Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners • Hacker News Board

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#201

Post by boston_clone » Thu, Nov 18, 2021, 10:12 PM UTC

cheese_goddess wrote: post #200

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…

> 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 somet…

Again, as omnivores, there is nothing about a plant-based diet that goes against our biology [0].

Let me know if you have any other questions!

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

Edit - actually, sorry, but please don't. I remember interacting with you on previous topics about vegetarianism, and your comment history and name are indicative of some biases and dissonance that you're unwilling to overcome. Even some of your submissions are heavily biased, dated, and subsequently refuted [1][2]. The evidence supporting my position is plain and well-documented in my other comments. Cheers.

1. https://theconversation.com/ordering-the-vegetarian-meal-the...

2. https://theconversation.com/vegetarians-cause-environmental-...

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#202

Post by dang » Thu, Nov 18, 2021, 10:40 PM UTC

Mountain_Skies wrote: post #17

Will you concede that many, but certainly not all, vegans bring it upon themselves with their moralistic pontificating about those who are not vegan?

You set off a hellish flamewar with this generic comment about a classic flamewar topic. That's exactly what the site guidelines ask you not to do. If you'd please review them and not do this again, we'd appreciate it, especially because we've had to ask you this before.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29256118.

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#203

Post by Alupis » Sat, Nov 20, 2021, 12:18 AM UTC

boston_clone wrote: post #201

cheese_goddess wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 somet…

Again, as omnivores, there is nothing about a plant-based diet that goes against our biology [0]. Let me know if you have any other questions! 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnivore Edit - actually, sorry, but please don't. I remember interacting with you on previous topics about vegetarianism, and your comment history and name are indicative of some biases and dissonance that you're unwilling to overcome. Even so…

You seem to not understand Omnivores survive on both meat and vegetation - not exclusively one or the other. We have names for the ones that survive solely on one or the other...

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#204

Post by boston_clone » Sat, Nov 20, 2021, 2:02 AM UTC

Alupis wrote: post #203

boston_clone wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, as omnivores, there is nothing about a plant-based diet that goes against our biology [0]. Let me know if you have any other questions! 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnivore Edit - actually, sorry, but please don't. I remember interacting with you on previous topics about vegetarianism, and your comment history and name are indicative of some biases and dissonance that you're unwilling to overcome. Even so…

You seem to not understand Omnivores survive on both meat and vegetation - not exclusively one or the other. We have names for the ones that survive solely on one or the other...

I'm aware of the differences between herbivorous, carnivorous, and omnivorous. However, you seem to be unwilling to accept that you don't need animal flesh to live a healthy life. Nothing of what you've provided has refuted that.

Please continue to review the citations I provided, particularly the one from NIH. For an ethical approach, I recommend Peter Singer's "Why vegan?" and "Animal Liberation" should be sufficient. Nothing you've provided has refuted the ethical side of things, either.

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#205

Post by cheese_goddess » Tue, Nov 23, 2021, 1:15 AM UTC

boston_clone wrote: post #201

cheese_goddess wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 somet…

Again, as omnivores, there is nothing about a plant-based diet that goes against our biology [0]. Let me know if you have any other questions! 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnivore Edit - actually, sorry, but please don't. I remember interacting with you on previous topics about vegetarianism, and your comment history and name are indicative of some biases and dissonance that you're unwilling to overcome. Even so…

> Even some of your submissions are heavily biased, dated, and subsequently refuted [1][2]. The evidence supporting my position is plain and well-documented in my other comments. Cheers.

You don't realise to what extent you come across as snotty, clueless and hypocritical, do you?