Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given 2lb of raw meat at my departmental lunch."
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given a vegetarian option at my departmental lunch."
Either you believe in diversity or you don't. Either you believe in inclusion or you don't.
If you are excluding vegetarians, or excluding meat eaters, you are being discriminatory and exclusionary. It is a disgraceful attitude in this day and age.
People should be inclusionary and cater for all diets, or none at all.
Show me someone who exclusively eats meat, and I'll ensure they are catered for.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given 2lb of raw meat at my departmental lunch."
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given a vegetarian option at my departmental lunch."
Either you believe in diversity or you don't. Either you believe in inclusion or you don't.
If you are excluding vegetarians, or excluding meat eaters, you are being discriminatory and exclusionary. It is a disgraceful attitude in this day and age.
People should be inclusionary and cater for all diets, or none at all.
Show me someone who exclusively eats meat, and I'll ensure they are catered for.
Nobody likes that shit. Even vegans look at it with sadness.
Apples. Vegan. Oranges. Vegan. Bananas. Vegan.
Never offer people a piece of fruit.
Yeah, but that's not what it is, is it?
No-one mind fruit and salad. Or beans. That's just part of a healthy balanced diet.
Vegan is "plant-based" wank as a main meal - and i use that term very loosely- with such horrors as tofu and it's almost always disgusting. Sometimes, it's downright fraudulent: like trying to pass off a slice of cauliflower as a steak, and causing abject misery in the process.
It has no tofu and is a main meal. Another is a pasta, spinach and mushroom pasta bake.
I love meat: I had a bacon and sausage breakfast baguette this morning before my swim (that *may* have been a mistake...). But it's totally ridiculous to say that vegan main meals are disgusting. They *can* be, but they can also be virtually indistinguishable from vegetarian, or even ones with small amounts of meat.
(*) If I can be bothered to use vegan cheese.
Mushroom risotto has a bad name, as it's the go to veggy/vegan dish on a thousand menus, and is rarely good.
Mine is great.
The thing is, it tastes a lot better if made with chicken stock, and then parmesan grated over.
My wife is a pescatarian, so I rarely cook meat at home.
Mostly this doesn't bother me.
Except chicken stock. That's the one thing that I *wish* there was a decent vegetarian alternative for. I just wish that all those fake meat companies concentrated on making a really good (non-chicken) chicken stock.
Pensioners are ruthless when it comes to voting for their own interests and you don’t want to annoy them .
This pensioners is annoyed it is being kept and have been against it for some time
Starmer cannot afford the triple lock, and either he will volte face once in office or the pension age will rise to 70 +
I agree it’s unaffordable . But I don’t think Labour had a choice . Taxes will need to go up to fund the increase in pension costs or the retirement age will need to increase .
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
Where's the logic crime?
I eat meat with every meal. Why should I be excluded from dining, any more than someone who never eats meat?
If your concern is a lack of vegetarian options then order more vegetarian options, problem solved, don't reduce the meat options down to zero.
You’re not being excluded from dining. If you’re offered from a plate full of cucumber sandwiches in front of you you’re choosing not to eat one is just that, a choice. You’re not being excluded. You’re just being a dick.
Vegetarianism and veganism are philosophies, not a diet, and often adhered to with the strength of a religious belief. Suggesting that your meat eating preferences should always be adhered to as if they were a belief system is not far off suggesting a Kosher restaurant should serve pork. Entitled, disrespectful, and offensive. You do not have to share someone’s beliefs to respect them.
This is ridiculous, and in microcosm an example of the intolerance that woke encapsulates. As someone who eats meat and would prefer the option of meat containing products at an event I don’t see why my preference is less important than that of a vegetarian or vegan. Provide options for all. Simple. Choosing only to supply vegetarian, or worse vegan, is not taking into account the preferences of some of your guests. You wouldn’t do it the other way round. It’s not unreasonable to hope for meat containing products.
And on another issue (but related) - there is a huge collision due between those who espouse vegans m for health reasons (many do) and those who decry ultra processed food. Much of the vegan food in supermarkets is definitely in the ultra processed category.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
He's almost certainly talking nonsense.
Whenever I've seen catering like this it's been the other way round: the meat options go quickly and the vegan stuff isn't touched.
The bigger problem is the virtue-signalling you now get with some organisations/events wanting to make statements by only ordering vegan/vegetarian food for everyone - I'm in a fight with one on this very matter right now. When this happens people leave early, and go and get their own food, don't come again or learn next time to buy and eat their own in advance; and it pisses a lot of people off.
Thankfully, I've done the opposite as an experiment: I organised a team social in a steak restaurant. We had 20 people in there, mostly under 30 years old, with unlimited cuts of beef and steak with red wine, and they absolutely loved it. The two vegetarians had their own thing, but the same fries, creamed spinach, peppers and red wine, and had no issue with it at all.
I've seen both things happen - the vegetarian options go left untouched, or the vegetarian options go quickly - because the vegetarian options in a buffet can be side options for omnivores.
