition from the guys behind the word "veganism":

> Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals

https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism

The short definition you're talking about is abridged for time saving, it miss the essence ["for the benefit of..."] and the necessary feasibility adaptations ["as far as is possible and practicable"].

Re: ECHR confirms ethical veganism is a protected philosophical belief

#55

Post by constantius »

aziaziazi wrote: post #53
constantius wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this veganism? Or a form of it? It's by definition not vegan to consume animal products. I'm happy that the term is considered so virtuous that people want to self-identify as such (I've even heard meat-eaters say they're vegan "except from time to time"), but I don't think it's intolerant/bigoted to simply look at the definition.

Here's the definition from the guys behind the word "veganism": > Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it…

That quote seems to be reinforcing my point but your excerpts indicate you disagree, so I'm.not sure why you posted this: I will assume you're disagreeing, sorry if I misunderstood.

The adaptations in that quote are about the animals who will be harmed without your intending to do so during your own attempts to survive, like the insects killed during harvest. The essence and the last sentence of the definition are also in line with what I am saying. Eating dairy by choice while identifying as vegan is not due to one coming to the limits of 'as far as possible', under any definition of 'possible' or 'practicable'.

Re: ECHR confirms ethical veganism is a protected philosophical belief

#56

Post by maxerickson »

userbinator wrote: post #7
PeterHolzwarth wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think veganism in America went through a popular phase, then simply faded as a pop concept. Perhaps your experiences in the UK merely reflect that, there, it is just going through a temporary uptick of fad.

People have gotten sick of the constant virtue-signaling.

Your comment demonstrates the uselessness of the concept by doing the thing it is sick of.

Re: ECHR confirms ethical veganism is a protected philosophical belief

#57

Post by maxerickson »

aziaziazi wrote: post #53
constantius wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this veganism? Or a form of it? It's by definition not vegan to consume animal products. I'm happy that the term is considered so virtuous that people want to self-identify as such (I've even heard meat-eaters say they're vegan "except from time to time"), but I don't think it's intolerant/bigoted to simply look at the definition.

Here's the definition from the guys behind the word "veganism": > Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it…

Your argument then rests on it being easier to keep cattle than to not keep cattle.

Re: ECHR confirms ethical veganism is a protected philosophical belief

#58

Post by constantius »

BobaFloutist wrote: post #51
constantius wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this veganism? Or a form of it? It's by definition not vegan to consume animal products. I'm happy that the term is considered so virtuous that people want to self-identify as such (I've even heard meat-eaters say they're vegan "except from time to time"), but I don't think it's intolerant/bigoted to simply look at the definition.

Basically, if you're vegan because you object to industrial farming practices, and value animal welfare, eating animal products (or even meat) that you personally produced, while personally overseeing the animal welfare and farming practices doesn't necessarily violate your values. I get that in a literal sense you wouldn't be vegan anymore, but if you're maintaining the same ethical framework that led you to veganis…

It is indeed unreasonable.

No animal evolved solely to produce food for humans and to be property, and I think that's a major blindspot that people have, which allows them to believe into this idea.

Buying an animal, restraining it in your property, subjecting it to whatever's needed for it to produce (look this up if you need to), consuming said products, and in the end of its useful life selling the animal (and let's not imagine that it's sold to animal sanctuaries): none of this is in line with being vegan. All of it harms the animal in some way and normalises the dismissal of animal life, independent of whatever the person wants to believe.

Someone who believes veganism is the right way, but is not personally vegan, can say just that: it's a perfectly tenable philosophical position to have. Self-identifying as vegan while not being vegan is where it becomes absurd.

Re: ECHR confirms ethical veganism is a protected philosophical belief

#59

Post by InsideOutSanta »

moi2388 wrote: post #54
InsideOutSanta wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're proposing that they could have starved?

[flagged]

"They could have just not eaten it" and "they eat what they’re given" are literally opposites of each other. So you don't have an actual point; you're just being an asshat. Why don't you do that by yourself instead of involving other people in your personal misery?

Re: ECHR confirms ethical veganism is a protected philosophical belief

#60

Post by [deleted] »

myvoiceismypass wrote: post #50
SuperNinKenDo wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was kind of surprised when I traveled to NY and SF from Melbourne. I knew Melbourne was fairly up there in vego/vegan friendliness, but took it for granted that NY and SF would be a cakewalk. Hardly appalling, but there were times I could not eat anything on the menu at some places and I'm only vegetarian, and in many instances I had only a single option. Was a little strange.

I can confirm that SF is less vegan-friendly today than it was a decade ago. It is quite a bummer.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN