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.
Not exactly. ...At council catered events, there will be plant-based options and meat will still be available...
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.
That is the common gag about vegans but I can't say it matches my experience. It's only come up at times it might naturally.
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...
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.
Well some people do. Although not enough to make the unit economics work
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.
Ironically Sunak’s plant based conservatism is the alternative to Truss’ red meat.
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.
The Jain diet is really weird, they can't have anything that might grow into something else. So for example they can't eat pulses because the beans can sprout, they also can't eat stuff grown under the earth so no potatoes. I know a lot of Jain people (my sister married one) and none of them actually stick to the diet, firstly because it's impossible to do it and be healthy and secondly because life without potatoes isn't worth living.
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 might hornet down to my local eatery later this afternoon and see if they can rustle something up on the fly.
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 might hornet down to my local eatery later this afternoon and see if they can rustle something up on the fly.
No need to be waspish, I was trying to lighten the mood.
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.
A prawn is just a giant cockroach in scuba gear. If you'd eat one then I don't why you wouldn't eat the other.
I only saw The Last Jedi because my uncle had the DVD (and I got it when he died).
It was fantastically awful. And they threw out the Expanded Universe to produce that rubbish. A competently made Thrawn trilogy would've blown the sequels out of the water.
Mind you, just having an actual trilogy rather than three films that buggered one another because apparently JJ Binks and Rian Johnson dislike each other would've been good.
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.
Not exactly. ...At council catered events, there will be plant-based options and meat will still be available...
And HYUFD's claiming that "vegans voted" at SAtirling is not right. It was the "students" who voted, according to the paper. Quite a few would be omnivores who see the point for mutual catering.
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 believe William Rufus had a problem with a boar?
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.
Not exactly. ...At council catered events, there will be plant-based options and meat will still be available...
And HYUFD's claiming that "vegans voted" at SAtirling is not right. It was the "students" who voted, according to the paper. Quite a few would be omnivores who see the point for mutual catering.
Within the next 24 hours, the numbers of Russian dead as claimed by Ukraine will reach 170,00.....
In the Vietnam War, the worst year for US losses was 1968, with 16,899
Total US losses for the 20 years in Vietnam from 1956-1975 were 58,281. Russia has lost that many in 2023 alone. Mostly attacking Bakhmut, which it still does not control.
Eldest granddaughter told us that her boyfriend was vegetarian, so when they came to visit, we took them to a local restaurant, which was primarily vegetarian. He had a steak and explained that he had given up vegetarianism. Eldest granddaughter hasn’t so all was not lost!
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 believe William Rufus had a problem with a boar?
He was shot with an arrow while hunting them. Don't think that quite counts. Unless you meant 'bore' and were referring to Robert of Normandy.
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...
Logic fail. Unless her friends are unable to eat food without meat in it.
If I go to a restaurant with friends with dietary special needs, I do tend to make sure that there is something that everyone can eat, even if it doesn't serve my favourite food.
Mr. Mark, watching videos this morning, the 2020-22 Tigray War in north Ethiopia apparently killed 600,000 people. Never heard of it before, which is a little depressing.
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.
A prawn is just a giant cockroach in scuba gear. If you'd eat one then I don't why you wouldn't eat the other.
Cockroaches depend on the species for taste, with rather odd flavours, apparently (from reports and from a general knowledge of their smelliness). Not nearly so neutral as crab and lobster.
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 believe William Rufus had a problem with a boar?
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...
Logic fail. Unless her friends are unable to eat food without meat in it.
If I go to a restaurant with friends with dietary special needs, I do tend to make sure that there is something that everyone can eat, even if it doesn't serve my favourite food.
Vegetarianism in almost all cases is a choice, not a need.
As it happens when arranging events I go to great lengths to try and ensure anyone who is coming has vegetarian or vegan options available, but for somebody do demand vegetarian choices as a right in a restaurant that isn't vegetarian is themselves failing in logic.
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 fopigs has already been established and, frankly, I’d love to live there…
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.
Not exactly. ...At council catered events, there will be plant-based options and meat will still be available...
And HYUFD's claiming that "vegans voted" at SAtirling is not right. It was the "students" who voted, according to the paper. Quite a few would be omnivores who see the point for mutual catering.
100% vegan is hardly 'mutual catering.'
It is if you think about the prices and the nature of mass catering, and when even the omnivores are concerned about food ethics. It's another area where the world is moving away from we old farts on PB, I'm afraid.
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.
What a bizarre attempt to make something peculiar out of something entirely normal.
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...
Logic fail. Unless her friends are unable to eat food without meat in it.
If I go to a restaurant with friends with dietary special needs, I do tend to make sure that there is something that everyone can eat, even if it doesn't serve my favourite food.
It's not a logic fail. Neither restaurant is obliged to provide alternatives on their menu, even if most will choose to, and most vegetarianism is a choice no different to choosing a meat heavy place, not a need. How many different vegetarians options should they provide? There's a lot of variety there and what if they pick ones you don't like?
The lesson is get better friends who wouldn't pick a place with no vegetarian options. If they insist on a steak place without it, when you can get steak in many places, I think that sends a message.
Mr. Mark, watching videos this morning, the 2020-22 Tigray War in north Ethiopia apparently killed 600,000 people. Never heard of it before, which is a little depressing.
Those sort of deaths are the rounding error in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
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.
Telling others what to do is a fairly common behavioural trait across politicians of all flavours. It was "libertarian" Boris Johnson who banned drinking booze on public transport. Tories seem pretty happy telling people not to smoke a spliff or take an E. Tories love stripping people of their citizenship, which seems to me a bigger threat to people's liberty than being made to eat humous. As a libertarian socialist I am firmly in the live and let live category. Vegetarianism and veganism are good ideas imh, I've been a vegetarian for 35 years but I wouldn't force it on anyone. I would liberalise our drugs laws too. If people want to enjoy themselves once in a while it's nobody's fucking business. I'd love to see the Tory freedom brigade getting behind that one but I'm not holding my breath.
Eating high quality meat is great. It’s also pretty expensive. I think you can do very good roasties with vegetable oil. The key is getting the fat extremely hot - it’s the same with Yorkshire puddings. If there’s sizzle on contact you know you’re in for a treat. Egg and chips is the best vegetarian meal, but it’s even better with two or three chorizo sausages. That would be my last meal on earth, if I could choose: two eggs broken on a pile of chips, the yolk coating and soaking into the crispy potato, the spice, ping and heft of the meat topping it all off. A bottle of filthy strong Spanish wine would have to accompany it all, though. And hopefully there’d be time for a big brandy and a Montecristo No. 2 afterwards before I pegged. Perfect!
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.
What a bizarre attempt to make something peculiar out of something entirely normal.
Not really. Not all PMs have issued resignation honours. Therefore its perfectly reasonable to ask whether it should be something all can do even if PM for 2 months. Might at least the number be limited?
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...