The responsible thing to do isn't to cut out the vegetarian options, or the meat options, its to cater for both if you're doing catering. Concerned there's not enough vegetarian options? Order more then! Don't be a selfish **** and eliminate other people's options and only order what you want and screw everyone else.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given 2lb of raw meat at my departmental lunch."
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given a vegetarian option at my departmental lunch."
Either you believe in diversity or you don't. Either you believe in inclusion or you don't.
If you are excluding vegetarians, or excluding meat eaters, you are being discriminatory and exclusionary. It is a disgraceful attitude in this day and age.
People should be inclusionary and cater for all diets, or none at all.
Show me someone who exclusively eats meat, and I'll ensure they are catered for.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
Where's the logic crime?
I eat meat with every meal. Why should I be excluded from dining, any more than someone who never eats meat?
If your concern is a lack of vegetarian options then order more vegetarian options, problem solved, don't reduce the meat options down to zero.
Cheese and pickle sandwich. Egg salad sandwich. Slice of pizza. Slice of quiche. Mini brownies for after. Hardly a hardship.
Bacon sandwich. Pork loin. Slice of pate. Roast duck. Steak.
Hardly a hardship.
How about I make my choices, and you make yours. I don't eat any of what you wrote on my diet.
An ethical objection to pizza? And brownies? Fair play.
No, a dietary one.
I can eat pizza if you replace the wheat with chicken.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
Where's the logic crime?
I eat meat with every meal. Why should I be excluded from dining, any more than someone who never eats meat?
If your concern is a lack of vegetarian options then order more vegetarian options, problem solved, don't reduce the meat options down to zero.
Cheese and pickle sandwich. Egg salad sandwich. Slice of pizza. Slice of quiche. Mini brownies for after. Hardly a hardship.
Bacon sandwich. Pork loin. Slice of pate. Roast duck. Steak.
Hardly a hardship.
How about I make my choices, and you make yours. I don't eat any of what you wrote on my diet.
An ethical objection to pizza? And brownies? Fair play.
No, a dietary one.
I can eat pizza if you replace the wheat with chicken.
But on that logic you can easily have spinach and cheese for lunch, hold the chicken.
I could if I believed that is what should be eaten but its not. As I said, I do not eat vegetarian meals, ever.
Never had a bowl of cornflakes for breakfast?
Or a cup of tea and a slice of cake at teatime?
I did in the past, yes, it left my health in poor shape and as diabetes runs in the family I found what works for me to avoid it. I won't have them anymore.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
He's almost certainly talking nonsense.
Whenever I've seen catering like this it's been the other way round: the meat options go quickly and the vegan stuff isn't touched.
The bigger problem is the virtue-signalling you now get with some organisations/events wanting to make statements by only ordering vegan/vegetarian food for everyone - I'm in a fight with one on this very matter right now. When this happens people leave early, and go and get their own food, don't come again or learn next time to buy and eat their own in advance; and it pisses a lot of people off.
Thankfully, I've done the opposite as an experiment: I organised a team social in a steak restaurant. We had 20 people in there, mostly under 30 years old, with unlimited cuts of beef and steak with red wine, and they absolutely loved it. The two vegetarians had their own thing, but the same fries, creamed spinach, peppers and red wine, and had no issue with it at all.
I've seen both things happen - the vegetarian options go left untouched, or the vegetarian options go quickly - because the vegetarian options in a buffet can be side options for omnivores.
The responsible thing to do isn't to cut out the vegetarian options, or the meat options, its to cater for both if you're doing catering. Concerned there's not enough vegetarian options? Order more then! Don't be a selfish **** and eliminate other people's options and only order what you want and screw everyone else.
You come across as such a vegan
Why? I make my own choices, I don't want to push my choices down anyone's throat, so long as I get to choose what I want.
If someone is a vegan and wants to make their own choice but not push theirs down anyone else's throat either, then I totally respect that.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given 2lb of raw meat at my departmental lunch."
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given a vegetarian option at my departmental lunch."
Either you believe in diversity or you don't. Either you believe in inclusion or you don't.
If you are excluding vegetarians, or excluding meat eaters, you are being discriminatory and exclusionary. It is a disgraceful attitude in this day and age.
People should be inclusionary and cater for all diets, or none at all.
Show me someone who exclusively eats meat, and I'll ensure they are catered for.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
Where's the logic crime?
I eat meat with every meal. Why should I be excluded from dining, any more than someone who never eats meat?
If your concern is a lack of vegetarian options then order more vegetarian options, problem solved, don't reduce the meat options down to zero.
You’re not being excluded from dining. If you’re offered from a plate full of cucumber sandwiches in front of you you’re choosing not to eat one is just that, a choice. You’re not being excluded. You’re just being a dick.
Vegetarianism and veganism are philosophies, not a diet, and often adhered to with the strength of a religious belief. Suggesting that your meat eating preferences should always be adhered to as if they were a belief system is not far off suggesting a Kosher restaurant should serve pork. Entitled, disrespectful, and offensive. You do not have to share someone’s beliefs to respect them.
