There wasn’t a single scene that I didn’t love or fangirled over.
This season of Picard isn’t just one of the greatest seasons of sci-fi it is one of the greatest seasons of TV.
It’s great. A lot of fan service, but delivered in a really engaging and entertaining way that moved the story on. It felt like the next chapter, rather than a pastiche or a cynical way to milk the franchise. It’s weird how they got that sooooo right whilst everyone else fails.
As an aside, I'm not a fan of these adverts for 'plant-based' things.
If they're vegetarian or vegan then being more specific, albeit with a less trendy new slogan, is more useful.
In practice it means Vegan, but using the marketing of "plant based" expands the market to people who are more flexitarian, eating these products alongside dairy, fish, and even meat, as a way of broadening a diet, and making it more healthy. That's capitalism for you.
"Plant-based" is a massive turnoff for me - the phrase alone pisses me off.
A lot of virtue-signalling pretentious wank. On another level, you could also read it as being - often correctly - as entirely synthesised crap from palm oil and plant 'matter'.
Would I respond differently if put another way?
Yes. Describe organic/ home-grown / local farmer's fruit and vegetables and I start to get interested - but only if there was some real food to go with it as well. See profile.
"Virtue-signalling" is an odd term to apply to the term "plant-based" since the whole point of it is to broaden the market to those who are NOT ethical vegans, and thus don't particularly associate with the term "vegan".
You can say it's unappealing as a phrase, and that's fine. But I think you've thrown the term "virtue-signalling" in as a buzzword without really thinking about it, since that's essentially the last thing it is.
Nah, it's virtue-signalling.
Plant-based diet is a thing, now, and it means: "look at me, I'm better than you and I care about the planet."
It also implies a culture war on meat, which is why it will invoke resistance.
You care far too much what other people do. If someone doesn’t want to eat meat that’s completely fine. The content of my bolognaise is none of your business.
I totally agree. But when they try and make my business their business their business becomes my business, if that's not too esoteric.
They want to stop people eating meat. Period.
They are a threat.
Not if you’re a farm animal.
Paradoxically, they are, because if everyone went vegan there would be no farm animals.
There would be no animals on farms. If you take a Bengal Tiger out of Bengal and put it in Thurrock it doesn’t stop being Bengal Tiger. Similarly if you take farm animals out of farms they’re still farm animals. Just at less likelihood of being eaten.
The argument that we would lose specific breeds of, say, pigs is correct but actually a good thing for pigs overall.
How many pigs and cows do you think there are in the wild?
A few wild boar (who are a menace) and, er...
There should be far more. A homeland for pigs has already been established and, frankly, I’d love to live there…
Whether there 'should be' or not, there would not be.
And in any case, to make a pedantic point, even in the unlikely event that there were pigs or cattle in large numbers, if they were not on a farm by definition they wouldn't be farm animals...
Of course they would be. To take my earlier analogy, you propose that a Bengal Tiger in Thurrock is no longer a Bengal Tiger? It’s a “Thurrock Tiger”, an “Estuary Tiger”, an “Essex Tiger”? Maybe they’d be called “ex farm animals” or “farm survivors” but they’d still be distinguished by their former relationship to farms.
A Bengal Tiger is a subspecies. A farm animal is a category.
You're a lawyer. If somebody said a lambing shed converted into a house to be used as a second home by rich Londoners (sorry Mr Clarkson) was still a farm building would you agree with them?
Mr. Eagles, not watched any of it but have heard weird things. Namely, first two seasons of Picard being rubbish, then almost all the writers etc leaving and one guy doing tons of the work but actually turning it around and making it good stuff. Accurate?
Yeah.
But the final season makes up for the first two seasons.
Tories condemning Boris from a synthetic moral high ground now enthusiastically put him in office not that long ago. A Faustian pact they are trying desperately to forget. Sunak was quite happy or ‘fine’ to party alongside him.
Because the alternative was your Corbyn.
Boris or Corbyn.
If it had been Starmer - or Burnham at a push - there may have been a transition from May that never involved Johnson.
(Although Starmer's anti-democratic weaselyness over the Brexit second referendum would have kept him out of power. As it might yet.)
Yawn. You put the oaf in. You loved it.
Yep, I loved that he got an 80 seat majority over Labour.
And when he served his purpose and didn't do it for us any more, we discarded him. How very fitting that Boris's modus operandi should be played back against him...
But he only got that 80 seat majority because of 1. who he replaced and 2. who he was up against. Thanks Labour!
So Tories cannot claim any moral high ground now. Boris and the Tories entered a mutual Faustian pact. They’d sell their own grandmother for a few seats. Both come up smelling of manure.
You seem utterly incapable of accepting that your party offering the country Corbyn made Boris with a large majority inevitable.
Interesting marrying that poll finding with the clip from this week's Question Time where not a single soul puts their hand up to say they believe Boris.
The most likely explanation is that in public, no-one wants to admit they believe Boris. If that's the case there may be some "hidden Tories" in the general opinion polls -- I'm old enough to remember GE92. Might Labour's current lead be overstated?
An alternative explanation is that the Question Time audience is stuffed full of lefty-sympathisers. The BBC would never do that though!!
More likely that there's a large number if Tories unwilling to say that Boris deliberately lied to Parliament (not unrepresented here either), but aren't themselves habitual liars.
FPT - religion is far more common than people think. We all have things we believe in; it's just we are now entering an age of polytheism rather than a commitment to organised religion.
"Diversity", Veganism, Mediation and Gaianism all show aspects of religious fervour. And, like all religions, they have their doctrines, their sinners, punishments for heretics who don't follow doctrine and rewards of virtue and acceptance for those who piously do.
The word "aspects" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.
Why do I get the feeling that it's a list of things Casino doesn't approve of? Why not add 'belief in markets' 'being British' 'being a cricket fan' 'dislike of the EU' for balance?
On the difference between the census and the BSA on numbers with no religion in the UK:
Firstly the Census question is voluntary, and answered by 94% of people, so not answered by everyone as HYUFD seems to think.
Secondly the ask different questions. Census: What is your religion? BSA: Do you regard yourself as belonging to any particular religion? IF YES: Which?
Both are probably capturing affiliation more than belief, but the BSA question forces people to actively think if they belong or not.
I see we're on to ad hominum this morning. Probably because this is making you have to think too hard.
It's not just me saying this. There are articles relating to it by philosophers and theologians who've been making this point recently.
You can look them up yourself.
Are you saying you approve of the things in your list?
No, and I don't approve much of many organised religions either - I even have my criticisms of the Church of England.
Your point, such as it is, is purely to try and find a reason to dismiss my argument out of hand so you don't have to think about it too much.
You should. Because it's an important to contemplate to understand the future direction of society.
Of course any strongly held beliefs show aspects of religious fervour. Hardly a brilliant insight.
But you seem to have just shoehorned in a list of things that you irrationally hate.
'hatred of veganism' seems to be a far commoner religion than veganism itself, sadly.
Veganism is definitely a religion. It's purist, dogmatic, and essentially irrational, and like the abstinence movements (also grounded in religion) that were so common at the start of the 20th century.
I have no problem with vegetarians as they pose no threat to me. Vegans are a threat as they are campaigners and, ultimately, want to stop meat entirely - so they will have my resistance.
I know plenty of vegans. And I know they are vegans because I have asked them. As in when I invite them for a meal I say 'is there anything you don't eat?' They have never commented on anyone putting milk in their tea.
On the other hand I know several fanatic anti-vegans who will jump on any excuse to attack vegans.
I understand that people can very easily feel resentful if they think that other people might be morally superior to them in some way, but this insecurity is coming from inside themselves.
How interesting that your experience is the precise opposite to mine.
You never need to ask if they're a vegan, they will tell you the first opportunity you get, so I don't believe you.
I'm with @kamski on this. Veggie friends don't take offence or mention it. Only tend to find out if I raise it when I notice. Have a niece who is a vegan cook. Never raises it. I only find out details by asking because I'm fascinated how it works. I was sitting next to her at a wedding and she was served a non vegan meal (food providers struggle on the difference between veggies and vegans). No fuss was made, particularly as it's a common issue.
None of them take any offence by me getting stuck into a steak or even raise it
FPT - religion is far more common than people think. We all have things we believe in; it's just we are now entering an age of polytheism rather than a commitment to organised religion.
"Diversity", Veganism, Mediation and Gaianism all show aspects of religious fervour. And, like all religions, they have their doctrines, their sinners, punishments for heretics who don't follow doctrine and rewards of virtue and acceptance for those who piously do.
The word "aspects" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.
Why do I get the feeling that it's a list of things Casino doesn't approve of? Why not add 'belief in markets' 'being British' 'being a cricket fan' 'dislike of the EU' for balance?
On the difference between the census and the BSA on numbers with no religion in the UK:
Firstly the Census question is voluntary, and answered by 94% of people, so not answered by everyone as HYUFD seems to think.
Secondly the ask different questions. Census: What is your religion? BSA: Do you regard yourself as belonging to any particular religion? IF YES: Which?
Both are probably capturing affiliation more than belief, but the BSA question forces people to actively think if they belong or not.
I see we're on to ad hominum this morning. Probably because this is making you have to think too hard.
It's not just me saying this. There are articles relating to it by philosophers and theologians who've been making this point recently.
You can look them up yourself.
Are you saying you approve of the things in your list?
No, and I don't approve much of many organised religions either - I even have my criticisms of the Church of England.
Your point, such as it is, is purely to try and find a reason to dismiss my argument out of hand so you don't have to think about it too much.
You should. Because it's an important to contemplate to understand the future direction of society.
Of course any strongly held beliefs show aspects of religious fervour. Hardly a brilliant insight.
But you seem to have just shoehorned in a list of things that you irrationally hate.
'hatred of veganism' seems to be a far commoner religion than veganism itself, sadly.
Veganism is definitely a religion. It's purist, dogmatic, and essentially irrational, and like the abstinence movements (also grounded in religion) that were so common at the start of the 20th century.
I have no problem with vegetarians as they pose no threat to me. Vegans are a threat as they are campaigners and, ultimately, want to stop meat entirely - so they will have my resistance.
I know plenty of vegans. And I know they are vegans because I have asked them. As in when I invite them for a meal I say 'is there anything you don't eat?' They have never commented on anyone putting milk in their tea.
On the other hand I know several fanatic anti-vegans who will jump on any excuse to attack vegans.
I understand that people can very easily feel resentful if they think that other people might be morally superior to them in some way, but this insecurity is coming from inside themselves.
How interesting that your experience is the precise opposite to mine.
You never need to ask if they're a vegan, they will tell you the first opportunity you get, so I don't believe you.
Rubbish. I have never in my life heard a vegan tell me unprompted that they are a vegan. And I am pretty sure I move in circles with a lot more vegans than you do.
What you wrote in the post above is a bit like someone saying "Islamists want to impose sharia law on everyone and that's why I hate muslims".
Good morning all. Still struggling to get my body clock back in sync.
A messy week for those on the right of the party. The splits in the ERG have been quite something. Sunak may have come out of it the happier but all of this is fodder for Labour. Especially come the General Election.
The demise of Boris Johnson is a thing of beauty. What has surprised me are the number of commentators, including on the right, now linking the absurdity of Boris Johnson with the absurdity of Brexit.
The bot is awake.
You can't help yourself, can you? Aside from the curiosity that you yourself seem to be posting in the very early hours of the morning, many others on here have noticed and remarked on the fact that 80% of the time you come across as decent and pleasant, and then 20% of the time you are thoroughly unpleasant and vile to people. I'm not suggesting you find yourself 'bound and gagged in a basement until 2025', a wholly inappropriate remark for a family forum, but you might wish to take a step back and reflect on these words, considering how to try and improve yourself as a human being and in your interactions on this forum. Words have effects on others but it's more advice to you so that you don't end up in a vortex of self-induced late life unhappiness.
Moving on, it has been a strange experience to return to the pantomime of UK (mostly Conservative) party politics. When you're abroad a lot of this sort of thing feels, well, at best frothy, at worse bizarrely irrelevant. That's not to suggest that partying during lockdown wasn't serious. It was. But the Westminster pantomime often bears little or no relation to life in the world. It's almost like an old freak show.
That Rishi Sunak is doing a decent job of steadying the ship seems fairly undeniable. That Labour still hold commanding opinion poll leads equally so.
Sorry, your posts are just a bit boring.
If you want people to engage with you positively then you need to earn their respect and deliver insight - not waste their time with the same dramatic hyperbole day after day.
Talking of which, whatever did happen to Leon?
Yes, I was wondering why the Doctor hasn't regenerated yet.
FPT - religion is far more common than people think. We all have things we believe in; it's just we are now entering an age of polytheism rather than a commitment to organised religion.
"Diversity", Veganism, Mediation and Gaianism all show aspects of religious fervour. And, like all religions, they have their doctrines, their sinners, punishments for heretics who don't follow doctrine and rewards of virtue and acceptance for those who piously do.
The word "aspects" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.
Why do I get the feeling that it's a list of things Casino doesn't approve of? Why not add 'belief in markets' 'being British' 'being a cricket fan' 'dislike of the EU' for balance?
On the difference between the census and the BSA on numbers with no religion in the UK:
Firstly the Census question is voluntary, and answered by 94% of people, so not answered by everyone as HYUFD seems to think.
Secondly the ask different questions. Census: What is your religion? BSA: Do you regard yourself as belonging to any particular religion? IF YES: Which?
Both are probably capturing affiliation more than belief, but the BSA question forces people to actively think if they belong or not.
I see we're on to ad hominum this morning. Probably because this is making you have to think too hard.
It's not just me saying this. There are articles relating to it by philosophers and theologians who've been making this point recently.
You can look them up yourself.
Are you saying you approve of the things in your list?
No, and I don't approve much of many organised religions either - I even have my criticisms of the Church of England.
Your point, such as it is, is purely to try and find a reason to dismiss my argument out of hand so you don't have to think about it too much.
You should. Because it's an important to contemplate to understand the future direction of society.
Of course any strongly held beliefs show aspects of religious fervour. Hardly a brilliant insight.
But you seem to have just shoehorned in a list of things that you irrationally hate.
'hatred of veganism' seems to be a far commoner religion than veganism itself, sadly.
Veganism is definitely a religion. It's purist, dogmatic, and essentially irrational, and like the abstinence movements (also grounded in religion) that were so common at the start of the 20th century.
I have no problem with vegetarians as they pose no threat to me. Vegans are a threat as they are campaigners and, ultimately, want to stop meat entirely - so they will have my resistance.