Logic fail. Unless her friends are unable to eat food without meat in it.
If I go to a restaurant with friends with dietary special needs, I do tend to make sure that there is something that everyone can eat, even if it doesn't serve my favourite food.
Vegetarianism in almost all cases is a choice, not a need.
As it happens when arranging events I go to great lengths to try and ensure anyone who is coming has vegetarian or vegan options available, but for somebody do demand vegetarian choices as a right in a restaurant that isn't vegetarian is themselves failing in logic.
It is sensible though for restaurant owners to have Vegetarian and Vegan options on a menu, not least for those with dietary requirements. I have a Jewish friend who always orders the vegetarian option when out, because of the non-kosher nature of the other options for example.
Bring and share lunches at my church are always vegetarian or vegan too, so as to allow all to take part.
Mr. Mark, while I'm (vaguely) aware that DRC has been (ironically) severely harmed by the armed conflicts over its many resources, not sure if the 21st century has seen violence/death tolls on a par with Ethiopia's rarely mentioned war.
I can see why, for a European audience, Ukraine would take precedence, but the near total lack of coverage of the Ethiopian war seems bizarre.
I should have announced this before, but a year ago I switched my research focus to AI existential risk reduction and governance. I think the risk of bad outcomes for humanity due to AGI is substantial, and that coordinating a slowdown in AGI development is probably a good idea. https://mobile.twitter.com/DavidDuvenaud/status/1639365724316499971
Thread and links worth a read. This is an AI researcher, not Leon.
The Chair of NHS England was talking recently about doctors being over-skilled. Sounds like the sort of innovative thinker needed by the Credit Suisse risk committee. And he's one of those exciting chartered accountants @kinabalu keeps telling us about. What could go wrong?
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.
I can fully believe the story about PETA.
So you believe the story you want to believe and not the story you don't want to believe?
You have had a whole lot of meat eaters here (so those more inclined to side with you) tell you that their experience of vegans/veggies is different to yours. Why would we tell you this if it were not true? I can assure you that if a vegan started ramming their beliefs down my throat I would be backing you up to the hilt, but not a single one had done so in my entire life.
As others have pointed out, it only crops up when it comes up naturally in conversation. Not a single person has tried to convert me and are tolerant of my choices even if they disagree.
It sounds like your vegan friends are deliberately trying to wind you up.
PB a bit weird this morning, even for pb. Where is the regular standard Saturday morning troll bot to bring the site back to balance?
Just getting limbered up for the traditional Saturday night pissed up antics and subsequent bannings. Unfortunately, I've got shit load of R8 interior trim parts to 3d print and the Portimao MotoGP so I've got FOMO regarding tonight's inevitable hostilities.
I should have announced this before, but a year ago I switched my research focus to AI existential risk reduction and governance. I think the risk of bad outcomes for humanity due to AGI is substantial, and that coordinating a slowdown in AGI development is probably a good idea. https://mobile.twitter.com/DavidDuvenaud/status/1639365724316499971
Thread and links worth a read. This is an AI researcher, not Leon.
Yes, we have all seen the movie before and know how it ends.
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...
Logic fail. Unless her friends are unable to eat food without meat in it.
If I go to a restaurant with friends with dietary special needs, I do tend to make sure that there is something that everyone can eat, even if it doesn't serve my favourite food.
Vegetarianism in almost all cases is a choice, not a need.
As it happens when arranging events I go to great lengths to try and ensure anyone who is coming has vegetarian or vegan options available, but for somebody do demand vegetarian choices as a right in a restaurant that isn't vegetarian is themselves failing in logic.
It is sensible though for restaurant owners to have Vegetarian and Vegan options on a menu, not least for those with dietary requirements. I have a Jewish friend who always orders the vegetarian option when out, because of the non-kosher nature of the other options for example.
Bring and share lunches at my church are always vegetarian or vegan too, so as to allow all to take part.
Its sensible and probably good business, but it's just plain stupid to get mad at a restaurant for not offering what you personally want. Its no different to marching into a KFC and angrily asking why don't they give you a pizza.
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...
Logic fail. Unless her friends are unable to eat food without meat in it.
If I go to a restaurant with friends with dietary special needs, I do tend to make sure that there is something that everyone can eat, even if it doesn't serve my favourite food.
Vegetarianism in almost all cases is a choice, not a need.
As it happens when arranging events I go to great lengths to try and ensure anyone who is coming has vegetarian or vegan options available, but for somebody do demand vegetarian choices as a right in a restaurant that isn't vegetarian is themselves failing in logic.
Sounds like she was offering good advice and the waiter was being an obnoxious arsehole. Presumably the party went elsewhere to eat.
Sure it's a choice, in the same way that it's a choice not to eat dogs. Not sure how people would react if asking why don't you have any options without dog, being told shut up and eat dog or piss off.
Mr. Mark, while I'm (vaguely) aware that DRC has been (ironically) severely harmed by the armed conflicts over its many resources, not sure if the 21st century has seen violence/death tolls on a par with Ethiopia's rarely mentioned war.
I can see why, for a European audience, Ukraine would take precedence, but the near total lack of coverage of the Ethiopian war seems bizarre.
It got some early coverage in part because the PM there had won the Peace Prize for some ete catching and effective reforms, but nothing at all like the sort of embedded journalism we've seen. Even the war correspondents of twitter who tend to talk about Syria and other places on top of Ukraine dont seem to bring it up much..
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.
Presumably with her flask prepped and ready.
Now, now. If you look after the pennies, the pounds look after themselves. That’s how someone so poor that they feel the need to keep excess boiled water in a thermos can afford fortnights in Asia. No need to suggest any hint of nonsense at all, no sir, not at all.
Mr. Mark, while I'm (vaguely) aware that DRC has been (ironically) severely harmed by the armed conflicts over its many resources, not sure if the 21st century has seen violence/death tolls on a par with Ethiopia's rarely mentioned war.
I can see why, for a European audience, Ukraine would take precedence, but the near total lack of coverage of the Ethiopian war seems bizarre.
Partly because our media tends to ignore Africa, partly because the conflict there is difficult and inconvenient* to understand, but mostly because it is not a war with immediate threat to our own safety.
* for example, recognising that people fleeing it might actually be refugees rather than economic migrants.
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.
It must be hard living in your head, being so angry with the world all of the time.
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.
I can fully believe the story about PETA.
So you believe the story you want to believe and not the story you don't want to believe?
You have had a whole lot of meat eaters here (so those more inclined to side with you) tell you that their experience of vegans/veggies is different to yours. Why would we tell you this if it were not true? I can assure you that if a vegan started ramming their beliefs down my throat I would be backing you up to the hilt, but not a single one had done so in my entire life.
As others have pointed out, it only crops up when it comes up naturally in conversation. Not a single person has tried to convert me and are tolerant of my choices even if they disagree.
It sounds like your vegan friends are deliberately trying to wind you up.