This is ridiculous, and in microcosm an example of the intolerance that woke encapsulates. As someone who eats meat and would prefer the option of meat containing products at an event I don’t see why my preference is less important than that of a vegetarian or vegan. Provide options for all. Simple. Choosing only to supply vegetarian, or worse vegan, is not taking into account the preferences of some of your guests. You wouldn’t do it the other way round. It’s not unreasonable to hope for meat containing products.
And on another issue (but related) - there is a huge collision due between those who espouse vegans m for health reasons (many do) and those who decry ultra processed food. Much of the vegan food in supermarkets is definitely in the ultra processed category.
Personally, I'm mostly about saving money at these events. So I choose the cheapest option.
Fuck 'em. If they want good food they can pay for it themselves.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given 2lb of raw meat at my departmental lunch."
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given a vegetarian option at my departmental lunch."
Either you believe in diversity or you don't. Either you believe in inclusion or you don't.
If you are excluding vegetarians, or excluding meat eaters, you are being discriminatory and exclusionary. It is a disgraceful attitude in this day and age.
People should be inclusionary and cater for all diets, or none at all.
Show me someone who exclusively eats meat, and I'll ensure they are catered for.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given 2lb of raw meat at my departmental lunch."
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given a vegetarian option at my departmental lunch."
Either you believe in diversity or you don't. Either you believe in inclusion or you don't.
If you are excluding vegetarians, or excluding meat eaters, you are being discriminatory and exclusionary. It is a disgraceful attitude in this day and age.
People should be inclusionary and cater for all diets, or none at all.
Show me someone who exclusively eats meat, and I'll ensure they are catered for.
I eat meat with every meal. Why should I be excluded from dining, any more than someone who never eats meat?
If your concern is a lack of vegetarian options then order more vegetarian options, problem solved, don't reduce the meat options down to zero.
Is that a philosophical belief? A religion? The Church of Gammon?
Yes it is a philosophical belief, I am a carnivore and on a carnivore diet.
Now are you going to respect my beliefs and my choice and treat them as equally as you would anyone else, or will you be a bigot and discriminatory?
Carnivore or omnivore?
I'm willing to believe that you do eat nothing but meat, and I have no intention of going through your bins to check. But even keto diets include vegetables.
And if, for whatever reasons (efficiency of service, reduced waste, sense of sharing) a meal is a one-option thing, making that vegetarian includes the most people and excludes the least.
And if you are concerned about it coding for wokeness (let's face it, that's the issue some people have), console yourself with the news that the famously unwoke Katharine Birbalsingh came to that conclusion for the lunch menus at her school.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given 2lb of raw meat at my departmental lunch."
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given a vegetarian option at my departmental lunch."
Either you believe in diversity or you don't. Either you believe in inclusion or you don't.
If you are excluding vegetarians, or excluding meat eaters, you are being discriminatory and exclusionary. It is a disgraceful attitude in this day and age.
People should be inclusionary and cater for all diets, or none at all.
Show me someone who exclusively eats meat, and I'll ensure they are catered for.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given 2lb of raw meat at my departmental lunch."
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given a vegetarian option at my departmental lunch."
Either you believe in diversity or you don't. Either you believe in inclusion or you don't.
If you are excluding vegetarians, or excluding meat eaters, you are being discriminatory and exclusionary. It is a disgraceful attitude in this day and age.
People should be inclusionary and cater for all diets, or none at all.
Show me someone who exclusively eats meat, and I'll ensure they are catered for.
I eat meat with every meal. Why should I be excluded from dining, any more than someone who never eats meat?
If your concern is a lack of vegetarian options then order more vegetarian options, problem solved, don't reduce the meat options down to zero.
Is that a philosophical belief? A religion? The Church of Gammon?
Yes it is a philosophical belief, I am a carnivore and on a carnivore diet.
Now are you going to respect my beliefs and my choice and treat them as equally as you would anyone else, or will you be a bigot and discriminatory?
Carnivore or omnivore?
I'm willing to believe that you do eat nothing but meat, and I have no intention of going through your bins to check. But even keto diets include vegetables.
And if, for whatever reasons (efficiency of service, reduced waste, sense of sharing) a meal is a one-option thing, making that vegetarian includes the most people and excludes the least.
And if you are concerned about it coding for wokeness (let's face it, that's the issue some people have), console yourself with the news that the famously unwoke Katharine Birbalsingh came to that conclusion for the lunch menus at her school.
Some people's keto diets include vegetables. I've gone for a simple carnivore diet.
At my work you can pay for your meals and get a choice, but I don't like any of the options so I pay elsewhere and bring in my own food. My lunch today was a chorizo ring.
I couldn't give less of a shit about "wokeness", ask Casino Royale, I am about as woke as right wingers can get.
But don't take my food away from me and call it progress, any more than I would take yours away from you. I respect equality, diversity and inclusion which is why I think there should be EDI for both meat eaters and vegetarians alike.
Nobody likes that shit. Even vegans look at it with sadness.
Apples. Vegan. Oranges. Vegan. Bananas. Vegan.
Never offer people a piece of fruit.
Yeah, but that's not what it is, is it?
No-one mind fruit and salad. Or beans. That's just part of a healthy balanced diet.
