171–180 of 319 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a site that will help you do this: https://longbets.org/faq/ The downside is that you won't get your money. It'll go to charity. But you'll be able to prove your point to your great-great-grandkids!
It will treat them to either a nice hamburger or veggie burger.
I and a few of my past co-workers have been suspecting that the facilities team in a big tech company I used to work for had an evil genius plan to reduce costs: 1. Pick the most popular snack (e.g. nachos) 2. Replace it with less tasty alternative (e.g. kale chips) "for your health" 3. Consumption is a few times smaller 4. The company can claim they take better care of their workers and no one can accuse them of bei…
That could easily backfire though (healthier chips are usually much more expensive), specially because kale chips are delicious :)
This is OT, but I'm curious: what do kale chips taste like to you? A little sweet? To me, they taste like lemon rind without the "lemony" taste. Just pure bitterness.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm curious about this mindset - it seems like you object to eating animals because they lack a choice. Do you have any problem with wild animals eating other wild animals (who presumably also have less of a choice)? I'm not trying to trick you or trap you, just genuinely curious.
Stating that you're not trying to trick someone doesn't really mean that your question isn't loaded. I don't assign the same amount of moral agency to humans as I do to animals and I don't have to have a moral problem with a forest fire to not be happy about it killing a large number of animals, as an example. But even if I did, a tiger in the jungle for example doesn't really have the ability to graze on grass. Mean…
True, but I try not to have such a pessimistic perspective.
> I don't have to have a moral problem with a forest fire to not be happy about it killing a large number of animals, as an example.
That's an interesting example, thanks.
> But even if I did, a tiger in the jungle for example doesn't really have the ability to graze on grass. Meanwhile, the human being can thrive on a plant based diet, and following one is trivial today.
I don't think I would call it trivial. I suppose in the same way that some choose not to assign the same amount of moral agency to animals, I choose not to designate consumption of animals as an immoral thing to do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Intensely terrible” is one way to phrase “illegal under the ADA”... I would assume there will be accommodations made for folks with dietary restrictions that require them to eat meat, whether that’s through a simple waiver or a massive lawsuit.
No one's going to get sued for a reimbursement policy. They don't have an obligation to reimburse, and this falls so far outside of fair employment laws. HN is going nuts on this one.
I wouldn't be so sure.
> They don't have an obligation to reimburse
They don't have an obligation to hire people, either, but if hiring doesn't make reasonable accommodations for disability, it's still illegal.
A lot of comments seem to be missing the facts: - WeWork isn't forcing employees to be vegetarian (it's not like a hiring requirement) - most companies have restrictions and rules surrounding their expensing - WeWork has decided they won't reimburse meat (employees can still buy meat) Should we force WeWork leadership, despite their rights to hold moral positions, to pay for something they don't want to pay for?
We should certainly make sure that they feel the full effects of their decisions, in PR, the employment market, and in public praise or ridicule.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I completely agree. The primary reason to not eat meat is that it's inherently unethical (factory farm or not). But a lot of people don't feel that way, so any argument that will persuade them to eat less (or no) meat works in my book.
Sigh... please explain why it’s immoral to consume other organisms?
A lot of comments seem to be missing the facts: - WeWork isn't forcing employees to be vegetarian (it's not like a hiring requirement) - most companies have restrictions and rules surrounding their expensing - WeWork has decided they won't reimburse meat (employees can still buy meat) Should we force WeWork leadership, despite their rights to hold moral positions, to pay for something they don't want to pay for?
We should certainly make sure that they feel the full effects of their decisions, in PR, the employment market, and in public praise or ridicule.
Being a vegetarian is exactly as equal a choice of freedom as being an omnivore or carnivore. This feels wrong to push this lifestyle on people. Of course one can always just not do business with We Work.
Let's not be hyperbolic here. Serving food that doesn't happen to contain meat isn't forcing you to be vegetarian any more than serving only soft drinks at an event would be forcing you to be a teetotaler.
Sure it is. There will be situations where employees have no choice but to eat company-sponsored food. Mandatory working lunches, dinner with potential clients (I’d love for them to take me to dinner as a potential client/partner and tell me I can’t order a steak...), etc. In those situations, they are indeed “forcing you to be a vegetarian”.