Woah, hold on. I didn't say I didn't believe Nick. I agreed with him and then said his work colleagues were unrepresentative of society at large. He also showed the point (perhaps without meaning to) of how vegans end up restricting the choices of others.
And @HYUFD has shown all the councils that have done the same. I have experience of empo
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.
Telling others what to do is a fairly common behavioural trait across politicians of all flavours. It was "libertarian" Boris Johnson who banned drinking booze on public transport. Tories seem pretty happy telling people not to smoke a spliff or take an E. Tories love stripping people of their citizenship, which seems to me a bigger threat to people's liberty than being made to eat humous. As a libertarian socialist I am firmly in the live and let live category. Vegetarianism and veganism are good ideas imh, I've been a vegetarian for 35 years but I wouldn't force it on anyone. I would liberalise our drugs laws too. If people want to enjoy themselves once in a while it's nobody's fucking business. I'd love to see the Tory freedom brigade getting behind that one but I'm not holding my breath.
Vegetarianism can be argued as a healthy choice. Personally I don't think it is the healthiest option - a good vegetarian diet vs. a good omnivorous diet is missing something that is very nutrient dense, and easy to assimilate. Many nutrients are simply easier to absorb from say, a steak, than green leafy vegetables, good as the latter are. However, you can have a healthy diet as a vegetarian, especially if you eat lots of eggs and healthy dairy. This is where veganism is truly dangerous. A vegan diet lacks nutrients essential to human health. It is necessary to use supplements to be healthy as a vegan, and supplements are never as good as the real thing. Selling it as a healthy lifestyle choice, rather than a moral choice with many sacrifices and pitfalls is not acceptable. And putting children on it amounts to neglect.
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.
It must be hard living in your head, being so angry with the world all of the time.
Shrug your shoulders, live and let live.
Instant karma.
Happy to shrug once vegans let me live and let live.
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.
I disagree somewhat. It’s the marketing equivalent of ‘lived experience’ vs ‘’experience’.
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...
Logic fail. Unless her friends are unable to eat food without meat in it.
If I go to a restaurant with friends with dietary special needs, I do tend to make sure that there is something that everyone can eat, even if it doesn't serve my favourite food.
Vegetarianism in almost all cases is a choice, not a need.
As it happens when arranging events I go to great lengths to try and ensure anyone who is coming has vegetarian or vegan options available, but for somebody do demand vegetarian choices as a right in a restaurant that isn't vegetarian is themselves failing in logic.
It is sensible though for restaurant owners to have Vegetarian and Vegan options on a menu, not least for those with dietary requirements. I have a Jewish friend who always orders the vegetarian option when out, because of the non-kosher nature of the other options for example.
Bring and share lunches at my church are always vegetarian or vegan too, so as to allow all to take part.
Again, another example of how veganism ends up crowding everything else out.
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...
Logic fail. Unless her friends are unable to eat food without meat in it.
If I go to a restaurant with friends with dietary special needs, I do tend to make sure that there is something that everyone can eat, even if it doesn't serve my favourite food.
Vegetarianism in almost all cases is a choice, not a need.
As it happens when arranging events I go to great lengths to try and ensure anyone who is coming has vegetarian or vegan options available, but for somebody do demand vegetarian choices as a right in a restaurant that isn't vegetarian is themselves failing in logic.
Sounds like she was offering good advice and the waiter was being an obnoxious arsehole. Presumably the party went elsewhere to eat.
Sure it's a choice, in the same way that it's a choice not to eat dogs. Not sure how people would react if asking why don't you have any options without dog, being told shut up and eat dog or piss off.
The anecdote was that she said it was unfair. That's the part that makes it stupid. If the anecdote were that she suggested it was bad business of them not to serve a veggie option I might agree with you.
As it is the scenario was they picked a steak place and didnt check its offering then whined about what it did serve.
Your alternative scenario doesn't help any. If I went to a restaurant that served primarily dog meat and then acted affronted at a lack of dog free options I'd expect not to receive sympathy from the proprietors.
The waiter was unnecessarily sassy about it, but what should they have done? Gotten on their knees and begged forgiveness the menu doesn't cater to everyone's tastes?
Blame the friends for presumption in their choice. I have a friend who cannot handle spicy stuff, so we avoid the Indian entirely.
I'm not a fan of all these labels. Vegan. Vegetarian. Pescitarian (sp?). Omnivore. Different people choose to eat different things. Some people have to restrict their diet for medical reasons. Let's all just be considerate to each other's needs and choices.
I think that it is a good thing that more meat free options are available. How can anyone see that as a problem?
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...
Logic fail. Unless her friends are unable to eat food without meat in it.
If I go to a restaurant with friends with dietary special needs, I do tend to make sure that there is something that everyone can eat, even if it doesn't serve my favourite food.
Vegetarianism in almost all cases is a choice, not a need.
As it happens when arranging events I go to great lengths to try and ensure anyone who is coming has vegetarian or vegan options available, but for somebody do demand vegetarian choices as a right in a restaurant that isn't vegetarian is themselves failing in logic.
It is sensible though for restaurant owners to have Vegetarian and Vegan options on a menu, not least for those with dietary requirements. I have a Jewish friend who always orders the vegetarian option when out, because of the non-kosher nature of the other options for example.
Bring and share lunches at my church are always vegetarian or vegan too, so as to allow all to take part.
Again, another example of how veganism ends up crowding everything else out.
Live and let live, eh?
No, just good manners. If bringing food to share, then you should cater to all present.
You wouldn't invite Muslims to a hog roast surely?
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...
Logic fail. Unless her friends are unable to eat food without meat in it.
If I go to a restaurant with friends with dietary special needs, I do tend to make sure that there is something that everyone can eat, even if it doesn't serve my favourite food.
Vegetarianism in almost all cases is a choice, not a need.
As it happens when arranging events I go to great lengths to try and ensure anyone who is coming has vegetarian or vegan options available, but for somebody do demand vegetarian choices as a right in a restaurant that isn't vegetarian is themselves failing in logic.
It is sensible though for restaurant owners to have Vegetarian and Vegan options on a menu, not least for those with dietary requirements. I have a Jewish friend who always orders the vegetarian option when out, because of the non-kosher nature of the other options for example.
Bring and share lunches at my church are always vegetarian or vegan too, so as to allow all to take part.
Again, another example of how veganism ends up crowding everything else out.
Live and let live, eh?
No, just good manners. If bringing food to share, then you should cater to all present.
You wouldn't invite Muslims to a hog roast surely?
If you are catering for all present then you should bring a choice.
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.
You may not agree with them, but both Elliott and Littlewood represent the views of a segment of the political spectrum which should be represented in the Lords.
They have also had significant roles as heads of think tanks so they have made a contribution to public life
I don’t know Ruth Porter but Jon Monyihan built a successful business and is more deserving than many of the other business nominees in the past.
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...
Logic fail. Unless her friends are unable to eat food without meat in it.