Vegan is "plant-based" wank as a main meal - and i use that term very loosely- with such horrors as tofu and it's almost always disgusting. Sometimes, it's downright fraudulent: like trying to pass off a slice of cauliflower as a steak, and causing abject misery in the process.
It has no tofu and is a main meal. Another is a pasta, spinach and mushroom pasta bake.
I love meat: I had a bacon and sausage breakfast baguette this morning before my swim (that *may* have been a mistake...). But it's totally ridiculous to say that vegan main meals are disgusting. They *can* be, but they can also be virtually indistinguishable from vegetarian, or even ones with small amounts of meat.
(*) If I can be bothered to use vegan cheese.
Mushroom risotto has a bad name, as it's the go to veggy/vegan dish on a thousand menus, and is rarely good.
Mine is great.
The thing is, it tastes a lot better if made with chicken stock, and then parmesan grated over.
My wife is a pescatarian, so I rarely cook meat at home.
Mostly this doesn't bother me.
Except chicken stock. That's the one thing that I *wish* there was a decent vegetarian alternative for. I just wish that all those fake meat companies concentrated on making a really good (non-chicken) chicken stock.
Yep. First time my wife dismembered the chicken carcass to make stock I couldn't understand why she was going to the trouble. But then, of course I understood.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given 2lb of raw meat at my departmental lunch."
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given a vegetarian option at my departmental lunch."
Either you believe in diversity or you don't. Either you believe in inclusion or you don't.
If you are excluding vegetarians, or excluding meat eaters, you are being discriminatory and exclusionary. It is a disgraceful attitude in this day and age.
People should be inclusionary and cater for all diets, or none at all.
Show me someone who exclusively eats meat, and I'll ensure they are catered for.
I eat meat with every meal. Why should I be excluded from dining, any more than someone who never eats meat?
If your concern is a lack of vegetarian options then order more vegetarian options, problem solved, don't reduce the meat options down to zero.
Is that a philosophical belief? A religion? The Church of Gammon?
Yes it is a philosophical belief, I am a carnivore and on a carnivore diet.
Now are you going to respect my beliefs and my choice and treat them as equally as you would anyone else, or will you be a bigot and discriminatory?
Wait.
You only eat meat?
I am on a carnivore ketogenic diet, yes.
Have been since October 2023.
Currently down 30lbs and in the best health I've been in years.
*Omnivore* ketogenic diet. Not carnivore.
You come across as someone going up to a trans person who identifies as one gender and are repeatedly and vehemently insisting they are the opposite.
I have told you I identify as a carnivore and I eat meat with every meal. I stick to animal related products, and do like cheese yes, but I will have cheese as a side with my meat not a replacement for it.
Now you can identify as what you want to identify as, and I can do the same. That's called inclusion. Maybe you need to become more woke.
I don't follow these religious/philosophical disputes closely, so there may be a standard answer to this question: Can vegetarians, or even vegans, eat mushrooms, even though they are not plants, but fungi?
It's my impression that fungi are somwhat mose closely related to animals than plants, despite their looks.
(For the record: I am an omnivore, like many other successful animals.)
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given 2lb of raw meat at my departmental lunch."
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given a vegetarian option at my departmental lunch."
Either you believe in diversity or you don't. Either you believe in inclusion or you don't.
If you are excluding vegetarians, or excluding meat eaters, you are being discriminatory and exclusionary. It is a disgraceful attitude in this day and age.
People should be inclusionary and cater for all diets, or none at all.
Show me someone who exclusively eats meat, and I'll ensure they are catered for.
I eat meat with every meal. Why should I be excluded from dining, any more than someone who never eats meat?
If your concern is a lack of vegetarian options then order more vegetarian options, problem solved, don't reduce the meat options down to zero.
Is that a philosophical belief? A religion? The Church of Gammon?
Yes it is a philosophical belief, I am a carnivore and on a carnivore diet.
Now are you going to respect my beliefs and my choice and treat them as equally as you would anyone else, or will you be a bigot and discriminatory?
Carnivore or omnivore?
I'm willing to believe that you do eat nothing but meat, and I have no intention of going through your bins to check. But even keto diets include vegetables.
And if, for whatever reasons (efficiency of service, reduced waste, sense of sharing) a meal is a one-option thing, making that vegetarian includes the most people and excludes the least.
And if you are concerned about it coding for wokeness (let's face it, that's the issue some people have), console yourself with the news that the famously unwoke Katharine Birbalsingh came to that conclusion for the lunch menus at her school.
Some people's keto diets include vegetables. I've gone for a simple carnivore diet.
At my work you can pay for your meals and get a choice, but I don't like any of the options so I pay elsewhere and bring in my own food. My lunch today was a chorizo ring.
I couldn't give less of a shit about "wokeness", ask Casino Royale, I am about as woke as right wingers can get.
But don't take my food away from me and call it progress, any more than I would take yours away from you. I respect equality, diversity and inclusion which is why I think there should be EDI for both meat eaters and vegetarians alike.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given 2lb of raw meat at my departmental lunch."
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given a vegetarian option at my departmental lunch."