I know plenty of vegans. And I know they are vegans because I have asked them. As in when I invite them for a meal I say 'is there anything you don't eat?' They have never commented on anyone putting milk in their tea.
On the other hand I know several fanatic anti-vegans who will jump on any excuse to attack vegans.
I understand that people can very easily feel resentful if they think that other people might be morally superior to them in some way, but this insecurity is coming from inside themselves.
How interesting that your experience is the precise opposite to mine.
You never need to ask if they're a vegan, they will tell you the first opportunity you get, so I don't believe you.
I'm with @kamski on this. Veggie friends don't take offence or mention it. Only tend to find out if I raise it when I notice. Have a niece who is a vegan cook. Never raises it. I only find out details by asking because I'm fascinated how it works. I was sitting next to her at a wedding and she was served a non vegan meal (food providers struggle on the difference between veggies and vegans). No fuss was made, particularly as it's a common issue.
None of them take any offence by me getting stuck into a steak or even raise it
Veggies are different to Vegans - see my post upthread.
Tories condemning Boris from a synthetic moral high ground now enthusiastically put him in office not that long ago. A Faustian pact they are trying desperately to forget. Sunak was quite happy or ‘fine’ to party alongside him.
Because the alternative was your Corbyn.
Boris or Corbyn.
If it had been Starmer - or Burnham at a push - there may have been a transition from May that never involved Johnson.
(Although Starmer's anti-democratic weaselyness over the Brexit second referendum would have kept him out of power. As it might yet.)
Yawn. You put the oaf in. You loved it.
Yep, I loved that he got an 80 seat majority over Labour.
And when he served his purpose and didn't do it for us any more, we discarded him. How very fitting that Boris's modus operandi should be played back against him...
But he only got that 80 seat majority because of 1. who he replaced and 2. who he was up against. Thanks Labour!
So Tories cannot claim any moral high ground now. Boris and the Tories entered a mutual Faustian pact. They’d sell their own grandmother for a few seats. Both come up smelling of manure.
You seem utterly incapable of accepting that your party offering the country Corbyn made Boris with a large majority inevitable.
Own it.
Nah. I voted against Corbyn twice in leadership elections, I consistently spoke up for ‘centrist’ views in the Labour party. It’s a million miles away from your loving embrace of Boris.
FPT - religion is far more common than people think. We all have things we believe in; it's just we are now entering an age of polytheism rather than a commitment to organised religion.
"Diversity", Veganism, Mediation and Gaianism all show aspects of religious fervour. And, like all religions, they have their doctrines, their sinners, punishments for heretics who don't follow doctrine and rewards of virtue and acceptance for those who piously do.
The word "aspects" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.
Why do I get the feeling that it's a list of things Casino doesn't approve of? Why not add 'belief in markets' 'being British' 'being a cricket fan' 'dislike of the EU' for balance?
On the difference between the census and the BSA on numbers with no religion in the UK:
Firstly the Census question is voluntary, and answered by 94% of people, so not answered by everyone as HYUFD seems to think.
Secondly the ask different questions. Census: What is your religion? BSA: Do you regard yourself as belonging to any particular religion? IF YES: Which?
Both are probably capturing affiliation more than belief, but the BSA question forces people to actively think if they belong or not.
I see we're on to ad hominum this morning. Probably because this is making you have to think too hard.
It's not just me saying this. There are articles relating to it by philosophers and theologians who've been making this point recently.
You can look them up yourself.
Are you saying you approve of the things in your list?
No, and I don't approve much of many organised religions either - I even have my criticisms of the Church of England.
Your point, such as it is, is purely to try and find a reason to dismiss my argument out of hand so you don't have to think about it too much.
You should. Because it's an important to contemplate to understand the future direction of society.
Of course any strongly held beliefs show aspects of religious fervour. Hardly a brilliant insight.
But you seem to have just shoehorned in a list of things that you irrationally hate.
'hatred of veganism' seems to be a far commoner religion than veganism itself, sadly.
Veganism is definitely a religion. It's purist, dogmatic, and essentially irrational, and like the abstinence movements (also grounded in religion) that were so common at the start of the 20th century.
I have no problem with vegetarians as they pose no threat to me. Vegans are a threat as they are campaigners and, ultimately, want to stop meat entirely - so they will have my resistance.
I know plenty of vegans. And I know they are vegans because I have asked them. As in when I invite them for a meal I say 'is there anything you don't eat?' They have never commented on anyone putting milk in their tea.
On the other hand I know several fanatic anti-vegans who will jump on any excuse to attack vegans.
I understand that people can very easily feel resentful if they think that other people might be morally superior to them in some way, but this insecurity is coming from inside themselves.
How interesting that your experience is the precise opposite to mine.
You never need to ask if they're a vegan, they will tell you the first opportunity you get, so I don't believe you.
Rubbish. I have never in my life heard a vegan tell me unprompted that they are a vegan. And I am pretty sure I move in circles with a lot more vegans than you do.
What you wrote in the post above is a bit like someone saying "Islamists want to impose sharia law on everyone and that's why I hate muslims".
The only one talking rubbish on here is you, and your pathetic attempt to turn it into islamophobia just tells everyone you know you're on the back-foot.
Boris and Truss need to be bound and gagged in a basement until January 2025.
Dorian Grey?
The Tories are afraid of revealing their true face?
It is not their true face anymore than Corbyn is Labour's true face.
I agree it's electorally advantageous for you to hear as much as possible from those two, though.
Corbyn isn't a Labour MP any more, whereas Johnson and Truss are still Conservative MPs, with meaningful followings.
Both (all?) parties need to own up to the terrible options they put before the public in 2019, but in practical terms Labour are a bit further along that road than the Conservatives. Easier to regenerate in opposition, of course, but Sunak didn't have to appoint Braverman or Anderson.
Labour have been in opposition for 13 years and lost 4 consecutive general elections. They had no alternative but to move to the centre after Corbyn's 2019 general election.
The Conservatives by contrast are only in 2009 in terms of comparison to recent Labour history and still in government for starters
FPT - religion is far more common than people think. We all have things we believe in; it's just we are now entering an age of polytheism rather than a commitment to organised religion.
"Diversity", Veganism, Mediation and Gaianism all show aspects of religious fervour. And, like all religions, they have their doctrines, their sinners, punishments for heretics who don't follow doctrine and rewards of virtue and acceptance for those who piously do.
The word "aspects" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.
Why do I get the feeling that it's a list of things Casino doesn't approve of? Why not add 'belief in markets' 'being British' 'being a cricket fan' 'dislike of the EU' for balance?
On the difference between the census and the BSA on numbers with no religion in the UK:
Firstly the Census question is voluntary, and answered by 94% of people, so not answered by everyone as HYUFD seems to think.
Secondly the ask different questions. Census: What is your religion? BSA: Do you regard yourself as belonging to any particular religion? IF YES: Which?
Both are probably capturing affiliation more than belief, but the BSA question forces people to actively think if they belong or not.
I see we're on to ad hominum this morning. Probably because this is making you have to think too hard.
It's not just me saying this. There are articles relating to it by philosophers and theologians who've been making this point recently.
You can look them up yourself.
Are you saying you approve of the things in your list?
No, and I don't approve much of many organised religions either - I even have my criticisms of the Church of England.
Your point, such as it is, is purely to try and find a reason to dismiss my argument out of hand so you don't have to think about it too much.
You should. Because it's an important to contemplate to understand the future direction of society.
Of course any strongly held beliefs show aspects of religious fervour. Hardly a brilliant insight.
But you seem to have just shoehorned in a list of things that you irrationally hate.
'hatred of veganism' seems to be a far commoner religion than veganism itself, sadly.
Veganism is definitely a religion. It's purist, dogmatic, and essentially irrational, and like the abstinence movements (also grounded in religion) that were so common at the start of the 20th century.
I have no problem with vegetarians as they pose no threat to me. Vegans are a threat as they are campaigners and, ultimately, want to stop meat entirely - so they will have my resistance.
I know plenty of vegans. And I know they are vegans because I have asked them. As in when I invite them for a meal I say 'is there anything you don't eat?' They have never commented on anyone putting milk in their tea.
On the other hand I know several fanatic anti-vegans who will jump on any excuse to attack vegans.
I understand that people can very easily feel resentful if they think that other people might be morally superior to them in some way, but this insecurity is coming from inside themselves.
How interesting that your experience is the precise opposite to mine.
You never need to ask if they're a vegan, they will tell you the first opportunity you get, so I don't believe you.
I'm with @kamski on this. Veggie friends don't take offence or mention it. Only tend to find out if I raise it when I notice. Have a niece who is a vegan cook. Never raises it. I only find out details by asking because I'm fascinated how it works. I was sitting next to her at a wedding and she was served a non vegan meal (food providers struggle on the difference between veggies and vegans). No fuss was made, particularly as it's a common issue.
None of them take any offence by me getting stuck into a steak or even raise it
Veggies are different to Vegans - see my post upthread.
I'm pretty certain, given how often you shoehorn your hatred of vegans into discussions on here, that if you could listen back to a recording to your conversations with vegans you'd find that it's nearly always you bringing it up first.
Interesting marrying that poll finding with the clip from this week's Question Time where not a single soul puts their hand up to say they believe Boris.
The most likely explanation is that in public, no-one wants to admit they believe Boris. If that's the case there may be some "hidden Tories" in the general opinion polls -- I'm old enough to remember GE92. Might Labour's current lead be overstated?
An alternative explanation is that the Question Time audience is stuffed full of lefty-sympathisers. The BBC would never do that though!!
It had crossed my mind. I never watch Question Time for that very reason. It never offers balance so what is the point of it.
Did your miss the bit in the clip where Fiona Bruce says there were more Conservative voters in the audience than any other party? Or did you not watch it and just have a prior assumption that was how it was? Or are you going is long enough that everyone will have forgotten that was the case?
Mr. Royale, while they went down well, when I bought some 'organic chocolate' as a gift ages ago I did wonder what the alternative was. Chocolate with metallic chunks?
Health and meat is interesting. All the amino acids you need are in meat. Because we're made of meat too. Getting all the stuff you need from a vegetarian or even more restrictive vegan diet does involve homework. And we're specifically designed to eat meat (it's the natural diet, along with vegetables) hence having incisors and canines.
I think the truth is that multiple things can be true at the same time.
We need meat but we probably eat too much of the unhealthy sort, but we should still eat and enjoy it - and probably the offal too - and it should be grass-fed and sustainably grown, to the greatest extent possible. Fish stocks can be harvested (who really has a problem about fishing and then gutting one, and hasn't done it with their mates/Dad?) but again needs to be at sustainable levels.
The rest is that there's just too many people on the planet. That isn't going to change - you can't stop people - so we'll need to engineer solutions to the side effects of the energy consumption and production. Probably adding seaweed and additives into cow herds etc.
Meat production, and the agriculture required to keep it going is very environmentally destructive. The vast majority of soybeans are grown not to feed vegans, but rather the cattle on industrial scale feed lots. Cattle who don't see a blade of grass for months.
Sure, there are areas of land such as uplands not suited to other forms of agriculture, but that is not how most meat is produced. It is not the pastoral idyll that is promoted. Similarly the unsavoury side of fishing with discarded bycatch, sea-lice infested salmon farms and discarded fishing gear killing endangered cetaceans and turtles etc is not very appealing.
The large number of vegetarians in India shows that a meat free diet is entirely viable nutritionally without a great deal of individual research. There is a lot of plant based protein out there.
I eat meat, but it is pretty undeniable that it is doing environmental damage out of proportion to the calories and nutrients produced.
FPT - religion is far more common than people think. We all have things we believe in; it's just we are now entering an age of polytheism rather than a commitment to organised religion.
"Diversity", Veganism, Mediation and Gaianism all show aspects of religious fervour. And, like all religions, they have their doctrines, their sinners, punishments for heretics who don't follow doctrine and rewards of virtue and acceptance for those who piously do.
The word "aspects" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.
Why do I get the feeling that it's a list of things Casino doesn't approve of? Why not add 'belief in markets' 'being British' 'being a cricket fan' 'dislike of the EU' for balance?
On the difference between the census and the BSA on numbers with no religion in the UK:
Firstly the Census question is voluntary, and answered by 94% of people, so not answered by everyone as HYUFD seems to think.
Secondly the ask different questions. Census: What is your religion? BSA: Do you regard yourself as belonging to any particular religion? IF YES: Which?
Both are probably capturing affiliation more than belief, but the BSA question forces people to actively think if they belong or not.
You don't have to belong to a religion and attend a place of worship every week to believe in God or be Christian. If you say your religion is Christianity you are still Christian not atheist. Indeed you can believe in God and Christ and read the Bible from time to time and be of the Christian religion and never attend a church your entire life, although that would not be preferable.
94% is also a far bigger sample than less than 0.01% with the BSA survey
FPT - religion is far more common than people think. We all have things we believe in; it's just we are now entering an age of polytheism rather than a commitment to organised religion.
"Diversity", Veganism, Mediation and Gaianism all show aspects of religious fervour. And, like all religions, they have their doctrines, their sinners, punishments for heretics who don't follow doctrine and rewards of virtue and acceptance for those who piously do.
The word "aspects" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.
Why do I get the feeling that it's a list of things Casino doesn't approve of? Why not add 'belief in markets' 'being British' 'being a cricket fan' 'dislike of the EU' for balance?
On the difference between the census and the BSA on numbers with no religion in the UK:
Firstly the Census question is voluntary, and answered by 94% of people, so not answered by everyone as HYUFD seems to think.
Secondly the ask different questions. Census: What is your religion? BSA: Do you regard yourself as belonging to any particular religion? IF YES: Which?
Both are probably capturing affiliation more than belief, but the BSA question forces people to actively think if they belong or not.
I see we're on to ad hominum this morning. Probably because this is making you have to think too hard.
It's not just me saying this. There are articles relating to it by philosophers and theologians who've been making this point recently.
You can look them up yourself.
Are you saying you approve of the things in your list?
No, and I don't approve much of many organised religions either - I even have my criticisms of the Church of England.
Your point, such as it is, is purely to try and find a reason to dismiss my argument out of hand so you don't have to think about it too much.
You should. Because it's an important to contemplate to understand the future direction of society.
Of course any strongly held beliefs show aspects of religious fervour. Hardly a brilliant insight.
But you seem to have just shoehorned in a list of things that you irrationally hate.
'hatred of veganism' seems to be a far commoner religion than veganism itself, sadly.
Veganism is definitely a religion. It's purist, dogmatic, and essentially irrational, and like the abstinence movements (also grounded in religion) that were so common at the start of the 20th century.
