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

Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

impossiblehq.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 205 posts

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#181

Post by djrogers »

datavirtue wrote: post #109
kaycebasques wrote: post #16

As a vegan myself this is very unfortunate because we are already easy targets and subject to a lot of prejudice. Impossible Meat bullying a small company might unleash a backlash of anti-vegan sentiment that can take on a life of its own. Make no mistake it has been there all along. Go back to other discussions about veganism here on HN and you will see the common anti-vegan memes. But when you're one of the leading…

Why would a vegan ever eat impossible meat? They generally abstain from processed foods.

Commmercial setain and tofu are highly processed foods as well, and common vegan fare…

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#182

Post by djrogers »

jrm4 wrote: post #165
JCharante wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't religion a choice? I know plenty of people who have converted and they weren't forced to convert. You can be prejudiced against someone else of a differnet religion.

Not purely. The meaning of "religion" varies greatly across both time and space, and it would be difficult to argue that it is always (or even often) something like "pure choice." It frequently carries a cultural component such that the law sees fit to treat it like other arguably immutable identity type things, which seems correct to me. Though, it is complicated.

> The meaning of "religion" varies greatly across both time and space

Ok, I was kinda sorta with you until the second time you decided on the ‘flexibility of words’ defense… honestly, if you’d just gone with:

“using a charged term like prejudice to describe disagreement (even when distastefully communicated) over lifestyle choices dilutes the word, and minimizes what it means to someone who experiences true prejudice every day”

or something like that, I think you’d have gotten your point across without the downvotes and discussion.

But maybe that’s not what you meant, and maybe there would still be discussion because what I said ain’t necessarily true - it just sounds hard to argue with.

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#183

Post by MisterBastahrd »

selimthegrim wrote: post #87
MisterBastahrd wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Modern meat substitutes exist because texture is a huge part of eating and also people tend to go with the cuisine they're familiar with. Stocking a kitchen for the first time to cook Indian food is also a bit pricy. There are a lot of spices that you need to buy if you want to do it right, and they aren't cheap.

They aren’t cheap because you’re not buying them at an ethnic store.

Nobody is selling tiny bottles of spices at the ethnic store. They tend to sell in bulk, so you're really not saving much if you want to have the ingredients to make the dishes.

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#184

Post by MisterBastahrd »

njgingrich wrote: post #94
MisterBastahrd wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. They are highly processed and they generally taste like garbage. For months I was told about how great Miyoko's products were. Then I tasted some of the cheese offerings and they tasted like gritty mold. There was a Kite Hill Farms vegan blueberry yogurt that was delicious, but the peach version nearly made me lose my lunch.

Cheese and yogurt are not meat, though? I agree vegan cheese is terrible, and the faux-meat products aren't an exact replica, but they aren't bad. There's definitely less of a push for a general adoption of vegan cheese than there is for meat alternatives.

Vegan chicken tastes like a gross sponge and vegan beef patties aren't really much better. The mouthfeel is way off to the point where it isn't even an uncanny valley thing.

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#185

Post by Alupis »

boston_clone wrote: post #173
Alupis wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eating what biology intended you to eat is not an ideology. Making a conscious decision to go against biology and select a different dietary preference is indeed an ideology (unless there is a real medical reason you cannot eat something, such as allergies).

There is nothing about eating fruits, vegetables, grains, and legumes that goes against our biology. The American Dietetics Association recognizes a vegetarian diet as appropriate for all stages of life [0]. Meat is not a requirement to live a healthy life, and can - in some cases and excess - detriment overall health. Additionally, current animal agricultural practices are harmful to the environment. 0. https://pubm…

That's quite a straw man you've weaved there.

First, nobody said anything about eating only meat as a diet. I'd wager zero people do that - you would quickly develop vitamin deficiencies and ultimately fall ill and die.

Secondly, you've moved the goal posts to vegetarianism, which is not veganism.

Third, just because a vegetarian diet can be sustainable (in the sense you won't fall ill) doesn't mean it's the natural diet for a human. It's not... Your teeth and many other parts of your human body tell us differently.

Fourth, there are several cultures on this planet that strongly favor vegetarianism, but none are strictly vegan and few are strictly vegetarian. As already pointed out, vegans often have to take supplements to remain healthy. That's biology telling you that diet isn't natural.

Lastly, deciding to be a vegan because you believe current agriculture practices are harmful to the environment is a choice based off your beliefs and therefore is an ideology. That was the original assertion.

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#186

Post by jrm4 »

djrogers wrote: post #182
jrm4 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not purely. The meaning of "religion" varies greatly across both time and space, and it would be difficult to argue that it is always (or even often) something like "pure choice." It frequently carries a cultural component such that the law sees fit to treat it like other arguably immutable identity type things, which seems correct to me. Though, it is complicated.