Either you believe in diversity or you don't. Either you believe in inclusion or you don't.
If you are excluding vegetarians, or excluding meat eaters, you are being discriminatory and exclusionary. It is a disgraceful attitude in this day and age.
People should be inclusionary and cater for all diets, or none at all.
Show me someone who exclusively eats meat, and I'll ensure they are catered for.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given 2lb of raw meat at my departmental lunch."
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given a vegetarian option at my departmental lunch."
Either you believe in diversity or you don't. Either you believe in inclusion or you don't.
If you are excluding vegetarians, or excluding meat eaters, you are being discriminatory and exclusionary. It is a disgraceful attitude in this day and age.
People should be inclusionary and cater for all diets, or none at all.
Show me someone who exclusively eats meat, and I'll ensure they are catered for.
I eat meat with every meal. Why should I be excluded from dining, any more than someone who never eats meat?
If your concern is a lack of vegetarian options then order more vegetarian options, problem solved, don't reduce the meat options down to zero.
Is that a philosophical belief? A religion? The Church of Gammon?
Yes it is a philosophical belief, I am a carnivore and on a carnivore diet.
Now are you going to respect my beliefs and my choice and treat them as equally as you would anyone else, or will you be a bigot and discriminatory?
Carnivore or omnivore?
I'm willing to believe that you do eat nothing but meat, and I have no intention of going through your bins to check. But even keto diets include vegetables.
And if, for whatever reasons (efficiency of service, reduced waste, sense of sharing) a meal is a one-option thing, making that vegetarian includes the most people and excludes the least.
And if you are concerned about it coding for wokeness (let's face it, that's the issue some people have), console yourself with the news that the famously unwoke Katharine Birbalsingh came to that conclusion for the lunch menus at her school.
Some people's keto diets include vegetables. I've gone for a simple carnivore diet.
At my work you can pay for your meals and get a choice, but I don't like any of the options so I pay elsewhere and bring in my own food. My lunch today was a chorizo ring.
I couldn't give less of a shit about "wokeness", ask Casino Royale, I am about as woke as right wingers can get.
But don't take my food away from me and call it progress, any more than I would take yours away from you. I respect equality, diversity and inclusion which is why I think there should be EDI for both meat eaters and vegetarians alike.
Chorizo has peppers in you fraud.
136g of pork per 100g, I consumed 200g so that's 272g of pork. I count that as meat, don't you?
Don't see peppers listed so your claim is wrong, but even if they were, no it doesn't make me a fraud and don't be rude.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given 2lb of raw meat at my departmental lunch."
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given a vegetarian option at my departmental lunch."
Either you believe in diversity or you don't. Either you believe in inclusion or you don't.
If you are excluding vegetarians, or excluding meat eaters, you are being discriminatory and exclusionary. It is a disgraceful attitude in this day and age.
People should be inclusionary and cater for all diets, or none at all.
Show me someone who exclusively eats meat, and I'll ensure they are catered for.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given 2lb of raw meat at my departmental lunch."
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given a vegetarian option at my departmental lunch."
Either you believe in diversity or you don't. Either you believe in inclusion or you don't.
If you are excluding vegetarians, or excluding meat eaters, you are being discriminatory and exclusionary. It is a disgraceful attitude in this day and age.
People should be inclusionary and cater for all diets, or none at all.
Show me someone who exclusively eats meat, and I'll ensure they are catered for.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given 2lb of raw meat at my departmental lunch."
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given a vegetarian option at my departmental lunch."
Either you believe in diversity or you don't. Either you believe in inclusion or you don't.
If you are excluding vegetarians, or excluding meat eaters, you are being discriminatory and exclusionary. It is a disgraceful attitude in this day and age.
People should be inclusionary and cater for all diets, or none at all.
Show me someone who exclusively eats meat, and I'll ensure they are catered for.
I eat meat with every meal. Why should I be excluded from dining, any more than someone who never eats meat?
If your concern is a lack of vegetarian options then order more vegetarian options, problem solved, don't reduce the meat options down to zero.
Is that a philosophical belief? A religion? The Church of Gammon?
Yes it is a philosophical belief, I am a carnivore and on a carnivore diet.
Now are you going to respect my beliefs and my choice and treat them as equally as you would anyone else, or will you be a bigot and discriminatory?
Carnivore or omnivore?
I'm willing to believe that you do eat nothing but meat, and I have no intention of going through your bins to check. But even keto diets include vegetables.
And if, for whatever reasons (efficiency of service, reduced waste, sense of sharing) a meal is a one-option thing, making that vegetarian includes the most people and excludes the least.
And if you are concerned about it coding for wokeness (let's face it, that's the issue some people have), console yourself with the news that the famously unwoke Katharine Birbalsingh came to that conclusion for the lunch menus at her school.
Some people's keto diets include vegetables. I've gone for a simple carnivore diet.
At my work you can pay for your meals and get a choice, but I don't like any of the options so I pay elsewhere and bring in my own food. My lunch today was a chorizo ring.
I couldn't give less of a shit about "wokeness", ask Casino Royale, I am about as woke as right wingers can get.