If I go to a restaurant with friends with dietary special needs, I do tend to make sure that there is something that everyone can eat, even if it doesn't serve my favourite food.
Vegetarianism in almost all cases is a choice, not a need.
As it happens when arranging events I go to great lengths to try and ensure anyone who is coming has vegetarian or vegan options available, but for somebody do demand vegetarian choices as a right in a restaurant that isn't vegetarian is themselves failing in logic.
Sounds like she was offering good advice and the waiter was being an obnoxious arsehole. Presumably the party went elsewhere to eat.
Sure it's a choice, in the same way that it's a choice not to eat dogs. Not sure how people would react if asking why don't you have any options without dog, being told shut up and eat dog or piss off.
The anecdote was that she said it was unfair. That's the part that makes it stupid. If the anecdote were that she suggested it was bad business of them not to serve a veggie option I might agree with you.
As it is the scenario was they picked a steak place and didnt check its offering then whined about what it did serve.
Your alternative scenario doesn't help any. If I went to a restaurant that served primarily dog meat and then acted affronted at a lack of dog free options I'd expect not to receive sympathy from the proprietors.
The waiter was unnecessarily sassy about it, but what should they have done? Gotten on their knees and begged forgiveness the menu doesn't cater to everyone's tastes?
Blame the friends for presumption in their choice. I have a friend who cannot handle spicy stuff, so we avoid the Indian entirely.
The waiter could easily have suggested having a salad and baked potato, or chips served as a main course.
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?
Whole thing is pathetic, parasites paying off their grifters.
Mr. Mark, while I'm (vaguely) aware that DRC has been (ironically) severely harmed by the armed conflicts over its many resources, not sure if the 21st century has seen violence/death tolls on a par with Ethiopia's rarely mentioned war.
I can see why, for a European audience, Ukraine would take precedence, but the near total lack of coverage of the Ethiopian war seems bizarre.
(vaguely)....Tut tut, Mr Dancer. And you such a historian. Maybe if it had been 2,000 years earlier....
"By 2008, the Second Congo War and its aftermath had caused 5.4 million deaths, principally through disease and malnutrition, making it the deadliest conflict worldwide since World War II."
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...
Logic fail. Unless her friends are unable to eat food without meat in it.
If I go to a restaurant with friends with dietary special needs, I do tend to make sure that there is something that everyone can eat, even if it doesn't serve my favourite food.
Vegetarianism in almost all cases is a choice, not a need.
As it happens when arranging events I go to great lengths to try and ensure anyone who is coming has vegetarian or vegan options available, but for somebody do demand vegetarian choices as a right in a restaurant that isn't vegetarian is themselves failing in logic.
It is sensible though for restaurant owners to have Vegetarian and Vegan options on a menu, not least for those with dietary requirements. I have a Jewish friend who always orders the vegetarian option when out, because of the non-kosher nature of the other options for example.
Bring and share lunches at my church are always vegetarian or vegan too, so as to allow all to take part.
Again, another example of how veganism ends up crowding everything else out.
Live and let live, eh?
No, just good manners. If bringing food to share, then you should cater to all present.
You wouldn't invite Muslims to a hog roast surely?
Providing an alternative that they can eat is offered, why not? The other option is that you don't have the food that you (and presumably the majority of your guests) want to eat, for fear of giving offence.
I'm not a fan of all these labels. Vegan. Vegetarian. Pescitarian (sp?). Omnivore. Different people choose to eat different things. Some people have to restrict their diet for medical reasons. Let's all just be considerate to each other's needs and choices.
I think that it is a good thing that more meat free options are available. How can anyone see that as a problem?
"I'd have gotten away with it too, if it hadn't been for you Pescitarian kids...."
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.
You may not agree with them, but both Elliott and Littlewood represent the views of a segment of the political spectrum which should be represented in the Lords.
They have also had significant roles as heads of think tanks so they have made a contribution to public life
I don’t know Ruth Porter but Jon Monyihan built a successful business and is more deserving than many of the other business nominees in the past.
I've made no comment on who she had chosen. In fact I'd not read that far. Your assumption that was the objection is therefore misplaced.
My point was you pointed to the convention being PMs dish out gongs, and I was noting thst actually not all of them did.
Its therefore the case that it's a choice, not automatic. And as such people can reasonably object to the principle in this case regardless of the people.
Conversely whilst I would get rid of the convention - or at least not allow peerage - when Boris did it he had a tenure that might justify it more and the arguments have been more about who he has chosen.
The Chair of NHS England was talking recently about doctors being over-skilled. Sounds like the sort of innovative thinker needed by the Credit Suisse risk committee. And he's one of those exciting chartered accountants @kinabalu keeps telling us about. What could go wrong?
A basic rule of the NU10K is that full membership is only accorded to properly generalist.
Before 2008, Risk wasn’t fashionable. It was a dead end career in many banks. In one, I know of, the head of Risk was a guy who’d been shoved there as a political move to end his career. Where he sat, writing memos about how dangerous things were getting. Because he knew what he was doing.
Post 2008, Risk became important. So they got rid of the annoying expert guy and appointed a nice, clubable generalist.
The bank is in the news at the moment. Apparently, their risk management isn’t top notch…
I'm not a fan of all these labels. Vegan. Vegetarian. Pescitarian (sp?). Omnivore. Different people choose to eat different things. Some people have to restrict their diet for medical reasons. Let's all just be considerate to each other's needs and choices.
I think that it is a good thing that more meat free options are available. How can anyone see that as a problem?
One problem I see is that as veganism is pushed, many vegetarian manufactured foods become vegan, reducing their nutritional value and making them more artificial. That makes the population as a whole less healthy.
Mr. Mark, while I'm (vaguely) aware that DRC has been (ironically) severely harmed by the armed conflicts over its many resources, not sure if the 21st century has seen violence/death tolls on a par with Ethiopia's rarely mentioned war.
I can see why, for a European audience, Ukraine would take precedence, but the near total lack of coverage of the Ethiopian war seems bizarre.
Partly because our media tends to ignore Africa, partly because the conflict there is difficult and inconvenient* to understand, but mostly because it is not a war with immediate threat to our own safety.
* for example, recognising that people fleeing it might actually be refugees rather than economic migrants.
The idea that people are 100% economic migrant or 100% refugee is nearly always wrong.
Mr. Mark, while I'm (vaguely) aware that DRC has been (ironically) severely harmed by the armed conflicts over its many resources, not sure if the 21st century has seen violence/death tolls on a par with Ethiopia's rarely mentioned war.
I can see why, for a European audience, Ukraine would take precedence, but the near total lack of coverage of the Ethiopian war seems bizarre.
Partly because our media tends to ignore Africa, partly because the conflict there is difficult and inconvenient* to understand, but mostly because it is not a war with immediate threat to our own safety.
* for example, recognising that people fleeing it might actually be refugees rather than economic migrants.