I have no problem with vegetarians as they pose no threat to me. Vegans are a threat as they are campaigners and, ultimately, want to stop meat entirely - so they will have my resistance.
I know plenty of vegans. And I know they are vegans because I have asked them. As in when I invite them for a meal I say 'is there anything you don't eat?' They have never commented on anyone putting milk in their tea.
On the other hand I know several fanatic anti-vegans who will jump on any excuse to attack vegans.
I understand that people can very easily feel resentful if they think that other people might be morally superior to them in some way, but this insecurity is coming from inside themselves.
How interesting that your experience is the precise opposite to mine.
You never need to ask if they're a vegan, they will tell you the first opportunity you get, so I don't believe you.
I'm with @kamski on this. Veggie friends don't take offence or mention it. Only tend to find out if I raise it when I notice. Have a niece who is a vegan cook. Never raises it. I only find out details by asking because I'm fascinated how it works. I was sitting next to her at a wedding and she was served a non vegan meal (food providers struggle on the difference between veggies and vegans). No fuss was made, particularly as it's a common issue.
None of them take any offence by me getting stuck into a steak or even raise it
Veggies are different to Vegans - see my post upthread.
Yep, so what? My experience like @kamski is neither have tried to ram it down my throat, ever. Sounds like it is a reflection of your friends if they are constantly trying to make a point to you. It has never happened to me, ever and I really enjoy my meat. I mean I really do. Are you sure you aren't trying to wind them up because it seems odd your experience is so at odds with ours.
Just been browsing pb from December 2019. It’s another world.
When I check through my "off-topics", they are not specifically because I was off-topic, or even that I am a non-Conservative heretic ****. They were, predominantly a response, by presumably some of today's PB Johnson naysayers, at my withering critiques of Johnson's private and public behaviour.
And the same posters who are guffawing at Starmer's Brexit U-turn pragmatism, are now demanding we believe "I never liked that Boris Johnson, he was always a wrong-'un but I had to vote for him to save the nation from Soviet era Communism".
As an aside, I'm not a fan of these adverts for 'plant-based' things.
If they're vegetarian or vegan then being more specific, albeit with a less trendy new slogan, is more useful.
In practice it means Vegan, but using the marketing of "plant based" expands the market to people who are more flexitarian, eating these products alongside dairy, fish, and even meat, as a way of broadening a diet, and making it more healthy. That's capitalism for you.
"Plant-based" is a massive turnoff for me - the phrase alone pisses me off.
A lot of virtue-signalling pretentious wank. On another level, you could also read it as being - often correctly - as entirely synthesised crap from palm oil and plant 'matter'.
Would I respond differently if put another way?
Yes. Describe organic/ home-grown / local farmer's fruit and vegetables and I start to get interested - but only if there was some real food to go with it as well. See profile.
"Virtue-signalling" is an odd term to apply to the term "plant-based" since the whole point of it is to broaden the market to those who are NOT ethical vegans, and thus don't particularly associate with the term "vegan".
You can say it's unappealing as a phrase, and that's fine. But I think you've thrown the term "virtue-signalling" in as a buzzword without really thinking about it, since that's essentially the last thing it is.
Nah, it's virtue-signalling.
Plant-based diet is a thing, now, and it means: "look at me, I'm better than you and I care about the planet."
It also implies a culture war on meat, which is why it will invoke resistance.
That sounds more like the extreme ends of veganism. Plant-based foods are for people who want to eat meat without eating meat, hence plant-based burgers and various nut-based milks. Fwiw, at my old works canteen, the plant-based sausage rolls outsold the sausage-based sausage rolls. Try it, you might like it.
People who try it rapidly decide they don't like it, and rightly so:
Incidentally, it's not like I haven't experimented to see what all the fuss is about. I once tried a recipe with tofu (and almost vomited) and a "cauliflower steak", which was a fancy name for a shit meal with a grilled slice of cauliflower.
I got so hungry I couldn't sleep and woke up at 2am to have a massive bowl of cornflakes.
No-one wants that shit.
Alternatively you're just not a very good cook. Vegan food is admittedly harder to make tasty than is vegetarian, and for me considerably more effort than it's worth, but it's perfectly possible to eat well and healthily.
As an aside, I'm not a fan of these adverts for 'plant-based' things.
If they're vegetarian or vegan then being more specific, albeit with a less trendy new slogan, is more useful.
In practice it means Vegan, but using the marketing of "plant based" expands the market to people who are more flexitarian, eating these products alongside dairy, fish, and even meat, as a way of broadening a diet, and making it more healthy. That's capitalism for you.
"Plant-based" is a massive turnoff for me - the phrase alone pisses me off.
A lot of virtue-signalling pretentious wank. On another level, you could also read it as being - often correctly - as entirely synthesised crap from palm oil and plant 'matter'.
Would I respond differently if put another way?
Yes. Describe organic/ home-grown / local farmer's fruit and vegetables and I start to get interested - but only if there was some real food to go with it as well. See profile.
"Virtue-signalling" is an odd term to apply to the term "plant-based" since the whole point of it is to broaden the market to those who are NOT ethical vegans, and thus don't particularly associate with the term "vegan".
You can say it's unappealing as a phrase, and that's fine. But I think you've thrown the term "virtue-signalling" in as a buzzword without really thinking about it, since that's essentially the last thing it is.
Nah, it's virtue-signalling.
Plant-based diet is a thing, now, and it means: "look at me, I'm better than you and I care about the planet."
It also implies a culture war on meat, which is why it will invoke resistance.
That sounds more like the extreme ends of veganism. Plant-based foods are for people who want to eat meat without eating meat, hence plant-based burgers and various nut-based milks. Fwiw, at my old works canteen, the plant-based sausage rolls outsold the sausage-based sausage rolls. Try it, you might like it.
People who try it rapidly decide they don't like it, and rightly so:
Incidentally, it's not like I haven't experimented to see what all the fuss is about. I once tried a recipe with tofu (and almost vomited) and a "cauliflower steak", which was a fancy name for a shit meal with a grilled slice of cauliflower.
I got so hungry I couldn't sleep and woke up at 2am to have a massive bowl of cornflakes.
No-one wants that shit.
Alternatively you're just not a very good cook. Vegan food is admittedly harder to make tasty than is vegetarian, and for me considerably more effort than it's worth, but it's perfectly possible to eat well and healthily.
Come on all vegan food is disgusting, who can stomach roast potatoes, for exampe? And beans on toast is a plot by the wokerati too
As an aside, I'm not a fan of these adverts for 'plant-based' things.
If they're vegetarian or vegan then being more specific, albeit with a less trendy new slogan, is more useful.
In practice it means Vegan, but using the marketing of "plant based" expands the market to people who are more flexitarian, eating these products alongside dairy, fish, and even meat, as a way of broadening a diet, and making it more healthy. That's capitalism for you.
"Plant-based" is a massive turnoff for me - the phrase alone pisses me off.
A lot of virtue-signalling pretentious wank. On another level, you could also read it as being - often correctly - as entirely synthesised crap from palm oil and plant 'matter'.
Would I respond differently if put another way?
Yes. Describe organic/ home-grown / local farmer's fruit and vegetables and I start to get interested - but only if there was some real food to go with it as well. See profile.
"Virtue-signalling" is an odd term to apply to the term "plant-based" since the whole point of it is to broaden the market to those who are NOT ethical vegans, and thus don't particularly associate with the term "vegan".
You can say it's unappealing as a phrase, and that's fine. But I think you've thrown the term "virtue-signalling" in as a buzzword without really thinking about it, since that's essentially the last thing it is.
Nah, it's virtue-signalling.
Plant-based diet is a thing, now, and it means: "look at me, I'm better than you and I care about the planet."
It also implies a culture war on meat, which is why it will invoke resistance.
You care far too much what other people do. If someone doesn’t want to eat meat that’s completely fine. The content of my bolognaise is none of your business.
I totally agree. But when they try and make my business their business their business becomes my business, if that's not too esoteric.
They want to stop people eating meat. Period.
They are a threat.
Not if you’re a farm animal.
Paradoxically, they are, because if everyone went vegan there would be no farm animals.
There would be no animals on farms. If you take a Bengal Tiger out of Bengal and put it in Thurrock it doesn’t stop being Bengal Tiger. Similarly if you take farm animals out of farms they’re still farm animals. Just at less likelihood of being eaten.
The argument that we would lose specific breeds of, say, pigs is correct but actually a good thing for pigs overall.
How many pigs and cows do you think there are in the wild?
A few wild boar (who are a menace) and, er...
There should be far more. A homeland for pigs has already been established and, frankly, I’d love to live there…
Whether there 'should be' or not, there would not be.
And in any case, to make a pedantic point, even in the unlikely event that there were pigs or cattle in large numbers, if they were not on a farm by definition they wouldn't be farm animals...
Of course they would be. To take my earlier analogy, you propose that a Bengal Tiger in Thurrock is no longer a Bengal Tiger? It’s a “Thurrock Tiger”, an “Estuary Tiger”, an “Essex Tiger”? Maybe they’d be called “ex farm animals” or “farm survivors” but they’d still be distinguished by their former relationship to farms.
A Bengal Tiger is a subspecies. A farm animal is a category.
You're a lawyer. If somebody said a lambing shed converted into a house to be used as a second home by rich Londoners (sorry Mr Clarkson) was still a farm building would you agree with them?
Here’s a picture of me and my ex farm animal companion checking into what was a hotel but, given he is staying there with me, is a farm building for at least one night.
FPT - religion is far more common than people think. We all have things we believe in; it's just we are now entering an age of polytheism rather than a commitment to organised religion.
"Diversity", Veganism, Mediation and Gaianism all show aspects of religious fervour. And, like all religions, they have their doctrines, their sinners, punishments for heretics who don't follow doctrine and rewards of virtue and acceptance for those who piously do.
The word "aspects" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.
Why do I get the feeling that it's a list of things Casino doesn't approve of? Why not add 'belief in markets' 'being British' 'being a cricket fan' 'dislike of the EU' for balance?
On the difference between the census and the BSA on numbers with no religion in the UK:
Firstly the Census question is voluntary, and answered by 94% of people, so not answered by everyone as HYUFD seems to think.
Secondly the ask different questions. Census: What is your religion? BSA: Do you regard yourself as belonging to any particular religion? IF YES: Which?
Both are probably capturing affiliation more than belief, but the BSA question forces people to actively think if they belong or not.
I see we're on to ad hominum this morning. Probably because this is making you have to think too hard.
It's not just me saying this. There are articles relating to it by philosophers and theologians who've been making this point recently.
You can look them up yourself.
Are you saying you approve of the things in your list?
No, and I don't approve much of many organised religions either - I even have my criticisms of the Church of England.
Your point, such as it is, is purely to try and find a reason to dismiss my argument out of hand so you don't have to think about it too much.
You should. Because it's an important to contemplate to understand the future direction of society.
Of course any strongly held beliefs show aspects of religious fervour. Hardly a brilliant insight.
But you seem to have just shoehorned in a list of things that you irrationally hate.
'hatred of veganism' seems to be a far commoner religion than veganism itself, sadly.
Veganism is definitely a religion. It's purist, dogmatic, and essentially irrational, and like the abstinence movements (also grounded in religion) that were so common at the start of the 20th century.
I have no problem with vegetarians as they pose no threat to me. Vegans are a threat as they are campaigners and, ultimately, want to stop meat entirely - so they will have my resistance.
I know plenty of vegans. And I know they are vegans because I have asked them. As in when I invite them for a meal I say 'is there anything you don't eat?' They have never commented on anyone putting milk in their tea.
On the other hand I know several fanatic anti-vegans who will jump on any excuse to attack vegans.
I understand that people can very easily feel resentful if they think that other people might be morally superior to them in some way, but this insecurity is coming from inside themselves.
How interesting that your experience is the precise opposite to mine.
You never need to ask if they're a vegan, they will tell you the first opportunity you get, so I don't believe you.
I'm with @kamski on this. Veggie friends don't take offence or mention it. Only tend to find out if I raise it when I notice. Have a niece who is a vegan cook. Never raises it. I only find out details by asking because I'm fascinated how it works. I was sitting next to her at a wedding and she was served a non vegan meal (food providers struggle on the difference between veggies and vegans). No fuss was made, particularly as it's a common issue.
None of them take any offence by me getting stuck into a steak or even raise it
Veggies are different to Vegans - see my post upthread.
Yep, so what? My experience like @kamski is neither have tried to ram it down my throat, ever. Sounds like it is a reflection of your friends if they are constantly trying to make a point to you. It has never happened to me, ever and I really enjoy my meat. I mean I really do. Are you sure you aren't trying to wind them up because it seems odd your experience is so at odds with ours.
I just think it good manners as a host to enquire of guests as to their dietary needs, between allergies, religious requirements and ethical beliefs, in Leicester especially.
Mr. kamski, bacon sandwiches are great. And we're designed to eat it too, thanks to our incisor and canine teeth, specifically evolved for tearing meat.
I don't mind what others eat, provided they don't try and alter my diet. Roast parsnips and carrots are excellent. Especially alongside pork or beef.
FPT - religion is far more common than people think. We all have things we believe in; it's just we are now entering an age of polytheism rather than a commitment to organised religion.
"Diversity", Veganism, Mediation and Gaianism all show aspects of religious fervour. And, like all religions, they have their doctrines, their sinners, punishments for heretics who don't follow doctrine and rewards of virtue and acceptance for those who piously do.
The word "aspects" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.
Why do I get the feeling that it's a list of things Casino doesn't approve of? Why not add 'belief in markets' 'being British' 'being a cricket fan' 'dislike of the EU' for balance?
On the difference between the census and the BSA on numbers with no religion in the UK:
Firstly the Census question is voluntary, and answered by 94% of people, so not answered by everyone as HYUFD seems to think.
Secondly the ask different questions. Census: What is your religion? BSA: Do you regard yourself as belonging to any particular religion? IF YES: Which?
Both are probably capturing affiliation more than belief, but the BSA question forces people to actively think if they belong or not.
I see we're on to ad hominum this morning. Probably because this is making you have to think too hard.
It's not just me saying this. There are articles relating to it by philosophers and theologians who've been making this point recently.
You can look them up yourself.
Are you saying you approve of the things in your list?
No, and I don't approve much of many organised religions either - I even have my criticisms of the Church of England.
Your point, such as it is, is purely to try and find a reason to dismiss my argument out of hand so you don't have to think about it too much.
You should. Because it's an important to contemplate to understand the future direction of society.
Of course any strongly held beliefs show aspects of religious fervour. Hardly a brilliant insight.
But you seem to have just shoehorned in a list of things that you irrationally hate.