But don't take my food away from me and call it progress, any more than I would take yours away from you. I respect equality, diversity and inclusion which is why I think there should be EDI for both meat eaters and vegetarians alike.
Chorizo has peppers in you fraud.
136g of pork per 100g, I consumed 200g so that's 272g of pork. I count that as meat, don't you?
Don't see peppers listed so your claim is wrong, but even if they were, no it doesn't make me a fraud and don't be rude.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given 2lb of raw meat at my departmental lunch."
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given a vegetarian option at my departmental lunch."
Either you believe in diversity or you don't. Either you believe in inclusion or you don't.
If you are excluding vegetarians, or excluding meat eaters, you are being discriminatory and exclusionary. It is a disgraceful attitude in this day and age.
People should be inclusionary and cater for all diets, or none at all.
Show me someone who exclusively eats meat, and I'll ensure they are catered for.
I eat meat with every meal. Why should I be excluded from dining, any more than someone who never eats meat?
If your concern is a lack of vegetarian options then order more vegetarian options, problem solved, don't reduce the meat options down to zero.
Is that a philosophical belief? A religion? The Church of Gammon?
Yes it is a philosophical belief, I am a carnivore and on a carnivore diet.
Now are you going to respect my beliefs and my choice and treat them as equally as you would anyone else, or will you be a bigot and discriminatory?
Carnivore or omnivore?
I'm willing to believe that you do eat nothing but meat, and I have no intention of going through your bins to check. But even keto diets include vegetables.
And if, for whatever reasons (efficiency of service, reduced waste, sense of sharing) a meal is a one-option thing, making that vegetarian includes the most people and excludes the least.
And if you are concerned about it coding for wokeness (let's face it, that's the issue some people have), console yourself with the news that the famously unwoke Katharine Birbalsingh came to that conclusion for the lunch menus at her school.
Some people's keto diets include vegetables. I've gone for a simple carnivore diet.
At my work you can pay for your meals and get a choice, but I don't like any of the options so I pay elsewhere and bring in my own food. My lunch today was a chorizo ring.
I couldn't give less of a shit about "wokeness", ask Casino Royale, I am about as woke as right wingers can get.
But don't take my food away from me and call it progress, any more than I would take yours away from you. I respect equality, diversity and inclusion which is why I think there should be EDI for both meat eaters and vegetarians alike.
Chorizo has peppers in you fraud.
136g of pork per 100g, I consumed 200g so that's 272g of pork. I count that as meat, don't you?
Don't see peppers listed so your claim is wrong, but even if they were, no it doesn't make me a fraud and don't be rude.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given 2lb of raw meat at my departmental lunch."
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given a vegetarian option at my departmental lunch."
Either you believe in diversity or you don't. Either you believe in inclusion or you don't.
If you are excluding vegetarians, or excluding meat eaters, you are being discriminatory and exclusionary. It is a disgraceful attitude in this day and age.
People should be inclusionary and cater for all diets, or none at all.
Show me someone who exclusively eats meat, and I'll ensure they are catered for.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given 2lb of raw meat at my departmental lunch."
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given a vegetarian option at my departmental lunch."
Either you believe in diversity or you don't. Either you believe in inclusion or you don't.
If you are excluding vegetarians, or excluding meat eaters, you are being discriminatory and exclusionary. It is a disgraceful attitude in this day and age.
People should be inclusionary and cater for all diets, or none at all.
Show me someone who exclusively eats meat, and I'll ensure they are catered for.
I eat meat with every meal. Why should I be excluded from dining, any more than someone who never eats meat?
If your concern is a lack of vegetarian options then order more vegetarian options, problem solved, don't reduce the meat options down to zero.
Is that a philosophical belief? A religion? The Church of Gammon?
Yes it is a philosophical belief, I am a carnivore and on a carnivore diet.
Now are you going to respect my beliefs and my choice and treat them as equally as you would anyone else, or will you be a bigot and discriminatory?
Carnivore or omnivore?
I'm willing to believe that you do eat nothing but meat, and I have no intention of going through your bins to check. But even keto diets include vegetables.
And if, for whatever reasons (efficiency of service, reduced waste, sense of sharing) a meal is a one-option thing, making that vegetarian includes the most people and excludes the least.
And if you are concerned about it coding for wokeness (let's face it, that's the issue some people have), console yourself with the news that the famously unwoke Katharine Birbalsingh came to that conclusion for the lunch menus at her school.
Some people's keto diets include vegetables. I've gone for a simple carnivore diet.
At my work you can pay for your meals and get a choice, but I don't like any of the options so I pay elsewhere and bring in my own food. My lunch today was a chorizo ring.
I couldn't give less of a shit about "wokeness", ask Casino Royale, I am about as woke as right wingers can get.
But don't take my food away from me and call it progress, any more than I would take yours away from you. I respect equality, diversity and inclusion which is why I think there should be EDI for both meat eaters and vegetarians alike.
Chorizo has peppers in you fraud.
136g of pork per 100g, I consumed 200g so that's 272g of pork. I count that as meat, don't you?