The idea that people are 100% economic migrant or 100% refugee is nearly always wrong.
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...
Logic fail. Unless her friends are unable to eat food without meat in it.
If I go to a restaurant with friends with dietary special needs, I do tend to make sure that there is something that everyone can eat, even if it doesn't serve my favourite food.
Vegetarianism in almost all cases is a choice, not a need.
As it happens when arranging events I go to great lengths to try and ensure anyone who is coming has vegetarian or vegan options available, but for somebody do demand vegetarian choices as a right in a restaurant that isn't vegetarian is themselves failing in logic.
It is sensible though for restaurant owners to have Vegetarian and Vegan options on a menu, not least for those with dietary requirements. I have a Jewish friend who always orders the vegetarian option when out, because of the non-kosher nature of the other options for example.
Bring and share lunches at my church are always vegetarian or vegan too, so as to allow all to take part.
Again, another example of how veganism ends up crowding everything else out.
Live and let live, eh?
No, just good manners. If bringing food to share, then you should cater to all present.
You wouldn't invite Muslims to a hog roast surely?
Not intentionally perhaps. But since I cannot presume someone's faith from name or appearance, or their level of adherence to their faiths tenets if they have one, then would it not be offensive to leave them off the list of invitees unless I knew for certain they were and how observant they were?
So I probably should invite muslims to a hog roast just in case and they can then say 'sorry mate, not really my thing'.
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...
Logic fail. Unless her friends are unable to eat food without meat in it.
If I go to a restaurant with friends with dietary special needs, I do tend to make sure that there is something that everyone can eat, even if it doesn't serve my favourite food.
Vegetarianism in almost all cases is a choice, not a need.
As it happens when arranging events I go to great lengths to try and ensure anyone who is coming has vegetarian or vegan options available, but for somebody do demand vegetarian choices as a right in a restaurant that isn't vegetarian is themselves failing in logic.
It is sensible though for restaurant owners to have Vegetarian and Vegan options on a menu, not least for those with dietary requirements. I have a Jewish friend who always orders the vegetarian option when out, because of the non-kosher nature of the other options for example.
Bring and share lunches at my church are always vegetarian or vegan too, so as to allow all to take part.
Again, another example of how veganism ends up crowding everything else out.
Live and let live, eh?
Really? You have a problem with what @Foxy posted - Restaurants having Veggie/Vegan options or some events being veggie only. I'm sure you don't eat meat 100% of the time? I really enjoy my meat but I also eat vegetable curry, pesto and spaghetti, cauliflower cheese, fennel casserole (fennel and onion, sweated in oil, in a tomato sauce and topped with breadcrumbs and cheese) and Stilton and Walnut flan (a particular favourite) as well as roast duck, tongue, devilled kidneys, stuffed heart, rib eyed steak and a traditional toad in the hole.
Yes live and let live. It sounds like you wind up veggies which is why you are getting the backlash. The only time I do get annoyed with veggies is if they are doing it for animal welfare reasons and then give irrational reasons for that choice eg where that choice also causes harm to animals. However I have never had a veggie instigate that argument with me.
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 believe William Rufus had a problem with a boar?
Long ago my brother-in-law had a Nato role at a Belgian or Dutch air force base. The base mascot was a boar, which they kept in a fenced off section of woodland near the main gate. It was pretty friendly, and used to being fed by humans, but I don't think I've ever been so terrified as seeing that beast charge towards me (even with a fence between us). Twice my size, running at 25mph. Utterly horrifying
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.
You may not agree with them, but both Elliott and Littlewood represent the views of a segment of the political spectrum which should be represented in the Lords.
They have also had significant roles as heads of think tanks so they have made a contribution to public life
I don’t know Ruth Porter but Jon Monyihan built a successful business and is more deserving than many of the other business nominees in the past.
I've made no comment on who she had chosen. In fact I'd not read that far. Your assumption that was the objection is therefore misplaced.
My point was you pointed to the convention being PMs dish out gongs, and I was noting thst actually not all of them did.
Its therefore the case that it's a choice, not automatic. And as such people can reasonably object to the principle in this case regardless of the people.
Conversely whilst I would get rid of the convention - or at least not allow peerage - when Boris did it he had a tenure that might justify it more and the arguments have been more about who he has chosen.
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?
Whole thing is pathetic, parasites paying off their grifters.
malcy, on this - if not much else - were are as one.
There should be a de minimis rule of say 2 years as PM. Otherwise, it encourages everybody to think they can have a go at being PM, to dish out prizes to all.
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...
Logic fail. Unless her friends are unable to eat food without meat in it.
If I go to a restaurant with friends with dietary special needs, I do tend to make sure that there is something that everyone can eat, even if it doesn't serve my favourite food.
Vegetarianism in almost all cases is a choice, not a need.
As it happens when arranging events I go to great lengths to try and ensure anyone who is coming has vegetarian or vegan options available, but for somebody do demand vegetarian choices as a right in a restaurant that isn't vegetarian is themselves failing in logic.
Sounds like she was offering good advice and the waiter was being an obnoxious arsehole. Presumably the party went elsewhere to eat.
Sure it's a choice, in the same way that it's a choice not to eat dogs. Not sure how people would react if asking why don't you have any options without dog, being told shut up and eat dog or piss off.
The anecdote was that she said it was unfair. That's the part that makes it stupid. If the anecdote were that she suggested it was bad business of them not to serve a veggie option I might agree with you.
As it is the scenario was they picked a steak place and didnt check its offering then whined about what it did serve.
Your alternative scenario doesn't help any. If I went to a restaurant that served primarily dog meat and then acted affronted at a lack of dog free options I'd expect not to receive sympathy from the proprietors.
The waiter was unnecessarily sassy about it, but what should they have done? Gotten on their knees and begged forgiveness the menu doesn't cater to everyone's tastes?
Blame the friends for presumption in their choice. I have a friend who cannot handle spicy stuff, so we avoid the Indian entirely.
The waiter could easily have suggested having a salad and baked potato, or chips served as a main course.
Yes he probably could. He wasnt a very good waiter. That doesn't make the whinge about unfairness less of a whinge.
It wasnt unfair. Its not great business, but its not unfair.
Vegans are not all the same it should be said, I have met both the live and let live type and the militant type. They both exist but as a whole vegans cover the entire spectrum
Mr. Mark, while I'm (vaguely) aware that DRC has been (ironically) severely harmed by the armed conflicts over its many resources, not sure if the 21st century has seen violence/death tolls on a par with Ethiopia's rarely mentioned war.
I can see why, for a European audience, Ukraine would take precedence, but the near total lack of coverage of the Ethiopian war seems bizarre.
Partly because our media tends to ignore Africa, partly because the conflict there is difficult and inconvenient* to understand, but mostly because it is not a war with immediate threat to our own safety.
* for example, recognising that people fleeing it might actually be refugees rather than economic migrants.
The idea that people are 100% economic migrant or 100% refugee is nearly always wrong.