'hatred of veganism' seems to be a far commoner religion than veganism itself, sadly.
Veganism is definitely a religion. It's purist, dogmatic, and essentially irrational, and like the abstinence movements (also grounded in religion) that were so common at the start of the 20th century.
I have no problem with vegetarians as they pose no threat to me. Vegans are a threat as they are campaigners and, ultimately, want to stop meat entirely - so they will have my resistance.
Vegans on Oxford City Council have voted to ban meat from all Council events
Interesting marrying that poll finding with the clip from this week's Question Time where not a single soul puts their hand up to say they believe Boris.
The most likely explanation is that in public, no-one wants to admit they believe Boris. If that's the case there may be some "hidden Tories" in the general opinion polls -- I'm old enough to remember GE92. Might Labour's current lead be overstated?
An alternative explanation is that the Question Time audience is stuffed full of lefty-sympathisers. The BBC would never do that though!!
It had crossed my mind. I never watch Question Time for that very reason. It never offers balance so what is the point of it.
The audience is selected to be balanced. Whether they get that right is another matter, but it is done.
As an aside, I'm not a fan of these adverts for 'plant-based' things.
If they're vegetarian or vegan then being more specific, albeit with a less trendy new slogan, is more useful.
In practice it means Vegan, but using the marketing of "plant based" expands the market to people who are more flexitarian, eating these products alongside dairy, fish, and even meat, as a way of broadening a diet, and making it more healthy. That's capitalism for you.
"Plant-based" is a massive turnoff for me - the phrase alone pisses me off.
A lot of virtue-signalling pretentious wank. On another level, you could also read it as being - often correctly - as entirely synthesised crap from palm oil and plant 'matter'.
Would I respond differently if put another way?
Yes. Describe organic/ home-grown / local farmer's fruit and vegetables and I start to get interested - but only if there was some real food to go with it as well. See profile.
"Virtue-signalling" is an odd term to apply to the term "plant-based" since the whole point of it is to broaden the market to those who are NOT ethical vegans, and thus don't particularly associate with the term "vegan".
You can say it's unappealing as a phrase, and that's fine. But I think you've thrown the term "virtue-signalling" in as a buzzword without really thinking about it, since that's essentially the last thing it is.
Nah, it's virtue-signalling.
Plant-based diet is a thing, now, and it means: "look at me, I'm better than you and I care about the planet."
It also implies a culture war on meat, which is why it will invoke resistance.
That sounds more like the extreme ends of veganism. Plant-based foods are for people who want to eat meat without eating meat, hence plant-based burgers and various nut-based milks. Fwiw, at my old works canteen, the plant-based sausage rolls outsold the sausage-based sausage rolls. Try it, you might like it.
People who try it rapidly decide they don't like it, and rightly so:
Incidentally, it's not like I haven't experimented to see what all the fuss is about. I once tried a recipe with tofu (and almost vomited) and a "cauliflower steak", which was a fancy name for a shit meal with a grilled slice of cauliflower.
I got so hungry I couldn't sleep and woke up at 2am to have a massive bowl of cornflakes.
No-one wants that shit.
Alternatively you're just not a very good cook. Vegan food is admittedly harder to make tasty than is vegetarian, and for me considerably more effort than it's worth, but it's perfectly possible to eat well and healthily.
Come on all vegan food is disgusting, who can stomach roast potatoes, for exampe? And beans on toast is a plot by the wokerati too
Interesting marrying that poll finding with the clip from this week's Question Time where not a single soul puts their hand up to say they believe Boris.
The most likely explanation is that in public, no-one wants to admit they believe Boris. If that's the case there may be some "hidden Tories" in the general opinion polls -- I'm old enough to remember GE92. Might Labour's current lead be overstated?
An alternative explanation is that the Question Time audience is stuffed full of lefty-sympathisers. The BBC would never do that though!!
It had crossed my mind. I never watch Question Time for that very reason. It never offers balance so what is the point of it.
Did your miss the bit in the clip where Fiona Bruce says there were more Conservative voters in the audience than any other party? Or did you not watch it and just have a prior assumption that was how it was? Or are you going is long enough that everyone will have forgotten that was the case?
But aren't the instruments of undemocratic power all run by the liberal elite blob? I thought all PBers knew that.
As an aside, I'm not a fan of these adverts for 'plant-based' things.
If they're vegetarian or vegan then being more specific, albeit with a less trendy new slogan, is more useful.
In practice it means Vegan, but using the marketing of "plant based" expands the market to people who are more flexitarian, eating these products alongside dairy, fish, and even meat, as a way of broadening a diet, and making it more healthy. That's capitalism for you.
"Plant-based" is a massive turnoff for me - the phrase alone pisses me off.
A lot of virtue-signalling pretentious wank. On another level, you could also read it as being - often correctly - as entirely synthesised crap from palm oil and plant 'matter'.
Would I respond differently if put another way?
Yes. Describe organic/ home-grown / local farmer's fruit and vegetables and I start to get interested - but only if there was some real food to go with it as well. See profile.
"Virtue-signalling" is an odd term to apply to the term "plant-based" since the whole point of it is to broaden the market to those who are NOT ethical vegans, and thus don't particularly associate with the term "vegan".
You can say it's unappealing as a phrase, and that's fine. But I think you've thrown the term "virtue-signalling" in as a buzzword without really thinking about it, since that's essentially the last thing it is.
Nah, it's virtue-signalling.
Plant-based diet is a thing, now, and it means: "look at me, I'm better than you and I care about the planet."
It also implies a culture war on meat, which is why it will invoke resistance.
That sounds more like the extreme ends of veganism. Plant-based foods are for people who want to eat meat without eating meat, hence plant-based burgers and various nut-based milks. Fwiw, at my old works canteen, the plant-based sausage rolls outsold the sausage-based sausage rolls. Try it, you might like it.
People who try it rapidly decide they don't like it, and rightly so:
Incidentally, it's not like I haven't experimented to see what all the fuss is about. I once tried a recipe with tofu (and almost vomited) and a "cauliflower steak", which was a fancy name for a shit meal with a grilled slice of cauliflower.
I got so hungry I couldn't sleep and woke up at 2am to have a massive bowl of cornflakes.
No-one wants that shit.
Alternatively you're just not a very good cook. Vegan food is admittedly harder to make tasty than is vegetarian, and for me considerably more effort than it's worth, but it's perfectly possible to eat well and healthily.
Tories condemning Boris from a synthetic moral high ground now enthusiastically put him in office not that long ago. A Faustian pact they are trying desperately to forget. Sunak was quite happy or ‘fine’ to party alongside him.
Because the alternative was your Corbyn.
Boris or Corbyn.
If it had been Starmer - or Burnham at a push - there may have been a transition from May that never involved Johnson.
(Although Starmer's anti-democratic weaselyness over the Brexit second referendum would have kept him out of power. As it might yet.)
Yawn. You put the oaf in. You loved it.
Yep, I loved that he got an 80 seat majority over Labour.
And when he served his purpose and didn't do it for us any more, we discarded him. How very fitting that Boris's modus operandi should be played back against him...
But he only got that 80 seat majority because of 1. who he replaced and 2. who he was up against. Thanks Labour!
So Tories cannot claim any moral high ground now. Boris and the Tories entered a mutual Faustian pact. They’d sell their own grandmother for a few seats. Both come up smelling of manure.
You seem utterly incapable of accepting that your party offering the country Corbyn made Boris with a large majority inevitable.
Own it.
Nah. I voted against Corbyn twice in leadership elections, I consistently spoke up for ‘centrist’ views in the Labour party. It’s a million miles away from your loving embrace of Boris.
Nah. He's not my bin-bag of custard.
He did the job of stopping Corbyn getting near the levers of power. When he wasn't stepping up to the job of being PM, I was one of the first Tories on here to say he had to go. By February last year, I was very vocally anti-Boris. Check.
Hunt was very worthy, but God was he dull. I went to listen to him before voting. The Tory Alistair Darling, solid, but no figurehead. There was a material risk that he could have lost to Corbyn. Not a risk to be taken.
As an aside, I'm not a fan of these adverts for 'plant-based' things.
If they're vegetarian or vegan then being more specific, albeit with a less trendy new slogan, is more useful.
In practice it means Vegan, but using the marketing of "plant based" expands the market to people who are more flexitarian, eating these products alongside dairy, fish, and even meat, as a way of broadening a diet, and making it more healthy. That's capitalism for you.
"Plant-based" is a massive turnoff for me - the phrase alone pisses me off.
A lot of virtue-signalling pretentious wank. On another level, you could also read it as being - often correctly - as entirely synthesised crap from palm oil and plant 'matter'.
Would I respond differently if put another way?
Yes. Describe organic/ home-grown / local farmer's fruit and vegetables and I start to get interested - but only if there was some real food to go with it as well. See profile.
"Virtue-signalling" is an odd term to apply to the term "plant-based" since the whole point of it is to broaden the market to those who are NOT ethical vegans, and thus don't particularly associate with the term "vegan".
You can say it's unappealing as a phrase, and that's fine. But I think you've thrown the term "virtue-signalling" in as a buzzword without really thinking about it, since that's essentially the last thing it is.
Nah, it's virtue-signalling.
Plant-based diet is a thing, now, and it means: "look at me, I'm better than you and I care about the planet."
It also implies a culture war on meat, which is why it will invoke resistance.
You care far too much what other people do. If someone doesn’t want to eat meat that’s completely fine. The content of my bolognaise is none of your business.
I totally agree. But when they try and make my business their business their business becomes my business, if that's not too esoteric.
They want to stop people eating meat. Period.
They are a threat.
Not if you’re a farm animal.
Paradoxically, they are, because if everyone went vegan there would be no farm animals.
There would be no animals on farms. If you take a Bengal Tiger out of Bengal and put it in Thurrock it doesn’t stop being Bengal Tiger. Similarly if you take farm animals out of farms they’re still farm animals. Just at less likelihood of being eaten.
The argument that we would lose specific breeds of, say, pigs is correct but actually a good thing for pigs overall.
How many pigs and cows do you think there are in the wild?
A few wild boar (who are a menace) and, er...
There should be far more. A homeland for pigs has already been established and, frankly, I’d love to live there…
Whether there 'should be' or not, there would not be.
And in any case, to make a pedantic point, even in the unlikely event that there were pigs or cattle in large numbers, if they were not on a farm by definition they wouldn't be farm animals...
Of course they would be. To take my earlier analogy, you propose that a Bengal Tiger in Thurrock is no longer a Bengal Tiger? It’s a “Thurrock Tiger”, an “Estuary Tiger”, an “Essex Tiger”? Maybe they’d be called “ex farm animals” or “farm survivors” but they’d still be distinguished by their former relationship to farms.
A Bengal Tiger is a subspecies. A farm animal is a category.
You're a lawyer. If somebody said a lambing shed converted into a house to be used as a second home by rich Londoners (sorry Mr Clarkson) was still a farm building would you agree with them?
Here’s a picture of me and my ex farm animal companion checking into what was a hotel but, given he is staying there with me, is a farm building for at least one night.
As an aside, I'm not a fan of these adverts for 'plant-based' things.
If they're vegetarian or vegan then being more specific, albeit with a less trendy new slogan, is more useful.
In practice it means Vegan, but using the marketing of "plant based" expands the market to people who are more flexitarian, eating these products alongside dairy, fish, and even meat, as a way of broadening a diet, and making it more healthy. That's capitalism for you.
"Plant-based" is a massive turnoff for me - the phrase alone pisses me off.
A lot of virtue-signalling pretentious wank. On another level, you could also read it as being - often correctly - as entirely synthesised crap from palm oil and plant 'matter'.
Would I respond differently if put another way?
Yes. Describe organic/ home-grown / local farmer's fruit and vegetables and I start to get interested - but only if there was some real food to go with it as well. See profile.
"Virtue-signalling" is an odd term to apply to the term "plant-based" since the whole point of it is to broaden the market to those who are NOT ethical vegans, and thus don't particularly associate with the term "vegan".
You can say it's unappealing as a phrase, and that's fine. But I think you've thrown the term "virtue-signalling" in as a buzzword without really thinking about it, since that's essentially the last thing it is.
Nah, it's virtue-signalling.
Plant-based diet is a thing, now, and it means: "look at me, I'm better than you and I care about the planet."
It also implies a culture war on meat, which is why it will invoke resistance.
You care far too much what other people do. If someone doesn’t want to eat meat that’s completely fine. The content of my bolognaise is none of your business.
I totally agree. But when they try and make my business their business their business becomes my business, if that's not too esoteric.
They want to stop people eating meat. Period.
They are a threat.
Not if you’re a farm animal.
Paradoxically, they are, because if everyone went vegan there would be no farm animals.
There would be no animals on farms. If you take a Bengal Tiger out of Bengal and put it in Thurrock it doesn’t stop being Bengal Tiger. Similarly if you take farm animals out of farms they’re still farm animals. Just at less likelihood of being eaten.
The argument that we would lose specific breeds of, say, pigs is correct but actually a good thing for pigs overall.
How many pigs and cows do you think there are in the wild?
A few wild boar (who are a menace) and, er...
There should be far more. A homeland for pigs has already been established and, frankly, I’d love to live there…
We had wild pigs in the woods behind our house in Germany in the early 70s. They largely kept out of your road but when they didn't great care was needed. They were dangerous. In winter they would demolish our garden fence so they could clear the snow off our grass and eat it. We very much left them alone. A hungry pig is not to be messed with.
I did read a headline, last year, I think, that polytheism in Greece was on the rise (albeit without animal sacrifice).
The Olympian bunch? Now there’s a bunch of Gods after @Dura_Ace heart….
Get to fuck. No gods. No masters. Just 100% plant based veganism.
Isn't that slogan a bit sexist? It only mentions men.
It's a translation of a quote from from Rousseau's "Émile, ou De l’éducation" so until L'Académie française tells us differently the grammatical doctrine of la domination du masculin applies.
Liz Truss has requested peerages for some of her closest Tory supporters despite her government lasting only seven weeks after a disastrous budget.
The former prime minister is understood to have submitted a list of peerages, while No 10 is also still considering whether to grant a long list of honours requested by Boris Johnson as well.
I don't see why not. If the convention is that former prime ministers dish out gongs, then, well, Liz Truss was actually prime minister so should have her turn.
Maybe the number of awards you get to give out should be proportional to your time in office?
As an aside, I'm not a fan of these adverts for 'plant-based' things.
If they're vegetarian or vegan then being more specific, albeit with a less trendy new slogan, is more useful.