Don't see peppers listed so your claim is wrong, but even if they were, no it doesn't make me a fraud and don't be rude.
Even worse - HERBS
I'm entirely fine with seasoning my meat.
Does that coffee that gets pooped through some furry animal or other count as a meat product? Given your java consumption you should probably go for it just to be on the safe side.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given 2lb of raw meat at my departmental lunch."
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given a vegetarian option at my departmental lunch."
Either you believe in diversity or you don't. Either you believe in inclusion or you don't.
If you are excluding vegetarians, or excluding meat eaters, you are being discriminatory and exclusionary. It is a disgraceful attitude in this day and age.
People should be inclusionary and cater for all diets, or none at all.
Show me someone who exclusively eats meat, and I'll ensure they are catered for.
I eat meat with every meal. Why should I be excluded from dining, any more than someone who never eats meat?
If your concern is a lack of vegetarian options then order more vegetarian options, problem solved, don't reduce the meat options down to zero.
Is that a philosophical belief? A religion? The Church of Gammon?
Yes it is a philosophical belief, I am a carnivore and on a carnivore diet.
Now are you going to respect my beliefs and my choice and treat them as equally as you would anyone else, or will you be a bigot and discriminatory?
Carnivore or omnivore?
I'm willing to believe that you do eat nothing but meat, and I have no intention of going through your bins to check. But even keto diets include vegetables.
And if, for whatever reasons (efficiency of service, reduced waste, sense of sharing) a meal is a one-option thing, making that vegetarian includes the most people and excludes the least.
And if you are concerned about it coding for wokeness (let's face it, that's the issue some people have), console yourself with the news that the famously unwoke Katharine Birbalsingh came to that conclusion for the lunch menus at her school.
Some people's keto diets include vegetables. I've gone for a simple carnivore diet.
At my work you can pay for your meals and get a choice, but I don't like any of the options so I pay elsewhere and bring in my own food. My lunch today was a chorizo ring.
I couldn't give less of a shit about "wokeness", ask Casino Royale, I am about as woke as right wingers can get.
But don't take my food away from me and call it progress, any more than I would take yours away from you. I respect equality, diversity and inclusion which is why I think there should be EDI for both meat eaters and vegetarians alike.
Chorizo has peppers in you fraud.
136g of pork per 100g, I consumed 200g so that's 272g of pork. I count that as meat, don't you?
Don't see peppers listed so your claim is wrong, but even if they were, no it doesn't make me a fraud and don't be rude.
Much as I am loving this conversation in its mundanity. Surely you can’t believe you consumed more meat than it weighed? You are being sarcastic aren’t you?
My recollection of cured meat is that there is a lot of water dragged out by curing process. Indeed there is a rough rule of thumb that says meat is properly cured when it is around 65% of its starting weight - hence 272g to 200g (although if you do the maths it is probably lower than 200g to account for all the other stuff that makes chorizo amazing).
Full disclosure I have attempted home curing to distinctly mixed results.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given 2lb of raw meat at my departmental lunch."
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given a vegetarian option at my departmental lunch."
Either you believe in diversity or you don't. Either you believe in inclusion or you don't.
If you are excluding vegetarians, or excluding meat eaters, you are being discriminatory and exclusionary. It is a disgraceful attitude in this day and age.
People should be inclusionary and cater for all diets, or none at all.
Show me someone who exclusively eats meat, and I'll ensure they are catered for.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given 2lb of raw meat at my departmental lunch."
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given a vegetarian option at my departmental lunch."
Either you believe in diversity or you don't. Either you believe in inclusion or you don't.
If you are excluding vegetarians, or excluding meat eaters, you are being discriminatory and exclusionary. It is a disgraceful attitude in this day and age.
People should be inclusionary and cater for all diets, or none at all.
Show me someone who exclusively eats meat, and I'll ensure they are catered for.
I eat meat with every meal. Why should I be excluded from dining, any more than someone who never eats meat?
If your concern is a lack of vegetarian options then order more vegetarian options, problem solved, don't reduce the meat options down to zero.
Is that a philosophical belief? A religion? The Church of Gammon?
Yes it is a philosophical belief, I am a carnivore and on a carnivore diet.
Now are you going to respect my beliefs and my choice and treat them as equally as you would anyone else, or will you be a bigot and discriminatory?
Carnivore or omnivore?
I'm willing to believe that you do eat nothing but meat, and I have no intention of going through your bins to check. But even keto diets include vegetables.
And if, for whatever reasons (efficiency of service, reduced waste, sense of sharing) a meal is a one-option thing, making that vegetarian includes the most people and excludes the least.
And if you are concerned about it coding for wokeness (let's face it, that's the issue some people have), console yourself with the news that the famously unwoke Katharine Birbalsingh came to that conclusion for the lunch menus at her school.
Some people's keto diets include vegetables. I've gone for a simple carnivore diet.
At my work you can pay for your meals and get a choice, but I don't like any of the options so I pay elsewhere and bring in my own food. My lunch today was a chorizo ring.
I couldn't give less of a shit about "wokeness", ask Casino Royale, I am about as woke as right wingers can get.