That's quite an astute comment, actually.
Not really. If you talk to immigrants it’s obviously a continuum.
“I couldn’t get into university at home (no spaces), the low level civil war was heating up, and my ethnic/religious group wasn’t the Top Mammal. I wasn’t specifically at risk, but getting a good job etc would probably be harder” - that’s a not uncommon story.
Mr. Mark, while I'm (vaguely) aware that DRC has been (ironically) severely harmed by the armed conflicts over its many resources, not sure if the 21st century has seen violence/death tolls on a par with Ethiopia's rarely mentioned war.
I can see why, for a European audience, Ukraine would take precedence, but the near total lack of coverage of the Ethiopian war seems bizarre.
Partly because our media tends to ignore Africa, partly because the conflict there is difficult and inconvenient* to understand, but mostly because it is not a war with immediate threat to our own safety.
* for example, recognising that people fleeing it might actually be refugees rather than economic migrants.
The idea that people are 100% economic migrant or 100% refugee is nearly always wrong.
If you are forced to flee somewhere then if possible you'll weigh up options on where you can go after all, and seek the most advantageous of you are able.
The Chair of NHS England was talking recently about doctors being over-skilled. Sounds like the sort of innovative thinker needed by the Credit Suisse risk committee. And he's one of those exciting chartered accountants @kinabalu keeps telling us about. What could go wrong?
A basic rule of the NU10K is that full membership is only accorded to properly generalist.
Before 2008, Risk wasn’t fashionable. It was a dead end career in many banks. In one, I know of, the head of Risk was a guy who’d been shoved there as a political move to end his career. Where he sat, writing memos about how dangerous things were getting. Because he knew what he was doing.
Post 2008, Risk became important. So they got rid of the annoying expert guy and appointed a nice, clubable generalist.
The bank is in the news at the moment. Apparently, their risk management isn’t top notch…
Deutsche Bank seems to be in trouble now from what i can gather.
I'm not a fan of all these labels. Vegan. Vegetarian. Pescitarian (sp?). Omnivore. Different people choose to eat different things. Some people have to restrict their diet for medical reasons. Let's all just be considerate to each other's needs and choices.
I think that it is a good thing that more meat free options are available. How can anyone see that as a problem?
I’d agree with this, it is only clickbait driven planks like Piers Morgan who seems to when he got irate about Greggs vegan sausage rolls. Although it was probably more attention seeking. I also find it tiresome that some vegans call people who have meat as part of their diet ‘carnivores’.
Most people, most of the time, don't exist in a state of constant vegan siege, belittled and bullied for their innocent meat-eating ways.
Anyone who claims they do is almost certainly one of those awful people who constantly needles at people for their choices then acts all affronted when you've wound them up so much they bite back.
Casino, you provoke people because you like being the heroic victim in your own little off-Broadway persecution drama. You know it and we know 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.
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...
Logic fail. Unless her friends are unable to eat food without meat in it.
If I go to a restaurant with friends with dietary special needs, I do tend to make sure that there is something that everyone can eat, even if it doesn't serve my favourite food.
Vegetarianism in almost all cases is a choice, not a need.
As it happens when arranging events I go to great lengths to try and ensure anyone who is coming has vegetarian or vegan options available, but for somebody do demand vegetarian choices as a right in a restaurant that isn't vegetarian is themselves failing in logic.
It is sensible though for restaurant owners to have Vegetarian and Vegan options on a menu, not least for those with dietary requirements. I have a Jewish friend who always orders the vegetarian option when out, because of the non-kosher nature of the other options for example.
Bring and share lunches at my church are always vegetarian or vegan too, so as to allow all to take part.
Again, another example of how veganism ends up crowding everything else out.
Live and let live, eh?
No, just good manners. If bringing food to share, then you should cater to all present.
You wouldn't invite Muslims to a hog roast surely?
If you are catering for all present then you should bring a choice.
See my other reply. It is not like you don't eat non meat products and nobody is asking you to do it all the time. It is just convenient and polite.
Meat eating is not the opposite of veganism or vegetarianism. They don't eat meat, we do eat vegetables. So I enjoy the change as do normal people. See the list of normal vegetable meals I eat as well as meat meals in the last post I made as I guess you do.
Most people, most of the time, don't exist in a state of constant vegan siege, belittled and bullied for their innocent meat-eating ways.
Anyone who claims they do is almost certainly one of those awful people who constantly needles at people for their choices then acts all affronted when you've wound them up so much they bite back.
Casino, you provoke people because you like being the heroic victim in your own little off-Broadway persecution drama. You know it and we know it.
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?
Whole thing is pathetic, parasites paying off their grifters.
malcy, on this - if not much else - were are as one.
There should be a de minimis rule of say 2 years as PM. Otherwise, it encourages everybody to think they can have a go at being PM, to dish out prizes to all.
And make it a rule - no family members.
The problem is, we always used to assumed that anyone who has risen to be PM lost Lloyd-George had some class and some judgement on this stuff. We appear now to be back to square one, so regulating feels like an idea whose time has come.
Or we could just remove an ability for any one person to confer an appointment that outlasts them in a role. Anything permanent = honours committee. And stop them even nominating that.
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...
Logic fail. Unless her friends are unable to eat food without meat in it.
If I go to a restaurant with friends with dietary special needs, I do tend to make sure that there is something that everyone can eat, even if it doesn't serve my favourite food.
Vegetarianism in almost all cases is a choice, not a need.
As it happens when arranging events I go to great lengths to try and ensure anyone who is coming has vegetarian or vegan options available, but for somebody do demand vegetarian choices as a right in a restaurant that isn't vegetarian is themselves failing in logic.
Feck them , they can just eat the vegetables and hand me their meat/chicken etc.
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...
Logic fail. Unless her friends are unable to eat food without meat in it.
If I go to a restaurant with friends with dietary special needs, I do tend to make sure that there is something that everyone can eat, even if it doesn't serve my favourite food.
It's not a logic fail. Neither restaurant is obliged to provide alternatives on their menu, even if most will choose to, and most vegetarianism is a choice no different to choosing a meat heavy place, not a need. How many different vegetarians options should they provide? There's a lot of variety there and what if they pick ones you don't like?
The lesson is get better friends who wouldn't pick a place with no vegetarian options. If they insist on a steak place without it, when you can get steak in many places, I think that sends a message.
The logic fail is thinking the restaurant staff in this no doubt made-up story was making a clever point, when in fact they were just being rude and stupid.
The logic fail is not seeming to be aware that lots of restaurants serve both meat and vegetarian options.
The logic fail is thinking that expecting a vegetarian to manage to swallow food with meat in is equivalent to expecting a non-vegetarian to manage to swallow food that doesn't contain meat.
Most people, most of the time, don't exist in a state of constant vegan siege, belittled and bullied for their innocent meat-eating ways.