In practice it means Vegan, but using the marketing of "plant based" expands the market to people who are more flexitarian, eating these products alongside dairy, fish, and even meat, as a way of broadening a diet, and making it more healthy. That's capitalism for you.
"Plant-based" is a massive turnoff for me - the phrase alone pisses me off.
A lot of virtue-signalling pretentious wank. On another level, you could also read it as being - often correctly - as entirely synthesised crap from palm oil and plant 'matter'.
Would I respond differently if put another way?
Yes. Describe organic/ home-grown / local farmer's fruit and vegetables and I start to get interested - but only if there was some real food to go with it as well. See profile.
"Virtue-signalling" is an odd term to apply to the term "plant-based" since the whole point of it is to broaden the market to those who are NOT ethical vegans, and thus don't particularly associate with the term "vegan".
You can say it's unappealing as a phrase, and that's fine. But I think you've thrown the term "virtue-signalling" in as a buzzword without really thinking about it, since that's essentially the last thing it is.
Nah, it's virtue-signalling.
Plant-based diet is a thing, now, and it means: "look at me, I'm better than you and I care about the planet."
It also implies a culture war on meat, which is why it will invoke resistance.
You care far too much what other people do. If someone doesn’t want to eat meat that’s completely fine. The content of my bolognaise is none of your business.
I totally agree. But when they try and make my business their business their business becomes my business, if that's not too esoteric.
They want to stop people eating meat. Period.
They are a threat.
Not if you’re a farm animal.
Paradoxically, they are, because if everyone went vegan there would be no farm animals.
There would be no animals on farms. If you take a Bengal Tiger out of Bengal and put it in Thurrock it doesn’t stop being Bengal Tiger. Similarly if you take farm animals out of farms they’re still farm animals. Just at less likelihood of being eaten.
The argument that we would lose specific breeds of, say, pigs is correct but actually a good thing for pigs overall.
How many pigs and cows do you think there are in the wild?
A few wild boar (who are a menace) and, er...
There should be far more. A homeland for pigs has already been established and, frankly, I’d love to live there…
We had wild pigs in the woods behind our house in Germany in the early 70s. They largely kept out of your road but when they didn't great care was needed. They were dangerous. In winter they would demolish our garden fence so they could clear the snow off our grass and eat it. We very much left them alone. A hungry pig is not to be messed with.
Indeed no. Given half a chance they'll first demolish your garden and then incite people to invade the Capitol and steal an election.
FPT - religion is far more common than people think. We all have things we believe in; it's just we are now entering an age of polytheism rather than a commitment to organised religion.
"Diversity", Veganism, Mediation and Gaianism all show aspects of religious fervour. And, like all religions, they have their doctrines, their sinners, punishments for heretics who don't follow doctrine and rewards of virtue and acceptance for those who piously do.
The word "aspects" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.
Why do I get the feeling that it's a list of things Casino doesn't approve of? Why not add 'belief in markets' 'being British' 'being a cricket fan' 'dislike of the EU' for balance?
On the difference between the census and the BSA on numbers with no religion in the UK:
Firstly the Census question is voluntary, and answered by 94% of people, so not answered by everyone as HYUFD seems to think.
Secondly the ask different questions. Census: What is your religion? BSA: Do you regard yourself as belonging to any particular religion? IF YES: Which?
Both are probably capturing affiliation more than belief, but the BSA question forces people to actively think if they belong or not.
I see we're on to ad hominum this morning. Probably because this is making you have to think too hard.
It's not just me saying this. There are articles relating to it by philosophers and theologians who've been making this point recently.
You can look them up yourself.
Are you saying you approve of the things in your list?
No, and I don't approve much of many organised religions either - I even have my criticisms of the Church of England.
Your point, such as it is, is purely to try and find a reason to dismiss my argument out of hand so you don't have to think about it too much.
You should. Because it's an important to contemplate to understand the future direction of society.
Of course any strongly held beliefs show aspects of religious fervour. Hardly a brilliant insight.
But you seem to have just shoehorned in a list of things that you irrationally hate.
'hatred of veganism' seems to be a far commoner religion than veganism itself, sadly.
Veganism is definitely a religion. It's purist, dogmatic, and essentially irrational, and like the abstinence movements (also grounded in religion) that were so common at the start of the 20th century.
I have no problem with vegetarians as they pose no threat to me. Vegans are a threat as they are campaigners and, ultimately, want to stop meat entirely - so they will have my resistance.
Vegans on Oxford City Council have voted to ban meat from all Council events
I did read a headline, last year, I think, that polytheism in Greece was on the rise (albeit without animal sacrifice).
The Olympian bunch? Now there’s a bunch of Gods after @Dura_Ace heart….
Get to fuck. No gods. No masters. Just 100% plant based veganism.
Isn't that slogan a bit sexist? It only mentions men.
It's a translation of a quote from from Rousseau's "Émile, ou De l’éducation" so until L'Académie française tells us differently the grammatical doctrine of la domination du masculin applies.
Mr. kamski, bacon sandwiches are great. And we're designed to eat it too, thanks to our incisor and canine teeth, specifically evolved for tearing meat.
I don't mind what others eat, provided they don't try and alter my diet. Roast parsnips and carrots are excellent. Especially alongside pork or beef.
We’re designed to eat insects. Our stomachs produce an enzyme to digest insect exoskeletons.
There wasn’t a single scene that I didn’t love or fangirled over.
This season of Picard isn’t just one of the greatest seasons of sci-fi it is one of the greatest seasons of TV.
Have to give it a go. I gave up out of boredom a while back.
You’ll have to watch season 1 because it has an important plot point for season 3.
That's fine; I watched season 1. I'll give it a go.
Been watching more K-drama to improve my Korean. The historical drama Mr Sunshine is pretty epic (apart from a somewhat klunky first episode featuring a very silly Theodore Roosevelt). Highly recommended.
As an aside, I'm not a fan of these adverts for 'plant-based' things.
If they're vegetarian or vegan then being more specific, albeit with a less trendy new slogan, is more useful.
In practice it means Vegan, but using the marketing of "plant based" expands the market to people who are more flexitarian, eating these products alongside dairy, fish, and even meat, as a way of broadening a diet, and making it more healthy. That's capitalism for you.
"Plant-based" is a massive turnoff for me - the phrase alone pisses me off.
A lot of virtue-signalling pretentious wank. On another level, you could also read it as being - often correctly - as entirely synthesised crap from palm oil and plant 'matter'.
Would I respond differently if put another way?
Yes. Describe organic/ home-grown / local farmer's fruit and vegetables and I start to get interested - but only if there was some real food to go with it as well. See profile.
"Virtue-signalling" is an odd term to apply to the term "plant-based" since the whole point of it is to broaden the market to those who are NOT ethical vegans, and thus don't particularly associate with the term "vegan".
You can say it's unappealing as a phrase, and that's fine. But I think you've thrown the term "virtue-signalling" in as a buzzword without really thinking about it, since that's essentially the last thing it is.
Nah, it's virtue-signalling.
Plant-based diet is a thing, now, and it means: "look at me, I'm better than you and I care about the planet."
It also implies a culture war on meat, which is why it will invoke resistance.
You care far too much what other people do. If someone doesn’t want to eat meat that’s completely fine. The content of my bolognaise is none of your business.
I totally agree. But when they try and make my business their business their business becomes my business, if that's not too esoteric.
They want to stop people eating meat. Period.
They are a threat.
Not if you’re a farm animal.
Paradoxically, they are, because if everyone went vegan there would be no farm animals.
There would be no animals on farms. If you take a Bengal Tiger out of Bengal and put it in Thurrock it doesn’t stop being Bengal Tiger. Similarly if you take farm animals out of farms they’re still farm animals. Just at less likelihood of being eaten.
The argument that we would lose specific breeds of, say, pigs is correct but actually a good thing for pigs overall.
How many pigs and cows do you think there are in the wild?
A few wild boar (who are a menace) and, er...
There should be far more. A homeland for pigs has already been established and, frankly, I’d love to live there…
We had wild pigs in the woods behind our house in Germany in the early 70s. They largely kept out of your road but when they didn't great care was needed. They were dangerous. In winter they would demolish our garden fence so they could clear the snow off our grass and eat it. We very much left them alone. A hungry pig is not to be messed with.
Indeed no. Given half a chance they'll first demolish your garden and then incite people to invade the Capitol and steal an election.
As an aside, I'm not a fan of these adverts for 'plant-based' things.
If they're vegetarian or vegan then being more specific, albeit with a less trendy new slogan, is more useful.
In practice it means Vegan, but using the marketing of "plant based" expands the market to people who are more flexitarian, eating these products alongside dairy, fish, and even meat, as a way of broadening a diet, and making it more healthy. That's capitalism for you.
"Plant-based" is a massive turnoff for me - the phrase alone pisses me off.
A lot of virtue-signalling pretentious wank. On another level, you could also read it as being - often correctly - as entirely synthesised crap from palm oil and plant 'matter'.
Would I respond differently if put another way?
Yes. Describe organic/ home-grown / local farmer's fruit and vegetables and I start to get interested - but only if there was some real food to go with it as well. See profile.
"Virtue-signalling" is an odd term to apply to the term "plant-based" since the whole point of it is to broaden the market to those who are NOT ethical vegans, and thus don't particularly associate with the term "vegan".
You can say it's unappealing as a phrase, and that's fine. But I think you've thrown the term "virtue-signalling" in as a buzzword without really thinking about it, since that's essentially the last thing it is.
Nah, it's virtue-signalling.
Plant-based diet is a thing, now, and it means: "look at me, I'm better than you and I care about the planet."
It also implies a culture war on meat, which is why it will invoke resistance.
You care far too much what other people do. If someone doesn’t want to eat meat that’s completely fine. The content of my bolognaise is none of your business.
I totally agree. But when they try and make my business their business their business becomes my business, if that's not too esoteric.
They want to stop people eating meat. Period.
They are a threat.
Not if you’re a farm animal.
Paradoxically, they are, because if everyone went vegan there would be no farm animals.
There would be no animals on farms. If you take a Bengal Tiger out of Bengal and put it in Thurrock it doesn’t stop being Bengal Tiger. Similarly if you take farm animals out of farms they’re still farm animals. Just at less likelihood of being eaten.
The argument that we would lose specific breeds of, say, pigs is correct but actually a good thing for pigs overall.
How many pigs and cows do you think there are in the wild?
A few wild boar (who are a menace) and, er...
There should be far more. A homeland for pigs has already been established and, frankly, I’d love to live there…
We had wild pigs in the woods behind our house in Germany in the early 70s. They largely kept out of your road but when they didn't great care was needed. They were dangerous. In winter they would demolish our garden fence so they could clear the snow off our grass and eat it. We very much left them alone. A hungry pig is not to be messed with.
Indeed no. Given half a chance they'll first demolish your garden and then incite people to invade the Capitol and steal an election.
Mr. Gezou, and yet meat makes more sense. Because we're also made of meat and can get much of the good stuff we need to be healthy meat from that, unlike from other sources.
Mr. Gezou, and yet meat makes more sense. Because we're also made of meat and can get much of the good stuff we need to be healthy meat from that, unlike from other sources.
Are you suggesting that we should feed cattle on meat for the same reason?
Mr. kamski, bacon sandwiches are great. And we're designed to eat it too, thanks to our incisor and canine teeth, specifically evolved for tearing meat.
I don't mind what others eat, provided they don't try and alter my diet. Roast parsnips and carrots are excellent. Especially alongside pork or beef.
Leaving aside the life of squalid mistreatment for the pig who got chopped up to make it, bacon is practically poison as it is chock full of nitrates and nitrites which are cancer fuel.
Dr. Foxy, I feel the need to point out, to the doctor, that cattle and humans are different species. One is evolved to be omnivorous, with a diet including meat and vegetables and so forth.
As an aside, I'm not a fan of these adverts for 'plant-based' things.
If they're vegetarian or vegan then being more specific, albeit with a less trendy new slogan, is more useful.
In practice it means Vegan, but using the marketing of "plant based" expands the market to people who are more flexitarian, eating these products alongside dairy, fish, and even meat, as a way of broadening a diet, and making it more healthy. That's capitalism for you.
"Plant-based" is a massive turnoff for me - the phrase alone pisses me off.
A lot of virtue-signalling pretentious wank. On another level, you could also read it as being - often correctly - as entirely synthesised crap from palm oil and plant 'matter'.
Would I respond differently if put another way?
Yes. Describe organic/ home-grown / local farmer's fruit and vegetables and I start to get interested - but only if there was some real food to go with it as well. See profile.
"Virtue-signalling" is an odd term to apply to the term "plant-based" since the whole point of it is to broaden the market to those who are NOT ethical vegans, and thus don't particularly associate with the term "vegan".
You can say it's unappealing as a phrase, and that's fine. But I think you've thrown the term "virtue-signalling" in as a buzzword without really thinking about it, since that's essentially the last thing it is.
Nah, it's virtue-signalling.
Plant-based diet is a thing, now, and it means: "look at me, I'm better than you and I care about the planet."
It also implies a culture war on meat, which is why it will invoke resistance.
You care far too much what other people do. If someone doesn’t want to eat meat that’s completely fine. The content of my bolognaise is none of your business.
I totally agree. But when they try and make my business their business their business becomes my business, if that's not too esoteric.
They want to stop people eating meat. Period.
They are a threat.
Not if you’re a farm animal.
Paradoxically, they are, because if everyone went vegan there would be no farm animals.
There would be no animals on farms. If you take a Bengal Tiger out of Bengal and put it in Thurrock it doesn’t stop being Bengal Tiger. Similarly if you take farm animals out of farms they’re still farm animals. Just at less likelihood of being eaten.
The argument that we would lose specific breeds of, say, pigs is correct but actually a good thing for pigs overall.
How many pigs and cows do you think there are in the wild?
A few wild boar (who are a menace) and, er...
There should be far more. A homeland for pigs has already been established and, frankly, I’d love to live there…
Whether there 'should be' or not, there would not be.
And in any case, to make a pedantic point, even in the unlikely event that there were pigs or cattle in large numbers, if they were not on a farm by definition they wouldn't be farm animals...
Of course they would be. To take my earlier analogy, you propose that a Bengal Tiger in Thurrock is no longer a Bengal Tiger? It’s a “Thurrock Tiger”, an “Estuary Tiger”, an “Essex Tiger”? Maybe they’d be called “ex farm animals” or “farm survivors” but they’d still be distinguished by their former relationship to farms.
Wouldn’t it depend on how well they integrated into the local community? English proficiency? Learnt the minor Kings of England for the test?