> The meaning of "religion" varies greatly across both time and space Ok, I was kinda sorta with you until the second time you decided on the ‘flexibility of words’ defense… honestly, if you’d just gone with: “using a charged term like prejudice to describe disagreement (even when distastefully communicated) over lifestyle choices dilutes the word, and minimizes what it means to someone who experiences true prejudice…

You say that like the downvotes and discussion are a bad thing; I'm under no illusion about how people are going to take it about half the time I bring up race.

Last I checked, I can't trade these hacker news points for cash and prizes. :)

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#188

Post by boston_clone »

Alupis wrote: post #185
boston_clone wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing about eating fruits, vegetables, grains, and legumes that goes against our biology. The American Dietetics Association recognizes a vegetarian diet as appropriate for all stages of life [0]. Meat is not a requirement to live a healthy life, and can - in some cases and excess - detriment overall health. Additionally, current animal agricultural practices are harmful to the environment. 0. https://pubm…

That's quite a straw man you've weaved there. First, nobody said anything about eating only meat as a diet. I'd wager zero people do that - you would quickly develop vitamin deficiencies and ultimately fall ill and die. Secondly, you've moved the goal posts to vegetarianism, which is not veganism. Third, just because a vegetarian diet can be sustainable (in the sense you won't fall ill) doesn't mean it's the natural…

You seem to be conflating carnism for the carnivore diet. Info on what carnism is can be found here [0]. There's a lot of good stuff in that article, I think! Unfortunately, there are people who are indulging in a pure carnivore diet. You're right that it's patently unhealthy, and frankly it's a little weird.

Veganism is a subset of vegetarianism. I'm trying to be flexible with my position to allow for good discussion - being either vegetarian or vegan is typically healthier and objectively better for the environment [4].

Recognizing that humans are omnivores also means that by definition we can sustain ourselves solely by plant or animal matter [1]. Your statement of "Making a conscious decision to go against biology [...]" is plainly inaccurate, as we are quite capable of living healthy lives without meat.

There is plenty of evidence to support the fact that animal agriculture is harmful to the environment [2][3]. In fact, it is the second largest contributor of green house gasses.

I get the sense that there is some frustration coming through in your thoughts. Please keep in mind this is exactly how cognitive dissonance expresses itself. Take a breath, check out some of the citations below, and try to think about this data with an objective approach.

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnism

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnivore

2. https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/full/10.1289/ehp.11034

3. https://climatenexus.org/climate-issues/food/animal-agricult...

4. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19562864/

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#189

Post by dhosek »

nefitty wrote: post #122
dhosek wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can see that becoming a serious moral hazard. If a judge or juror can make money on a lawsuit that they're deciding reaching a particular verdict, then there's a very real danger that they will do so. I'm pretty sure that in the grand scheme of things we want less opportunity for this sort of corruption of the judicial process, not more.

I'm honestly surprised I've never heard of litigation gambling. Considering your comment, it definitely seems like a horrible idea, so I'm not a proponent. My surprise is due to the fact that the degeneracy of the internet knows no bounds.

There are some bounds on gambling, like the fact that there are some people who know the outcome of the Oscars before they're revealed is why there's no betting on those awards (and other similar awards). I think the ability of individuals to decisively affect the outcome of litigation is similarly adverse to there being gambling.¹

⸻⸻⸻

1. This is one reason why match-fixing in boxing is such a big thing (and it's apparently a lot more common than most people think, especially at the lower levels).

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#190

Post by Mk1320 »

boston_clone wrote: post #188
Alupis wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's quite a straw man you've weaved there. First, nobody said anything about eating only meat as a diet. I'd wager zero people do that - you would quickly develop vitamin deficiencies and ultimately fall ill and die. Secondly, you've moved the goal posts to vegetarianism, which is not veganism. Third, just because a vegetarian diet can be sustainable (in the sense you won't fall ill) doesn't mean it's the natural…

You seem to be conflating carnism for the carnivore diet. Info on what carnism is can be found here [0]. There's a lot of good stuff in that article, I think! Unfortunately, there are people who are indulging in a pure carnivore diet. You're right that it's patently unhealthy, and frankly it's a little weird. Veganism is a subset of vegetarianism. I'm trying to be flexible with my position to allow for good discussio…

> Recognizing that humans are omnivores also means that by definition we can sustain ourselves solely by plant or animal matter [1].

No it doesn't. Then why vegans need to eat a lot more supplements than others?

Post reply on HN