Anyone who claims they do is almost certainly one of those awful people who constantly needles at people for their choices then acts all affronted when you've wound them up so much they bite back.
Casino, you provoke people because you like being the heroic victim in your own little off-Broadway persecution drama. You know it and we know it.
I think I have upset a few people in the industry. I've done meat-alternatives for a decade, and have flipped straight to the other end of the spectrum to hustle premium charcuterie.
That I am not vegan, have never claimed to be vegan, have always said that I eat meat. And yet *the horror*. Its laughable really. The majority of people who eat vegan food are not vegan, and I think that is the thing that has wound up the hairshirt vegans, who enjoyed their suffering when there weren't any decent products...
I’m neither vegan nor vegetarian but I really like the extra vegan and vegetarian options we get these days. I’ll often have one as a main course, especially if eating South Asian cuisines. Cannot see the harm of offering a diverse choice.
I'm not a fan of all these labels. Vegan. Vegetarian. Pescitarian (sp?). Omnivore. Different people choose to eat different things. Some people have to restrict their diet for medical reasons. Let's all just be considerate to each other's needs and choices.
I think that it is a good thing that more meat free options are available. How can anyone see that as a problem?
The labels are helpful on menus on the basis otherwise your personal or medical restrictions are hard to select for, but as a thing people are you are right. All of us have things we dont like to eat and so the more variety the better.
Food does stir up the passions. I actually got quite annoyed when a relative who has known me my whole life presented me (unasked for) with a desert I have always hated, not because I was offended they had done so, but because when I said no thanks I dont like x, they replied they had assumed I would have gotten over that dislike (despite 30 years of not doing so).
Yes that was very silly and precious of me to get annoyed, and I hope I concealed it as I'd look like a tit, but I got so irritated at the idea one's food preferences should just be expected to move.
I'm not a fan of all these labels. Vegan. Vegetarian. Pescitarian (sp?). Omnivore. Different people choose to eat different things. Some people have to restrict their diet for medical reasons. Let's all just be considerate to each other's needs and choices.
I think that it is a good thing that more meat free options are available. How can anyone see that as a problem?
I’d agree with this, it is only clickbait driven planks like Piers Morgan who seems to when he got irate about Greggs vegan sausage rolls. Although it was probably more attention seeking. I also find it tiresome that some vegans call people who have meat as part of their diet ‘carnivores’.
It’s the very definition of an issue we can leave to the market. Sell what food you want, treat your customers how you like (with some obvious limits), and let people choose. I deeply suspicious of anything pretending to be meat (happy to eat other veg based food) but that’s my own choice.
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.
And some people say vegans are the rigid fanatics!
I’m neither vegan nor vegetarian but I really like the extra vegan and vegetarian options we get these days. I’ll often have one as a main course, especially if eating South Asian cuisines. Cannot see the harm of offering a diverse choice.
Precisely the compromise is offering meat and vegetarian and vegan options. What is not a compromise is only offering vegan options as everyone can eat those.
Most people, most of the time, don't exist in a state of constant vegan siege, belittled and bullied for their innocent meat-eating ways.
Anyone who claims they do is almost certainly one of those awful people who constantly needles at people for their choices then acts all affronted when you've wound them up so much they bite back.
Casino, you provoke people because you like being the heroic victim in your own little off-Broadway persecution drama. You know it and we know it.
I think I have upset a few people in the industry. I've done meat-alternatives for a decade, and have flipped straight to the other end of the spectrum to hustle premium charcuterie.
That I am not vegan, have never claimed to be vegan, have always said that I eat meat. And yet *the horror*. Its laughable really. The majority of people who eat vegan food are not vegan, and I think that is the thing that has wound up the hairshirt vegans, who enjoyed their suffering when there weren't any decent products...
For the hardcore veganism is a way of life. For most of us it’s a style of cuisine.
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...
Logic fail. Unless her friends are unable to eat food without meat in it.
If I go to a restaurant with friends with dietary special needs, I do tend to make sure that there is something that everyone can eat, even if it doesn't serve my favourite food.
Vegetarianism in almost all cases is a choice, not a need.
As it happens when arranging events I go to great lengths to try and ensure anyone who is coming has vegetarian or vegan options available, but for somebody do demand vegetarian choices as a right in a restaurant that isn't vegetarian is themselves failing in logic.
It is sensible though for restaurant owners to have Vegetarian and Vegan options on a menu, not least for those with dietary requirements. I have a Jewish friend who always orders the vegetarian option when out, because of the non-kosher nature of the other options for example.
Bring and share lunches at my church are always vegetarian or vegan too, so as to allow all to take part.
Again, another example of how veganism ends up crowding everything else out.
Live and let live, eh?
No, just good manners. If bringing food to share, then you should cater to all present.
You wouldn't invite Muslims to a hog roast surely?
Providing an alternative that they can eat is offered, why not? The other option is that you don't have the food that you (and presumably the majority of your guests) want to eat, for fear of giving offence.
They could have teh coleslaw or sweetcorn or just get hammered.
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...
Logic fail. Unless her friends are unable to eat food without meat in it.
If I go to a restaurant with friends with dietary special needs, I do tend to make sure that there is something that everyone can eat, even if it doesn't serve my favourite food.
Vegetarianism in almost all cases is a choice, not a need.
As it happens when arranging events I go to great lengths to try and ensure anyone who is coming has vegetarian or vegan options available, but for somebody do demand vegetarian choices as a right in a restaurant that isn't vegetarian is themselves failing in logic.
It is sensible though for restaurant owners to have Vegetarian and Vegan options on a menu, not least for those with dietary requirements. I have a Jewish friend who always orders the vegetarian option when out, because of the non-kosher nature of the other options for example.
Bring and share lunches at my church are always vegetarian or vegan too, so as to allow all to take part.
People are eating significantly less meat for a variety of reasons. Restaurants and supermarkets respond to that trend by offering an increasing number of non-meat options. I am a pescatarian and find I can usually choose from at least half the menu at pretty much any restaurant these days. Gone are the days when 80% of the main courses were beef, lamb, chicken or pork. There is no devious plot to prevent people eating meat it is simply businesses responding to demand and current trends. .
Comments
...At council catered events, there will be plant-based options and meat will still be available...
It's possibly true, but...
Obviously.
It was fantastically awful. And they threw out the Expanded Universe to produce that rubbish. A competently made Thrawn trilogy would've blown the sequels out of the water.
Mind you, just having an actual trilogy rather than three films that buggered one another because apparently JJ Binks and Rian Johnson dislike each other would've been good.
In the Vietnam War, the worst year for US losses was 1968, with 16,899
Total US losses for the 20 years in Vietnam from 1956-1975 were 58,281. Russia has lost that many in 2023 alone. Mostly attacking Bakhmut, which it still does not control.
He had a steak and explained that he had given up vegetarianism.
Eldest granddaughter hasn’t so all was not lost!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65071989
A real life 'Simpsons did it' moment.