At what point would they become assimilated tigers? Would their offspring feel alienated by not having been brought up a Bengal Tigers, die to racism from the local Tigers, and revert to a hardcore version of being a Bengali Tiger?
Tories condemning Boris from a synthetic moral high ground now enthusiastically put him in office not that long ago. A Faustian pact they are trying desperately to forget. Sunak was quite happy or ‘fine’ to party alongside him.
Because the alternative was your Corbyn.
Boris or Corbyn.
If it had been Starmer - or Burnham at a push - there may have been a transition from May that never involved Johnson.
(Although Starmer's anti-democratic weaselyness over the Brexit second referendum would have kept him out of power. As it might yet.)
Yawn. You put the oaf in. You loved it.
Yep, I loved that he got an 80 seat majority over Labour.
And when he served his purpose and didn't do it for us any more, we discarded him. How very fitting that Boris's modus operandi should be played back against him...
But he only got that 80 seat majority because of 1. who he replaced and 2. who he was up against. Thanks Labour!
So Tories cannot claim any moral high ground now. Boris and the Tories entered a mutual Faustian pact. They’d sell their own grandmother for a few seats. Both come up smelling of manure.
You seem utterly incapable of accepting that your party offering the country Corbyn made Boris with a large majority inevitable.
Own it.
Nah. I voted against Corbyn twice in leadership elections, I consistently spoke up for ‘centrist’ views in the Labour party. It’s a million miles away from your loving embrace of Boris.
Nah. He's not my bin-bag of custard.
He did the job of stopping Corbyn getting near the levers of power. When he wasn't stepping up to the job of being PM, I was one of the first Tories on here to say he had to go. By February last year, I was very vocally anti-Boris. Check.
Hunt was very worthy, but God was he dull. I went to listen to him before voting. The Tory Alistair Darling, solid, but no figurehead. There was a material risk that he could have lost to Corbyn. Not a risk to be taken.
Mr. Gezou, and yet meat makes more sense. Because we're also made of meat and can get much of the good stuff we need to be healthy meat from that, unlike from other sources.
We're evolved to be omnivores. What makes sense is eating what suits you personally.
Both Casino and Dura are strange militants on food.
As an aside, I'm not a fan of these adverts for 'plant-based' things.
If they're vegetarian or vegan then being more specific, albeit with a less trendy new slogan, is more useful.
In practice it means Vegan, but using the marketing of "plant based" expands the market to people who are more flexitarian, eating these products alongside dairy, fish, and even meat, as a way of broadening a diet, and making it more healthy. That's capitalism for you.
"Plant-based" is a massive turnoff for me - the phrase alone pisses me off.
A lot of virtue-signalling pretentious wank. On another level, you could also read it as being - often correctly - as entirely synthesised crap from palm oil and plant 'matter'.
Would I respond differently if put another way?
Yes. Describe organic/ home-grown / local farmer's fruit and vegetables and I start to get interested - but only if there was some real food to go with it as well. See profile.
"Virtue-signalling" is an odd term to apply to the term "plant-based" since the whole point of it is to broaden the market to those who are NOT ethical vegans, and thus don't particularly associate with the term "vegan".
You can say it's unappealing as a phrase, and that's fine. But I think you've thrown the term "virtue-signalling" in as a buzzword without really thinking about it, since that's essentially the last thing it is.
Nah, it's virtue-signalling.
Plant-based diet is a thing, now, and it means: "look at me, I'm better than you and I care about the planet."
It also implies a culture war on meat, which is why it will invoke resistance.
You care far too much what other people do. If someone doesn’t want to eat meat that’s completely fine. The content of my bolognaise is none of your business.
I totally agree. But when they try and make my business their business their business becomes my business, if that's not too esoteric.
They want to stop people eating meat. Period.
They are a threat.
Not if you’re a farm animal.
Paradoxically, they are, because if everyone went vegan there would be no farm animals.
There would be no animals on farms. If you take a Bengal Tiger out of Bengal and put it in Thurrock it doesn’t stop being Bengal Tiger. Similarly if you take farm animals out of farms they’re still farm animals. Just at less likelihood of being eaten.
The argument that we would lose specific breeds of, say, pigs is correct but actually a good thing for pigs overall.
How many pigs and cows do you think there are in the wild?
A few wild boar (who are a menace) and, er...
There should be far more. A homeland for pigs has already been established and, frankly, I’d love to live there…
We had wild pigs in the woods behind our house in Germany in the early 70s. They largely kept out of your road but when they didn't great care was needed. They were dangerous. In winter they would demolish our garden fence so they could clear the snow off our grass and eat it. We very much left them alone. A hungry pig is not to be messed with.
Indeed no. Given half a chance they'll first demolish your garden and then incite people to invade the Capitol and steal an election.
Are you sure that not bores rather than boars?
Many years back, some wild boar escaped from a farm in Wiltshire.
The police went out to shoot them - to be told that most of their stuff would just annoy wild boar.
So they tried to borrow big bore hunting rifles from a local gun dealer.
This was after the Moat thing - when a gun dealer *who gave a firearm to the police* was prosecuted.
The Wiltshire dealer told them no, quoted the case, and wished them luck.
IIRC the police had to hire a chap who had the right kind of cannon to do the job.
I’ve never eaten a bacon sandwich or any bacon, that is further proof that I am a good Muslim.
Indeed you are.
Cured pork products are the unfiltered Woodbines of the modern age. We know they will give us cancer, but we consume them regardless. I have never smoked, but smoked bacon? That's a different story.
Dr. Foxy, I feel the need to point out, to the doctor, that cattle and humans are different species. One is evolved to be omnivorous, with a diet including meat and vegetables and so forth.
Just because we evolved as omnivores doesn't mean that we need to eat anything and everything.
As I have pointed out, hundreds of millions of Hindus, and a fairly large number of Bhuddists and Jains have lived for centuries without meat. Are you saying they are not healthy?
Mr. kamski, bacon sandwiches are great. And we're designed to eat it too, thanks to our incisor and canine teeth, specifically evolved for tearing meat.
I don't mind what others eat, provided they don't try and alter my diet. Roast parsnips and carrots are excellent. Especially alongside pork or beef.
Leaving aside the life of squalid mistreatment for the pig who got chopped up to make it, bacon is practically poison as it is chock full of nitrates and nitrites which are cancer fuel.
Sad, but absolutely true of most (not quite all) bacon.
As an aside, I'm not a fan of these adverts for 'plant-based' things.
If they're vegetarian or vegan then being more specific, albeit with a less trendy new slogan, is more useful.
In practice it means Vegan, but using the marketing of "plant based" expands the market to people who are more flexitarian, eating these products alongside dairy, fish, and even meat, as a way of broadening a diet, and making it more healthy. That's capitalism for you.
"Plant-based" is a massive turnoff for me - the phrase alone pisses me off.
A lot of virtue-signalling pretentious wank. On another level, you could also read it as being - often correctly - as entirely synthesised crap from palm oil and plant 'matter'.
Would I respond differently if put another way?
Yes. Describe organic/ home-grown / local farmer's fruit and vegetables and I start to get interested - but only if there was some real food to go with it as well. See profile.
"Virtue-signalling" is an odd term to apply to the term "plant-based" since the whole point of it is to broaden the market to those who are NOT ethical vegans, and thus don't particularly associate with the term "vegan".
You can say it's unappealing as a phrase, and that's fine. But I think you've thrown the term "virtue-signalling" in as a buzzword without really thinking about it, since that's essentially the last thing it is.
Nah, it's virtue-signalling.
Plant-based diet is a thing, now, and it means: "look at me, I'm better than you and I care about the planet."
It also implies a culture war on meat, which is why it will invoke resistance.
You care far too much what other people do. If someone doesn’t want to eat meat that’s completely fine. The content of my bolognaise is none of your business.
I totally agree. But when they try and make my business their business their business becomes my business, if that's not too esoteric.
They want to stop people eating meat. Period.
They are a threat.
Not if you’re a farm animal.
Paradoxically, they are, because if everyone went vegan there would be no farm animals.
There would be no animals on farms. If you take a Bengal Tiger out of Bengal and put it in Thurrock it doesn’t stop being Bengal Tiger. Similarly if you take farm animals out of farms they’re still farm animals. Just at less likelihood of being eaten.
The argument that we would lose specific breeds of, say, pigs is correct but actually a good thing for pigs overall.
How many pigs and cows do you think there are in the wild?
A few wild boar (who are a menace) and, er...
There should be far more. A homeland for pigs has already been established and, frankly, I’d love to live there…
We had wild pigs in the woods behind our house in Germany in the early 70s. They largely kept out of your road but when they didn't great care was needed. They were dangerous. In winter they would demolish our garden fence so they could clear the snow off our grass and eat it. We very much left them alone. A hungry pig is not to be messed with.
Indeed no. Given half a chance they'll first demolish your garden and then incite people to invade the Capitol and steal an election.
Are you sure that not bores rather than boars?
Many years back, some wild boar escaped from a farm in Wiltshire.
The police went out to shoot them - to be told that most of their stuff would just annoy wild boar.
So they tried to borrow big bore hunting rifles from a local gun dealer.
This was after the Moat thing - when a gun dealer *who gave a firearm to the police* was prosecuted.
The Wiltshire dealer told them no, quoted the case, and wished them luck.
IIRC the police had to hire a chap who had the right kind of cannon to do the job.
That's howitzer bad idea to release these fuckers.
They're rampant in the Forest of Dean now and they're a menace.
Mr. Royale, while they went down well, when I bought some 'organic chocolate' as a gift ages ago I did wonder what the alternative was. Chocolate with metallic chunks?
Health and meat is interesting. All the amino acids you need are in meat. Because we're made of meat too. Getting all the stuff you need from a vegetarian or even more restrictive vegan diet does involve homework. And we're specifically designed to eat meat (it's the natural diet, along with vegetables) hence having incisors and canines.
I think the truth is that multiple things can be true at the same time.
We need meat but we probably eat too much of the unhealthy sort, but we should still eat and enjoy it - and probably the offal too - and it should be grass-fed and sustainably grown, to the greatest extent possible. Fish stocks can be harvested (who really has a problem about fishing and then gutting one, and hasn't done it with their mates/Dad?) but again needs to be at sustainable levels.
The rest is that there's just too many people on the planet. That isn't going to change - you can't stop people - so we'll need to engineer solutions to the side effects of the energy consumption and production. Probably adding seaweed and additives into cow herds etc.
Meat production, and the agriculture required to keep it going is very environmentally destructive. The vast majority of soybeans are grown not to feed vegans, but rather the cattle on industrial scale feed lots. Cattle who don't see a blade of grass for months.
Sure, there are areas of land such as uplands not suited to other forms of agriculture, but that is not how most meat is produced. It is not the pastoral idyll that is promoted. Similarly the unsavoury side of fishing with discarded bycatch, sea-lice infested salmon farms and discarded fishing gear killing endangered cetaceans and turtles etc is not very appealing.
The large number of vegetarians in India shows that a meat free diet is entirely viable nutritionally without a great deal of individual research. There is a lot of plant based protein out there.
I eat meat, but it is pretty undeniable that it is doing environmental damage out of proportion to the calories and nutrients produced.
Sorry, this is simply not true.
Most meat in Britain is grass fed during the spring and summer and fed on silage (basically dried grass) and a bit of grain in the winter. It is often done on land that is not suitable for agriculture. This is even more the case for sheep who can graze all year round in uplands entirely unsuited for arable farming in almost any conditions. Fish surround our oceans. The reason we don't eat more of them is because we don't want to (the Spanish do) as we prefer burgers and pizzas. Pigs are fed pig nuts but can also do very well on grass, acorns, apples, and earth worms. That's just in Britain.
Crap-quality factory meat is bad for the environment because of the soybeans and cutting down of forested land to grow grain. So is growing tomatoes and cucumbers in greenhouses in winter heated by gas, or cutting down rainforests to create palm oil (in many vegan meals) that both adds CO2 to the atmosphere and kills millions of small animals.
It's perfectly possible to have a healthy amount of meat in your diet and do something carbon-positive for the environment: eat grass-fed, locally sourced cattle on pastures that fertilise the land as a carbon sink, allows a variety of roots to grow deep on the fringes and protects it from flooding. And use all the animal.
Mr. Gezou, and yet meat makes more sense. Because we're also made of meat and can get much of the good stuff we need to be healthy meat from that, unlike from other sources.
Are you suggesting that we should feed cattle on meat for the same reason?
I’ve never eaten a bacon sandwich or any bacon, that is further proof that I am a good Muslim.
Indeed you are.
Cured pork products are the unfiltered Woodbines of the modern age. We know they will give us cancer, but we consume them regardless. I have never smoked, but smoked bacon? That's a different story.
My besetting sin is smoked cheese.
It may be bad for my health and environmentally catastrophic but it is delicious.
Mr. kamski, bacon sandwiches are great. And we're designed to eat it too, thanks to our incisor and canine teeth, specifically evolved for tearing meat.
I don't mind what others eat, provided they don't try and alter my diet. Roast parsnips and carrots are excellent. Especially alongside pork or beef.
We’re designed to eat insects. Our stomachs produce an enzyme to digest insect exoskeletons.
As an aside, I'm not a fan of these adverts for 'plant-based' things.
If they're vegetarian or vegan then being more specific, albeit with a less trendy new slogan, is more useful.
In practice it means Vegan, but using the marketing of "plant based" expands the market to people who are more flexitarian, eating these products alongside dairy, fish, and even meat, as a way of broadening a diet, and making it more healthy. That's capitalism for you.
"Plant-based" is a massive turnoff for me - the phrase alone pisses me off.
A lot of virtue-signalling pretentious wank. On another level, you could also read it as being - often correctly - as entirely synthesised crap from palm oil and plant 'matter'.
Would I respond differently if put another way?
Yes. Describe organic/ home-grown / local farmer's fruit and vegetables and I start to get interested - but only if there was some real food to go with it as well. See profile.
"Virtue-signalling" is an odd term to apply to the term "plant-based" since the whole point of it is to broaden the market to those who are NOT ethical vegans, and thus don't particularly associate with the term "vegan".
You can say it's unappealing as a phrase, and that's fine. But I think you've thrown the term "virtue-signalling" in as a buzzword without really thinking about it, since that's essentially the last thing it is.
Nah, it's virtue-signalling.
Plant-based diet is a thing, now, and it means: "look at me, I'm better than you and I care about the planet."
It also implies a culture war on meat, which is why it will invoke resistance.
That sounds more like the extreme ends of veganism. Plant-based foods are for people who want to eat meat without eating meat, hence plant-based burgers and various nut-based milks. Fwiw, at my old works canteen, the plant-based sausage rolls outsold the sausage-based sausage rolls. Try it, you might like it.
