ECHR confirms ethical veganism is a protected philosophical belief

My message wasn't clear indeed.

A word may have different meaning depending on the usage: who, when, context... Formal language isn't the norm for better or for worse. I mostly agree with your two messages but also wanted to add a touch of pluralism: veganism origin and ideal has something to do with ethics by (more or less) avoiding unnecessary harm by avoiding animal exploitation but the goal and means to achieve it may differ.

The interpretation of "possible and practicable" you gave is aligned with my understanding but I can understand other people may include: - [as the article subject] the only food you can eat contains flesh, because you're detained in prison/stay at the hospital - The social pressure is too strong for you to possibly cope with it - Avoiding to use any toiletry that contains carmine, collagen or glycerin may be a hassle when one is away in holiday or work

Also, some people consider excluding bivalves from the list keep intact the goal of harm avoidance.

The cursor is subjective. I can grasp how someone may define themselves vegan and for whatever reason consume some animal products. However debating of the definition itself does not serve the shared cause of animal condition consideration. Instead it is far more effective to focus on shifting the laws (see the article) and bringing the questions/solutions to the public debate, which would solve most of the social pressure. Let's team up for 90% of the animal cause together and when it will be acquired we'll discuss the last 10%.

To end this message, I wish you a pleasant day and share with you a conference I had the chance to assit 2 days ago, I think it's very pertinent - but also in french, I hope the auto-translation are good. It's called "Do vegans harm the animal cause?" : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLCRdLa99DE

[flagged]

Thanks for spelling out your point, and yes, I don't agree with it. Being in prison is the punishment. People don't lose their humanity because they are in prison, and they don't need to or deserve to be additionally punished by forcing them to eat meals that go against their religious or ethical convictions.

What's more, people in prison usually don't stay there forever. The idea that it doesn't matter how we treat people in prison because "it's not a hotel" is not conducive to reintegration and is harmful to everyone, including you.

Actually where I'm from the state has indeed decided budgets have priority over rights. In other words it works exactly as you say, as you suggest. So first BIG caveat in right to medical help is that only X people get treated for particular things, as budgeted. Even if the equipment and doctors are available (but of course those are getting "right-sized"). Even goes for access to GPs (there's a massive shortage of GPs, but the government is lowering the number of doctors)

You are number X+1 that needs treatment? Sucks. There's a waitlist. Which in a few cases is pretty bad. You have had a stroke and the doctor wants an MRI, to check for bleeding. The MRI machines are being synergized (meaning a bunch of smaller hospitals only have access by moving patients to a bigger hospital). They can't book a surgeon without confirmation of bleeding (well not without entering the waitlist at the end, without priority, and with a stroke in progress you might as well just book an undertaker). In the best case now you're being moved (you pay for this), potentially with a ripped artery. Best of luck.

There's also more temporary accidents, such as refusing to hire foreign doctors, even where that means parts of the country have to do with insufficient capacity in certain departments or even (in the mountains for now) zero capacity. In theory anything with a waitlist over 2 months is considered insufficient capacity, but if you take that definition, close to 40% of all departments have insufficient capacity. And it's getting worse (Ukraine war, tarriffs, EU lending, Iran war, ... all resulted in extra savings and less capacity)

The same is happening in schools. The law clearly states you have the right to kindergarten did discipline some teachers for teaching in the grass outside of the classroom after parent complaints, of course.

That's also a way to look at rights, I guess. Namely that they are "weak guidelines" and you don't have any way to enforce them against the government and everything just completely erodes over time.

I guess it's true what they say: you can pay market price or you can have shortages. Pick your poison.

> It will hopefully be eventually viewed in the distant future with such disdain and repugnance as cannibalism or consuming pets or exotic animals

Hm, I fundamentally disagree and I sincerely hope there will ever be a time when meat consumption is viewed as equivalent to cannibalism. That sounds like a society I wouldn’t want to be a part of.

I’m surprised you’d come to such a drastic conclusion. I have nothing but respect for your right to eat the diet you choose, but it’s a shame that isn’t something you’re willing to extend to others.