If I go to a restaurant with friends with dietary special needs, I do tend to make sure that there is something that everyone can eat, even if it doesn't serve my favourite food.
https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/bug-banquet-eating-insects
As it happens when arranging events I go to great lengths to try and ensure anyone who is coming has vegetarian or vegan options available, but for somebody do demand vegetarian choices as a right in a restaurant that isn't vegetarian is themselves failing in logic.
But it’s early and I’m too stressed to figure it out
The lesson is get better friends who wouldn't pick a place with no vegetarian options. If they insist on a steak place without it, when you can get steak in many places, I think that sends a message.
As a libertarian socialist I am firmly in the live and let live category. Vegetarianism and veganism are good ideas imh, I've been a vegetarian for 35 years but I wouldn't force it on anyone. I would liberalise our drugs laws too. If people want to enjoy themselves once in a while it's nobody's fucking business. I'd love to see the Tory freedom brigade getting behind that one but I'm not holding my breath.
Bring and share lunches at my church are always vegetarian or vegan too, so as to allow all to take part.
I can see why, for a European audience, Ukraine would take precedence, but the near total lack of coverage of the Ethiopian war seems bizarre.
https://mobile.twitter.com/DavidDuvenaud/status/1639365724316499971
Thread and links worth a read.
This is an AI researcher, not Leon.
You have had a whole lot of meat eaters here (so those more inclined to side with you) tell you that their experience of vegans/veggies is different to yours. Why would we tell you this if it were not true? I can assure you that if a vegan started ramming their beliefs down my throat I would be backing you up to the hilt, but not a single one had done so in my entire life.
As others have pointed out, it only crops up when it comes up naturally in conversation. Not a single person has tried to convert me and are tolerant of my choices even if they disagree.
It sounds like your vegan friends are deliberately trying to wind you up.
Sure it's a choice, in the same way that it's a choice not to eat dogs. Not sure how people would react if asking why don't you have any options without dog, being told shut up and eat dog or piss off.
That’s how someone so poor that they feel the need to keep excess boiled water in a thermos can afford fortnights in Asia.
No need to suggest any hint of nonsense at all, no sir, not at all.
* for example, recognising that people fleeing it might actually be refugees rather than economic migrants.
Shrug your shoulders, live and let live.
Instant karma.
And @HYUFD has shown all the councils that have done the same. I have experience of empo
Until then, combat.
Live and let live, eh?
As it is the scenario was they picked a steak place and didnt check its offering then whined about what it did serve.
Your alternative scenario doesn't help any. If I went to a restaurant that served primarily dog meat and then acted affronted at a lack of dog free options I'd expect not to receive sympathy from the proprietors.
The waiter was unnecessarily sassy about it, but what should they have done? Gotten on their knees and begged forgiveness the menu doesn't cater to everyone's tastes?
Blame the friends for presumption in their choice. I have a friend who cannot handle spicy stuff, so we avoid the Indian entirely.
I think that it is a good thing that more meat free options are available. How can anyone see that as a problem?
You wouldn't invite Muslims to a hog roast surely?
They have also had significant roles as heads of think tanks so they have made a contribution to public life
I don’t know Ruth Porter but Jon Monyihan built a successful business and is more deserving than many of the other business nominees in the past.
"By 2008, the Second Congo War and its aftermath had caused 5.4 million deaths, principally through disease and malnutrition, making it the deadliest conflict worldwide since World War II."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Congo_War
My point was you pointed to the convention being PMs dish out gongs, and I was noting thst actually not all of them did.
Its therefore the case that it's a choice, not automatic. And as such people can reasonably object to the principle in this case regardless of the people.
Conversely whilst I would get rid of the convention - or at least not allow peerage - when Boris did it he had a tenure that might justify it more and the arguments have been more about who he has chosen.
Before 2008, Risk wasn’t fashionable. It was a dead end career in many banks. In one, I know of, the head of Risk was a guy who’d been shoved there as a political move to end his career. Where he sat, writing memos about how dangerous things were getting. Because he knew what he was doing.
Post 2008, Risk became important. So they got rid of the annoying expert guy and appointed a nice, clubable generalist.
The bank is in the news at the moment. Apparently, their risk management isn’t top notch…
I think the disparity is excess deaths and violent deaths (which Wikipeida indicate as 350,000).
observant they were?
So I probably should invite muslims to a hog roast just in case and they can then say 'sorry mate, not really my thing'.
Yes live and let live. It sounds like you wind up veggies which is why you are getting the backlash. The only time I do get annoyed with veggies is if they are doing it for animal welfare reasons and then give irrational reasons for that choice eg where that choice also causes harm to animals. However I have never had a veggie instigate that argument with me.
It was pretty friendly, and used to being fed by humans, but I don't think I've ever been so terrified as seeing that beast charge towards me (even with a fence between us).
Twice my size, running at 25mph. Utterly horrifying
There should be a de minimis rule of say 2 years as PM. Otherwise, it encourages everybody to think they can have a go at being PM, to dish out prizes to all.
And make it a rule - no family members.
It wasnt unfair. Its not great business, but its not unfair.
“I couldn’t get into university at home (no spaces), the low level civil war was heating up, and my ethnic/religious group wasn’t the Top Mammal. I wasn’t specifically at risk, but getting a good job etc would probably be harder” - that’s a not uncommon story.
Anyone who claims they do is almost certainly one of those awful people who constantly needles at people for their choices then acts all affronted when you've wound them up so much they bite back.
Casino, you provoke people because you like being the heroic victim in your own little off-Broadway persecution drama. You know it and we know it.
Meat eating is not the opposite of veganism or vegetarianism. They don't eat meat, we do eat vegetables. So I enjoy the change as do normal people. See the list of normal vegetable meals I eat as well as meat meals in the last post I made as I guess you do.
So live and let live. Have the odd apple.
Or we could just remove an ability for any one person to confer an appointment that outlasts them in a role. Anything permanent = honours committee. And stop them even nominating that.
The logic fail is not seeming to be aware that lots of restaurants serve both meat and vegetarian options.
The logic fail is thinking that expecting a vegetarian to manage to swallow food with meat in is equivalent to expecting a non-vegetarian to manage to swallow food that doesn't contain meat.
That I am not vegan, have never claimed to be vegan, have always said that I eat meat. And yet *the horror*. Its laughable really. The majority of people who eat vegan food are not vegan, and I think that is the thing that has wound up the hairshirt vegans, who enjoyed their suffering when there weren't any decent products...
Food does stir up the passions. I actually got quite annoyed when a relative who has known me my whole life presented me (unasked for) with a desert I have always hated, not because I was offended they had done so, but because when I said no thanks I dont like x, they replied they had assumed I would have gotten over that dislike (despite 30 years of not doing so).
Yes that was very silly and precious of me to get annoyed, and I hope I concealed it as I'd look like a tit, but I got so irritated at the idea one's food preferences should just be expected to move.