People who try it rapidly decide they don't like it, and rightly so:
Incidentally, it's not like I haven't experimented to see what all the fuss is about. I once tried a recipe with tofu (and almost vomited) and a "cauliflower steak", which was a fancy name for a shit meal with a grilled slice of cauliflower.
I got so hungry I couldn't sleep and woke up at 2am to have a massive bowl of cornflakes.
No-one wants that shit.
Alternatively you're just not a very good cook. Vegan food is admittedly harder to make tasty than is vegetarian, and for me considerably more effort than it's worth, but it's perfectly possible to eat well and healthily.
Come on all vegan food is disgusting, who can stomach roast potatoes, for exampe? And beans on toast is a plot by the wokerati too
Proper roast potatoes use animal fat for cooking and toast needs butter on it. Neither of these are vegan dishes when done properly.
Mr. kamski, bacon sandwiches are great. And we're designed to eat it too, thanks to our incisor and canine teeth, specifically evolved for tearing meat.
I don't mind what others eat, provided they don't try and alter my diet. Roast parsnips and carrots are excellent. Especially alongside pork or beef.
We’re designed to eat insects. Our stomachs produce an enzyme to digest insect exoskeletons.
After you mate.
You should try it. Insects are an excellent and very cheap, well, locust alternative to meat.
FPT - religion is far more common than people think. We all have things we believe in; it's just we are now entering an age of polytheism rather than a commitment to organised religion.
"Diversity", Veganism, Mediation and Gaianism all show aspects of religious fervour. And, like all religions, they have their doctrines, their sinners, punishments for heretics who don't follow doctrine and rewards of virtue and acceptance for those who piously do.
The word "aspects" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.
Why do I get the feeling that it's a list of things Casino doesn't approve of? Why not add 'belief in markets' 'being British' 'being a cricket fan' 'dislike of the EU' for balance?
On the difference between the census and the BSA on numbers with no religion in the UK:
Firstly the Census question is voluntary, and answered by 94% of people, so not answered by everyone as HYUFD seems to think.
Secondly the ask different questions. Census: What is your religion? BSA: Do you regard yourself as belonging to any particular religion? IF YES: Which?
Both are probably capturing affiliation more than belief, but the BSA question forces people to actively think if they belong or not.
I see we're on to ad hominum this morning. Probably because this is making you have to think too hard.
It's not just me saying this. There are articles relating to it by philosophers and theologians who've been making this point recently.
You can look them up yourself.
Are you saying you approve of the things in your list?
No, and I don't approve much of many organised religions either - I even have my criticisms of the Church of England.
Your point, such as it is, is purely to try and find a reason to dismiss my argument out of hand so you don't have to think about it too much.
You should. Because it's an important to contemplate to understand the future direction of society.
Of course any strongly held beliefs show aspects of religious fervour. Hardly a brilliant insight.
But you seem to have just shoehorned in a list of things that you irrationally hate.
'hatred of veganism' seems to be a far commoner religion than veganism itself, sadly.
Veganism is definitely a religion. It's purist, dogmatic, and essentially irrational, and like the abstinence movements (also grounded in religion) that were so common at the start of the 20th century.
I have no problem with vegetarians as they pose no threat to me. Vegans are a threat as they are campaigners and, ultimately, want to stop meat entirely - so they will have my resistance.
Vegans on Oxford City Council have voted to ban meat from all Council events
I keep being told to live and let live, and that it's me with the problem - not them, and yet time and time again they try and inflict their lifestyle choices on others. They'd clearly try and do it to everyone if they could.
It's their mission.
This is the sort of stuff we can expect from Labour when they take office. Telling others what to do is in their nature.
Dr. Foxy, Google suggests most Hindus are not vegetarian.
Buddhism is the only religion I ever seriously considered. I was surprised to learn when looking into it that it is not necessary to be vegetarian (but meat should not be consumed if the animal was specifically killed for your individual consumption).
It is far easier to be healthy eating meat than not, because you can get all the amino acids you need in one place without doing homework to check you're not accidentally becoming deficient in certain areas. It's also the case that omnivores do not try and restrict what vegetarians/vegans eat, whereas the opposite is not true, as shown on this thread by multiple activist 'green' councils restricting food in line with their own views.
Mr. Royale, while they went down well, when I bought some 'organic chocolate' as a gift ages ago I did wonder what the alternative was. Chocolate with metallic chunks?
Health and meat is interesting. All the amino acids you need are in meat. Because we're made of meat too. Getting all the stuff you need from a vegetarian or even more restrictive vegan diet does involve homework. And we're specifically designed to eat meat (it's the natural diet, along with vegetables) hence having incisors and canines.
I think the truth is that multiple things can be true at the same time.
We need meat but we probably eat too much of the unhealthy sort, but we should still eat and enjoy it - and probably the offal too - and it should be grass-fed and sustainably grown, to the greatest extent possible. Fish stocks can be harvested (who really has a problem about fishing and then gutting one, and hasn't done it with their mates/Dad?) but again needs to be at sustainable levels.
The rest is that there's just too many people on the planet. That isn't going to change - you can't stop people - so we'll need to engineer solutions to the side effects of the energy consumption and production. Probably adding seaweed and additives into cow herds etc.
Meat production, and the agriculture required to keep it going is very environmentally destructive. The vast majority of soybeans are grown not to feed vegans, but rather the cattle on industrial scale feed lots. Cattle who don't see a blade of grass for months.
Sure, there are areas of land such as uplands not suited to other forms of agriculture, but that is not how most meat is produced. It is not the pastoral idyll that is promoted. Similarly the unsavoury side of fishing with discarded bycatch, sea-lice infested salmon farms and discarded fishing gear killing endangered cetaceans and turtles etc is not very appealing.
The large number of vegetarians in India shows that a meat free diet is entirely viable nutritionally without a great deal of individual research. There is a lot of plant based protein out there.
I eat meat, but it is pretty undeniable that it is doing environmental damage out of proportion to the calories and nutrients produced.
Sorry, this is simply not true.
Most meat in Britain is grass fed during the spring and summer and fed on silage (basically dried grass) and a bit of grain in the winter. It is often done on land that is not suitable for agriculture. This is even more the case for sheep who can graze all year round in uplands entirely unsuited for arable farming in almost any conditions. Fish surround our oceans. The reason we don't eat more of them is because we don't want to (the Spanish do) as we prefer burgers and pizzas. Pigs are fed pig nuts but can also do very well on grass, acorns, apples, and earth worms. That's just in Britain.
Crap-quality factory meat is bad for the environment because of the soybeans and cutting down of forested land to grow grain. So is growing tomatoes and cucumbers in greenhouses in winter heated by gas, or cutting down rainforests to create palm oil (in many vegan meals) that both adds CO2 to the atmosphere and kills millions of small animals.
It's perfectly possible to have a healthy amount of meat in your diet and do something carbon-positive for the environment: eat grass-fed, locally sourced cattle on pastures that fertilise the land as a carbon sink, allows a variety of roots to grow deep on the fringes and protects it from flooding. And use all the animal.
Almond milk is particularly destructive to the environment and to bee colonies. An ecological disaster. Yet the wokies love it, as always it's performative bullshit.
FPT - religion is far more common than people think. We all have things we believe in; it's just we are now entering an age of polytheism rather than a commitment to organised religion.
"Diversity", Veganism, Mediation and Gaianism all show aspects of religious fervour. And, like all religions, they have their doctrines, their sinners, punishments for heretics who don't follow doctrine and rewards of virtue and acceptance for those who piously do.
The word "aspects" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.
Why do I get the feeling that it's a list of things Casino doesn't approve of? Why not add 'belief in markets' 'being British' 'being a cricket fan' 'dislike of the EU' for balance?
On the difference between the census and the BSA on numbers with no religion in the UK:
Firstly the Census question is voluntary, and answered by 94% of people, so not answered by everyone as HYUFD seems to think.
Secondly the ask different questions. Census: What is your religion? BSA: Do you regard yourself as belonging to any particular religion? IF YES: Which?
Both are probably capturing affiliation more than belief, but the BSA question forces people to actively think if they belong or not.
I see we're on to ad hominum this morning. Probably because this is making you have to think too hard.
It's not just me saying this. There are articles relating to it by philosophers and theologians who've been making this point recently.
You can look them up yourself.
Are you saying you approve of the things in your list?
No, and I don't approve much of many organised religions either - I even have my criticisms of the Church of England.
Your point, such as it is, is purely to try and find a reason to dismiss my argument out of hand so you don't have to think about it too much.
You should. Because it's an important to contemplate to understand the future direction of society.
Of course any strongly held beliefs show aspects of religious fervour. Hardly a brilliant insight.
But you seem to have just shoehorned in a list of things that you irrationally hate.
'hatred of veganism' seems to be a far commoner religion than veganism itself, sadly.
Veganism is definitely a religion. It's purist, dogmatic, and essentially irrational, and like the abstinence movements (also grounded in religion) that were so common at the start of the 20th century.
I have no problem with vegetarians as they pose no threat to me. Vegans are a threat as they are campaigners and, ultimately, want to stop meat entirely - so they will have my resistance.
Vegans on Oxford City Council have voted to ban meat from all Council events
I keep being told to live and let live, and that it's me with the problem - not them, and yet time and time again they try and inflict their lifestyle choices on others. They'd clearly try and do it to everyone if they could.
It's their mission.
This is the sort of stuff we can expect from Labour when they take office. Telling others what to do is in their nature.
My favourite anecdote on this subject is of a vegetarian who went to a steakhouse and asked for the vegetarian options. When told they didn't serve any, she expostulated that this was unfair as she liked to eat with her friends.
The waiter suggested they go to a vegetarian restaurant and her friends could have the meat dishes that restaurant offered...
As an aside, I'm not a fan of these adverts for 'plant-based' things.
If they're vegetarian or vegan then being more specific, albeit with a less trendy new slogan, is more useful.
In practice it means Vegan, but using the marketing of "plant based" expands the market to people who are more flexitarian, eating these products alongside dairy, fish, and even meat, as a way of broadening a diet, and making it more healthy. That's capitalism for you.
"Plant-based" is a massive turnoff for me - the phrase alone pisses me off.
A lot of virtue-signalling pretentious wank. On another level, you could also read it as being - often correctly - as entirely synthesised crap from palm oil and plant 'matter'.
Would I respond differently if put another way?
Yes. Describe organic/ home-grown / local farmer's fruit and vegetables and I start to get interested - but only if there was some real food to go with it as well. See profile.
"Virtue-signalling" is an odd term to apply to the term "plant-based" since the whole point of it is to broaden the market to those who are NOT ethical vegans, and thus don't particularly associate with the term "vegan".
You can say it's unappealing as a phrase, and that's fine. But I think you've thrown the term "virtue-signalling" in as a buzzword without really thinking about it, since that's essentially the last thing it is.
Nah, it's virtue-signalling.
Plant-based diet is a thing, now, and it means: "look at me, I'm better than you and I care about the planet."
It also implies a culture war on meat, which is why it will invoke resistance.
That sounds more like the extreme ends of veganism. Plant-based foods are for people who want to eat meat without eating meat, hence plant-based burgers and various nut-based milks. Fwiw, at my old works canteen, the plant-based sausage rolls outsold the sausage-based sausage rolls. Try it, you might like it.
People who try it rapidly decide they don't like it, and rightly so:
Incidentally, it's not like I haven't experimented to see what all the fuss is about. I once tried a recipe with tofu (and almost vomited) and a "cauliflower steak", which was a fancy name for a shit meal with a grilled slice of cauliflower.
I got so hungry I couldn't sleep and woke up at 2am to have a massive bowl of cornflakes.
No-one wants that shit.
Alternatively you're just not a very good cook. Vegan food is admittedly harder to make tasty than is vegetarian, and for me considerably more effort than it's worth, but it's perfectly possible to eat well and healthily.
It was a Hello Fresh recipe and, like any good engineer, I followed it to the letter. Usually get it bang on.
It just didn't cut the mustard. And mustard with it made it no better either.
I'm with @kamski on this. Veggie friends don't take offence or mention it. Only tend to find out if I raise it when I notice. Have a niece who is a vegan cook. Never raises it. I only find out details by asking because I'm fascinated how it works. I was sitting next to her at a wedding and she was served a non vegan meal (food providers struggle on the difference between veggies and vegans). No fuss was made, particularly as it's a common issue.
None of them take any offence by me getting stuck into a steak or even raise it
Veggies are different to Vegans - see my post upthread.
About a third of my office is vegan, a third vegetarian, a third omnivores. We eat vegan food if there's an event paid for by supporters (because some would be upset if we served meat), but otherwise nobody bothers anyone else.
On the other hand, in my prebious job (Cruelty Free International) we had a colleague who had left PETA because he was only veggie and his colleagues kept hassling him about not being vegan.
Liz Truss has requested peerages for some of her closest Tory supporters despite her government lasting only seven weeks after a disastrous budget.
The former prime minister is understood to have submitted a list of peerages, while No 10 is also still considering whether to grant a long list of honours requested by Boris Johnson as well.
I don't see why not. If the convention is that former prime ministers dish out gongs, then, well, Liz Truss was actually prime minister so should have her turn.
It's not a universally followed convention. As such, as conventions go its fairly weak.
Mr. Royale, while they went down well, when I bought some 'organic chocolate' as a gift ages ago I did wonder what the alternative was. Chocolate with metallic chunks?
Health and meat is interesting. All the amino acids you need are in meat. Because we're made of meat too. Getting all the stuff you need from a vegetarian or even more restrictive vegan diet does involve homework. And we're specifically designed to eat meat (it's the natural diet, along with vegetables) hence having incisors and canines.
I think the truth is that multiple things can be true at the same time.
We need meat but we probably eat too much of the unhealthy sort, but we should still eat and enjoy it - and probably the offal too - and it should be grass-fed and sustainably grown, to the greatest extent possible. Fish stocks can be harvested (who really has a problem about fishing and then gutting one, and hasn't done it with their mates/Dad?) but again needs to be at sustainable levels.
The rest is that there's just too many people on the planet. That isn't going to change - you can't stop people - so we'll need to engineer solutions to the side effects of the energy consumption and production. Probably adding seaweed and additives into cow herds etc.
Meat production, and the agriculture required to keep it going is very environmentally destructive. The vast majority of soybeans are grown not to feed vegans, but rather the cattle on industrial scale feed lots. Cattle who don't see a blade of grass for months.
