|
How are u posted:I definitely disagree, it can be very offensive to refuse hospitality, especially when the people offering the hospitality are sacrificing / spending a lot in doing so. The issue, as I see it, is that the person honoring the food preference request (the restaurant, the host, whatever) doesn't necessarily know whether it's a food allergy or not, nor do they need to know, and either way should not be making assumptions. Like, what if they assume it's just "pickiness" but it was actually a religious requirement? There are a billion reasons someone might not eat something and it's not for other people to decide which ones are important enough to honor. Either honor the request or make it clear that it's impossible for whatever reason. No one should ever be "tricked" into eating something they don't want to. It's really that simple. Clarste fucked around with this message at 08:05 on Sep 5, 2022 |
#
¿
Sep 5, 2022 08:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 21:16 |
|
|
The way I think of it is that vegetables = spices. So you want to go in on curries and other dishes that don't rely too much on protein for flavor, and then just add like edamame or something for texture (but definitely not as a meat "substitute"). Edit: Then again, I am a terrible cook so whatever. Clarste fucked around with this message at 18:25 on Sep 5, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2022 18:22
|
|
|
I think not looking after them is better than locking them in cages their entire lives. I suppose there's a certain weirdness to the idea that we can just abandon an animal in the wilderness and just wash our hands of any responsibility for what happens afterward, but... I don't think there's a canon "vegan" stance on animal cruelty other than that factory farms are particularly bad, or rather the idea that an animal is a machine that we can freely extract value out of however we want. Life in the wild may not be paradise, but it's living, as it were.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2022 19:26
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It would be extremely weird yes. As I said I don't think it would ever happen, I don't even really think humans will figure out how to make human lives not predicated on suffering to be honest. If suffering is the natural state of being mortal, then you might as well go full utilitarian supervillain and advocate wiping out all humanity while you're at it. Surely that would lead to the minimization of suffering? It's not like humans don't suffer or fear death even in the absence of specific dangers. I think you are making an absurd argument. In a more general sense though, I don't think there is any empirical or scientific basis to claim that human suffering is more vivid or "real" than animal suffering. In the old days people used to appeal to the immortal soul, and more recently the concept of "sapience," but both are equally unintelligible from a purely empirical perspective. There have been many attempts to define what makes humanity different: self-awareness, tool use, language, but every single one has failed to stand up to even the slightest experimental rigor, or rather as we start observing more and more animals. Why should the next definition be any more meaningful, and not just a way of moving the goalposts because you already know in your gut that humans are special, but can't articulate why? Or, I suppose, you could go the other way and accept dolphins and chimpanzees and magpies and octopuses(?) as sapient, but not cows and chickens? But that feels equally arbitrary to me. Like, I don't think it's practical to eliminate all suffering forever (except, of course, as the utilitarian supervillain), but I find it intellectually dishonest to try to make up reasons why we shouldn't care. Clarste fucked around with this message at 14:06 on Sep 8, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2022 14:01
|
|