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

191–200 of 205 posts

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#191

Post by saghm »

kaycebasques wrote: post #99
MisterTea wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But when you're one of the leading brands of a minority movement like veganism Neither you nor impossible foods speak for the vegan movement. Most of my vegan friends do not eat this fake garbage nor would they ever make foolish claims like this.

Point taken that I and Impossible do not speak for the vegan movement. I think I could prove my point with a theoretical bet, however. Ask X amount of people from the overall general population to name the top 3 vegan brands, and I would take the wager that Impossible is in that top 3. Therefore they would be significantly identified with veganism at large.

Impossible might be identified with veganism at large, but the converse is not necessarily true. I think that there are just few enough vegan brands that I'm aware of that when thinking about veganism at large, brands are not really at the top of my mind.

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#192

Post by saghm »

JCharante wrote: post #132
KSteffensen wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is there an ethical problem in slaughtering an animal for meat if that animal has been raised in good conditions and the actual killing happens with a minimum of pain and fear for the animal? I get why foie gras is problematic, but I don't see the problem in a leg of lamb.

Have you seen the movie "The Island"? A organ supplier fakes a post apocalypse for the humans living in the bunkers. They still live a nice life and when they need organs they hold a lottery to see who gets to go to the surface where they've built a resort on an island as they supposedly repopulate. These humans live fairly happy lives and were bred (cloned) to be harvested for the organs. Would you oppose the real w…

> You could say that we are humans and those are non-human animals, therefore it's okay. I'm not a fan of this line of thinking because that is how caste systems work in societies that exploit different groups of people. They're of a lower caste so it's okay to treat them like dirt. They're of a different skin color so it's okay to treat them bad. It's okay to kill them.

I don't find this a super compelling reason not to eat meat because humans being a separate class than other animals is essentially a precondition to arguing that eating meat is immoral since plenty of other animals also eat meat. Applying a higher moral standard to humans compared to other animals is only reasonable if there is some sort of intrinsic intellectual capacity that we have but they lack. Once you open that door, there are still arguments to be made that eating meat is immoral, but the issue is much less clear cut, and I don't think it requires cognitive dissonance to come down on the other side.

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#193

Post by KSteffensen »

boston_clone wrote: post #155
KSteffensen wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Wikipedia article describes the various psychological mechanisms people use to avoid thinking about the fact that something they are doing involves something else getting killed. It does not provide arguments for why killing an animal for it's meat (or hide or other resource) is wrong. A counterpoint to your 'raising humans for consumption' point which is equally extreme but in the opposite direction. How do you…

It is commonly understood that plants do not have the same mechanisms to experience a range of emotions (pain, happiness, sadness, etc.) as fish, birds, and other animals do. Further, if we want to abstract away from a mechanistic understanding and focus purely on a reduction of suffering, then veganism should be your goal. Most crop production is simply for animal feed. Eliminating animals from our diets would drama…

>It is commonly understood that plants do not have the same mechanisms to experience a range of emotions (pain, happiness, sadness, etc.) as fish, birds, and other animals do.

Isn't this another form of the Meat Paradox, though? Plants have been shown to have moment to moment awareness of their surroundings, can communicate with each other and will turn away from unfavourable conditions. How can you definitively say that plants don't feel pain?

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#194

Post by ncmncm »

Ensorceled wrote: post #76
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…

> Go back to other discussions about veganism here on HN and you will see the common anti-vegan memes. You will also see a lot of outlandish claims about veganism, human diet and health and, food in general which is generally where the backlash starts. I've seen claims like "humans have evolved to be vegan", "beef only has vitamin b12 because of b12 supplements", "if you eat properly, your body will generate it's own…

Just stepping in to mention that kombucha has enough B12 even for people who have an autoimmune disorder that interferes with absorbing B12.

It runs $2.50 - $3.50 / pint in grocery stores, but I make it at home for under $0.20.

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#195

Post by ncmncm »

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.

I tried it. It tasted too much like beef.

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#196

Post by ncmncm »

jrm4 wrote: post #186
djrogers wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. :)

Please don't ever stop. We need your voice here.

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#197

Post by ncmncm »

computer23 wrote: post #187

This case is not so cut and dry. It looks like ImpossibleHQ's trademarks had nothing to do with food until 2016 when they filed a trademark in the nutrition space Impossible Foods was started before 2016, so it would seem to have priority in the food space.

That doesn't justify copying the logo. A million logos would work equally well for Impossible Foods without stomping on ImpossibleHQ.

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#198

Post by delecti »

will4274 wrote: post #178
delecti wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not arguing that it's moral for foxes to kill rabbits. I'm arguing that the presence of immoral actors does not negate the arguments in favor of morality. Foxes aren't immoral, they're amoral. It's wrong for me to kill people even if natural disasters do. I can't have a moral discussion with a fox.

It still doesn't follow. It's wrong to kill because of the harm killing causes. Whether the killing is done my an immoral or amoral agent doesn't change the effect. If you really believe dead rabbits is a bad result, you ought be spending your time preventing the amoral agents from causing that bad result. Consider an infant - an infant is basically an amoral agent - it doesn't understand killing. If a infant kills s…

Am I obligated to personally intervene in every bad thing that happens in the world as a prerequisite for pointing out they're bad? Your argument seems to boil down to "you aren't trying to stop all instances of a category of bad thing, so your opposition to that category of bad thing is invalid", which is a pretty weird argument. I also think murder is wrong, but aside from personally not murdering, I don't do anything about murders happening in the world.

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#199

Post by tata71 »

dhosek wrote: post #189
nefitty wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 app…

Replace boxing with literally almost all pro sports.

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#200

Post by cheese_goddess »

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…

> There is nothing about eating fruits, vegetables, grains, and legumes that goes against our biology.

I am genuinely curious to know why you say that. The other poster didn't say anything about not eathing fruit and vegetables etc. They said:

=> 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).

I can't see where in that comment the OP said or implied that it "goes against our biology" to eat fruit and veg etc. It's clear to me that what they said goes "against biology" is not eating any meat. That is what characterises the vegan diet: the absence of meat and animal products, not the presence of fruit and vegetables.

So why did you say that eating fruit etc doesn't go against biology? Who said it does?

Did the OP change their comment between the time you replied to it and the time I read your comments?

Post reply on HN