Sure, there are areas of land such as uplands not suited to other forms of agriculture, but that is not how most meat is produced. It is not the pastoral idyll that is promoted. Similarly the unsavoury side of fishing with discarded bycatch, sea-lice infested salmon farms and discarded fishing gear killing endangered cetaceans and turtles etc is not very appealing.
The large number of vegetarians in India shows that a meat free diet is entirely viable nutritionally without a great deal of individual research. There is a lot of plant based protein out there.
I eat meat, but it is pretty undeniable that it is doing environmental damage out of proportion to the calories and nutrients produced.
Sorry, this is simply not true.
Most meat in Britain is grass fed during the spring and summer and fed on silage (basically dried grass) and a bit of grain in the winter. It is often done on land that is not suitable for agriculture. This is even more the case for sheep who can graze all year round in uplands entirely unsuited for arable farming in almost any conditions. Fish surround our oceans. The reason we don't eat more of them is because we don't want to (the Spanish do) as we prefer burgers and pizzas. Pigs are fed pig nuts but can also do very well on grass, acorns, apples, and earth worms. That's just in Britain.
Crap-quality factory meat is bad for the environment because of the soybeans and cutting down of forested land to grow grain. So is growing tomatoes and cucumbers in greenhouses in winter heated by gas, or cutting down rainforests to create palm oil (in many vegan meals) that both adds CO2 to the atmosphere and kills millions of small animals.
It's perfectly possible to have a healthy amount of meat in your diet and do something carbon-positive for the environment: eat grass-fed, locally sourced cattle on pastures that fertilise the land as a carbon sink, allows a variety of roots to grow deep on the fringes and protects it from flooding. And use all the animal.
Almond milk is particularly destructive to the environment and to bee colonies. An ecological disaster. Yet the wokies love it, as always it's performative bullshit.
But oat milk is better anyway and cheaper environmentally than cow milk, so you are not let off the hook.
Dr. Foxy, I feel the need to point out, to the doctor, that cattle and humans are different species. One is evolved to be omnivorous, with a diet including meat and vegetables and so forth.
Just because we evolved as omnivores doesn't mean that we need to eat anything and everything.
As I have pointed out, hundreds of millions of Hindus, and a fairly large number of Bhuddists and Jains have lived for centuries without meat. Are you saying they are not healthy?
Vegetarianism in India is linked to caste, not religion. Jains are notoriously malnourished in India, I wouldn't use them as an example of a successful diet.
I'm with @kamski on this. Veggie friends don't take offence or mention it. Only tend to find out if I raise it when I notice. Have a niece who is a vegan cook. Never raises it. I only find out details by asking because I'm fascinated how it works. I was sitting next to her at a wedding and she was served a non vegan meal (food providers struggle on the difference between veggies and vegans). No fuss was made, particularly as it's a common issue.
None of them take any offence by me getting stuck into a steak or even raise it
Veggies are different to Vegans - see my post upthread.
About a third of my office is vegan, a third vegetarian, a third omnivores. We eat vegan food if there's an event paid for by supporters (because some would be upset if we served meat), but otherwise nobody bothers anyone else.
On the other hand, in my prebious job (Cruelty Free International) we had a colleague who had left PETA because he was only veggie and his colleagues kept hassling him about not being vegan.
People vary, vegans like everyone else.
Yes, but you work with people who are pretty unrepresentative. I expect, what, 70-80% of your colleagues vote Labour or Green?
Bubble. And what you say demonstrates my point. It's the omnivores who have to make the sacrifice there to accommodate those who shout the loudest, and thus are denied a choice.
Dr. Foxy, I feel the need to point out, to the doctor, that cattle and humans are different species. One is evolved to be omnivorous, with a diet including meat and vegetables and so forth.
Just because we evolved as omnivores doesn't mean that we need to eat anything and everything.
As I have pointed out, hundreds of millions of Hindus, and a fairly large number of Bhuddists and Jains have lived for centuries without meat. Are you saying they are not healthy?
Vegetarianism in India is linked to caste, not religion. Jains are notoriously malnourished in India, I wouldn't use them as an example of a successful diet.
Worked for the Buddha although I suppose he wasn't technically a Jain.
Mr. Royale, while they went down well, when I bought some 'organic chocolate' as a gift ages ago I did wonder what the alternative was. Chocolate with metallic chunks?
Health and meat is interesting. All the amino acids you need are in meat. Because we're made of meat too. Getting all the stuff you need from a vegetarian or even more restrictive vegan diet does involve homework. And we're specifically designed to eat meat (it's the natural diet, along with vegetables) hence having incisors and canines.
I think the truth is that multiple things can be true at the same time.
We need meat but we probably eat too much of the unhealthy sort, but we should still eat and enjoy it - and probably the offal too - and it should be grass-fed and sustainably grown, to the greatest extent possible. Fish stocks can be harvested (who really has a problem about fishing and then gutting one, and hasn't done it with their mates/Dad?) but again needs to be at sustainable levels.
The rest is that there's just too many people on the planet. That isn't going to change - you can't stop people - so we'll need to engineer solutions to the side effects of the energy consumption and production. Probably adding seaweed and additives into cow herds etc.
Meat production, and the agriculture required to keep it going is very environmentally destructive. The vast majority of soybeans are grown not to feed vegans, but rather the cattle on industrial scale feed lots. Cattle who don't see a blade of grass for months.
Sure, there are areas of land such as uplands not suited to other forms of agriculture, but that is not how most meat is produced. It is not the pastoral idyll that is promoted. Similarly the unsavoury side of fishing with discarded bycatch, sea-lice infested salmon farms and discarded fishing gear killing endangered cetaceans and turtles etc is not very appealing.
The large number of vegetarians in India shows that a meat free diet is entirely viable nutritionally without a great deal of individual research. There is a lot of plant based protein out there.
I eat meat, but it is pretty undeniable that it is doing environmental damage out of proportion to the calories and nutrients produced.
Sorry, this is simply not true.
Most meat in Britain is grass fed during the spring and summer and fed on silage (basically dried grass) and a bit of grain in the winter. It is often done on land that is not suitable for agriculture. This is even more the case for sheep who can graze all year round in uplands entirely unsuited for arable farming in almost any conditions. Fish surround our oceans. The reason we don't eat more of them is because we don't want to (the Spanish do) as we prefer burgers and pizzas. Pigs are fed pig nuts but can also do very well on grass, acorns, apples, and earth worms. That's just in Britain.
Crap-quality factory meat is bad for the environment because of the soybeans and cutting down of forested land to grow grain. So is growing tomatoes and cucumbers in greenhouses in winter heated by gas, or cutting down rainforests to create palm oil (in many vegan meals) that both adds CO2 to the atmosphere and kills millions of small animals.
It's perfectly possible to have a healthy amount of meat in your diet and do something carbon-positive for the environment: eat grass-fed, locally sourced cattle on pastures that fertilise the land as a carbon sink, allows a variety of roots to grow deep on the fringes and protects it from flooding. And use all the animal.
You're not allowing for the methane from the farts.
Dr. Foxy, I feel the need to point out, to the doctor, that cattle and humans are different species. One is evolved to be omnivorous, with a diet including meat and vegetables and so forth.
Just because we evolved as omnivores doesn't mean that we need to eat anything and everything.
As I have pointed out, hundreds of millions of Hindus, and a fairly large number of Bhuddists and Jains have lived for centuries without meat. Are you saying they are not healthy?
Vegetarianism in India is linked to caste, not religion. Jains are notoriously malnourished in India, I wouldn't use them as an example of a successful diet.
Yes, and we come back to my point on religion here - which I made at the start of the thread.
Mr. kamski, bacon sandwiches are great. And we're designed to eat it too, thanks to our incisor and canine teeth, specifically evolved for tearing meat.
I don't mind what others eat, provided they don't try and alter my diet. Roast parsnips and carrots are excellent. Especially alongside pork or beef.
We’re designed to eat insects. Our stomachs produce an enzyme to digest insect exoskeletons.
After you mate.
You should try it. Insects are an excellent and very cheap, well, locust alternative to meat.
I’ve tried grasshoppers. Fried. Not bad, but the legs get stuck between your teeth. And, as I think I’ve posted before, witchetty grubs. They taste of peanuts. I hope I haven’t put any one of their breakfast!
Comments
Why did it take them so long to realise that this was the Trek that everyone wanted?
You're a lawyer. If somebody said a lambing shed converted into a house to be used as a second home by rich Londoners (sorry Mr Clarkson) was still a farm building would you agree with them?
But the final season makes up for the first two seasons.
Own it.
None of them take any offence by me getting stuck into a steak or even raise it
What you wrote in the post above is a bit like someone saying "Islamists want to impose sharia law on everyone and that's why I hate muslims".
The Conservatives by contrast are only in 2009 in terms of comparison to recent Labour history and still in government for starters
Sure, there are areas of land such as uplands not suited to other forms of agriculture, but that is not how most meat is produced. It is not the pastoral idyll that is promoted. Similarly the unsavoury side of fishing with discarded bycatch, sea-lice infested salmon farms and discarded fishing gear killing endangered cetaceans and turtles etc is not very appealing.
The large number of vegetarians in India shows that a meat free diet is entirely viable nutritionally without a great deal of individual research. There is a lot of plant based protein out there.
I eat meat, but it is pretty undeniable that it is doing environmental damage out of proportion to the calories and nutrients produced.
94% is also a far bigger sample than less than 0.01% with the BSA survey
And the same posters who are guffawing at Starmer's Brexit U-turn pragmatism, are now demanding we believe "I never liked that Boris Johnson, he was always a wrong-'un but I had to vote for him to save the nation from Soviet era Communism".
Vegan food is admittedly harder to make tasty than is vegetarian, and for me considerably more effort than it's worth, but it's perfectly possible to eat well and healthily.
I gave up out of boredom a while back.
And beans on toast is a plot by the wokerati too
I don't mind what others eat, provided they don't try and alter my diet. Roast parsnips and carrots are excellent. Especially alongside pork or beef.
https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/23401386.oxford-city-council-approves-vegan-food-policy/
Vegans at Stirling City Council have voted to ban all meat and dairy products from the campus
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11434363/Stirling-University-bans-meat-dairy-campus-Students-Union-votes-vegan-2025.html
Vegans at Cambridge Student Union have voted to ban meat at all University cafes
https://www.varsity.co.uk/news/25138
He did the job of stopping Corbyn getting near the levers of power. When he wasn't stepping up to the job of being PM, I was one of the first Tories on here to say he had to go. By February last year, I was very vocally anti-Boris. Check.
Hunt was very worthy, but God was he dull. I went to listen to him before voting. The Tory Alistair Darling, solid, but no figurehead. There was a material risk that he could have lost to Corbyn. Not a risk to be taken.
Been watching more K-drama to improve my Korean.
The historical drama Mr Sunshine is pretty epic (apart from a somewhat klunky first
episode featuring a very silly Theodore Roosevelt). Highly recommended.
Finland starts integrating into NATO.
The NATO AWACS flights see a long, long way into Russia.
At what point would they become assimilated tigers? Would their offspring feel alienated by not having been brought up a Bengal Tigers, die to racism from the local Tigers, and revert to a hardcore version of being a Bengali Tiger?
https://www.credit-suisse.com/about-us/en/our-company/our-management/board-of-directors/richard-meddings.html
Why ?
What makes sense is eating what suits you personally.
Both Casino and Dura are strange militants on food.
The police went out to shoot them - to be told that most of their stuff would just annoy wild boar.
So they tried to borrow big bore hunting rifles from a local gun dealer.
This was after the Moat thing - when a gun dealer *who gave a firearm to the police* was prosecuted.
The Wiltshire dealer told them no, quoted the case, and wished them luck.
IIRC the police had to hire a chap who had the right kind of cannon to do the job.
Cured pork products are the unfiltered Woodbines of the modern age. We know they will give us cancer, but we consume them regardless. I have never smoked, but smoked bacon? That's a different story.
As I have pointed out, hundreds of millions of Hindus, and a fairly large number of Bhuddists and Jains have lived for centuries without meat. Are you saying they are not healthy?
They're rampant in the Forest of Dean now and they're a menace.
#SubtlePun
Most meat in Britain is grass fed during the spring and summer and fed on silage (basically dried grass) and a bit of grain in the winter. It is often done on land that is not suitable for agriculture. This is even more the case for sheep who can graze all year round in uplands entirely unsuited for arable farming in almost any conditions. Fish surround our oceans. The reason we don't eat more of them is because we don't want to (the Spanish do) as we prefer burgers and pizzas. Pigs are fed pig nuts but can also do very well on grass, acorns, apples, and earth worms. That's just in Britain.
Crap-quality factory meat is bad for the environment because of the soybeans and cutting down of forested land to grow grain. So is growing tomatoes and cucumbers in greenhouses in winter heated by gas, or cutting down rainforests to create palm oil (in many vegan meals) that both adds CO2 to the atmosphere and kills millions of small animals.
It's perfectly possible to have a healthy amount of meat in your diet and do something carbon-positive for the environment: eat grass-fed, locally sourced cattle on pastures that fertilise the land as a carbon sink, allows a variety of roots to grow deep on the fringes and protects it from flooding. And use all the animal.
It may be bad for my health and environmentally catastrophic but it is delicious.
Just their standard naan disclosure agreement.
I keep being told to live and let live, and that it's me with the problem - not them, and yet time and time again they try and inflict their lifestyle choices on others. They'd clearly try and do it to everyone if they could.
It's their mission.
This is the sort of stuff we can expect from Labour when they take office. Telling others what to do is in their nature.
Buddhism is the only religion I ever seriously considered. I was surprised to learn when looking into it that it is not necessary to be vegetarian (but meat should not be consumed if the animal was specifically killed for your individual consumption).
It is far easier to be healthy eating meat than not, because you can get all the amino acids you need in one place without doing homework to check you're not accidentally becoming deficient in certain areas. It's also the case that omnivores do not try and restrict what vegetarians/vegans eat, whereas the opposite is not true, as shown on this thread by multiple activist 'green' councils restricting food in line with their own views.
The waiter suggested they go to a vegetarian restaurant and her friends could have the meat dishes that restaurant offered...
It just didn't cut the mustard. And mustard with it made it no better either.
On the other hand, in my prebious job (Cruelty Free International) we had a colleague who had left PETA because he was only veggie and his colleagues kept hassling him about not being vegan.
People vary, vegans like everyone else.
We do 2 veggies days a week, some of the fake meat these days is damn good to be honest.
Bubble. And what you say demonstrates my point. It's the omnivores who have to make the sacrifice there to accommodate those who shout the loudest, and thus are denied a choice.
I can fully believe the story about PETA.
I hope I haven’t put any one of their breakfast!