But don't take my food away from me and call it progress, any more than I would take yours away from you. I respect equality, diversity and inclusion which is why I think there should be EDI for both meat eaters and vegetarians alike.
Chorizo has peppers in you fraud.
136g of pork per 100g, I consumed 200g so that's 272g of pork. I count that as meat, don't you?
Don't see peppers listed so your claim is wrong, but even if they were, no it doesn't make me a fraud and don't be rude.
Much as I am loving this conversation in its mundanity. Surely you can’t believe you consumed more meat than it weighed? You are being sarcastic aren’t you?
My recollection of cured meat is that there is a lot of water dragged out by curing process. Indeed there is a rough rule of thumb that says meat is properly cured when it is around 65% of its starting weight - hence 272g to 200g (although if you do the maths it is probably lower than 200g to account for all the other stuff that makes chorizo amazing).
Full disclosure I have attempted home curing to distinctly mixed results.
No I'm not being sarcastic, its standard to measure the weight by its raw, uncooked, untreated state.
So yes 272g of raw pork being present in 200g of chorizo.
Just as a 12oz steak is measured as 12oz while raw, not once its been cooked.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given 2lb of raw meat at my departmental lunch."
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given a vegetarian option at my departmental lunch."
Either you believe in diversity or you don't. Either you believe in inclusion or you don't.
If you are excluding vegetarians, or excluding meat eaters, you are being discriminatory and exclusionary. It is a disgraceful attitude in this day and age.
People should be inclusionary and cater for all diets, or none at all.
Show me someone who exclusively eats meat, and I'll ensure they are catered for.
I eat meat with every meal. Why should I be excluded from dining, any more than someone who never eats meat?
If your concern is a lack of vegetarian options then order more vegetarian options, problem solved, don't reduce the meat options down to zero.
Is that a philosophical belief? A religion? The Church of Gammon?
Yes it is a philosophical belief, I am a carnivore and on a carnivore diet.
Now are you going to respect my beliefs and my choice and treat them as equally as you would anyone else, or will you be a bigot and discriminatory?
Wait.
You only eat meat?
I am on a carnivore ketogenic diet, yes.
Have been since October 2023.
Currently down 30lbs and in the best health I've been in years.
And yet my NHS diet sheet (which reads like an advert for 1980s Weight Watchers) says you should be dead.
Puzzling.
Yes, for too long the standard medical communities advice has been to pump up the carbs and advertise "fat-free" as the "healthy" option - and then we wonder why that advice has led to rampant obesity and people eating "fat-free" "diet" food off the shelves are still obese.
Trying the reverse and cutting out carbs and pumping up the protein and fat does wonders for your health.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given 2lb of raw meat at my departmental lunch."
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given a vegetarian option at my departmental lunch."
Either you believe in diversity or you don't. Either you believe in inclusion or you don't.
If you are excluding vegetarians, or excluding meat eaters, you are being discriminatory and exclusionary. It is a disgraceful attitude in this day and age.
People should be inclusionary and cater for all diets, or none at all.
Show me someone who exclusively eats meat, and I'll ensure they are catered for.
I eat meat with every meal. Why should I be excluded from dining, any more than someone who never eats meat?
If your concern is a lack of vegetarian options then order more vegetarian options, problem solved, don't reduce the meat options down to zero.
Is that a philosophical belief? A religion? The Church of Gammon?
Yes it is a philosophical belief, I am a carnivore and on a carnivore diet.
Now are you going to respect my beliefs and my choice and treat them as equally as you would anyone else, or will you be a bigot and discriminatory?
Carnivore or omnivore?
I'm willing to believe that you do eat nothing but meat, and I have no intention of going through your bins to check. But even keto diets include vegetables.
And if, for whatever reasons (efficiency of service, reduced waste, sense of sharing) a meal is a one-option thing, making that vegetarian includes the most people and excludes the least.
And if you are concerned about it coding for wokeness (let's face it, that's the issue some people have), console yourself with the news that the famously unwoke Katharine Birbalsingh came to that conclusion for the lunch menus at her school.
Some people's keto diets include vegetables. I've gone for a simple carnivore diet.
At my work you can pay for your meals and get a choice, but I don't like any of the options so I pay elsewhere and bring in my own food. My lunch today was a chorizo ring.
I couldn't give less of a shit about "wokeness", ask Casino Royale, I am about as woke as right wingers can get.
But don't take my food away from me and call it progress, any more than I would take yours away from you. I respect equality, diversity and inclusion which is why I think there should be EDI for both meat eaters and vegetarians alike.
Chorizo has peppers in you fraud.
136g of pork per 100g, I consumed 200g so that's 272g of pork. I count that as meat, don't you?
Don't see peppers listed so your claim is wrong, but even if they were, no it doesn't make me a fraud and don't be rude.
Even worse - HERBS
I'm entirely fine with seasoning my meat.
Does that coffee that gets pooped through some furry animal or other count as a meat product? Given your java consumption you should probably go for it just to be on the safe side.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given 2lb of raw meat at my departmental lunch."
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given a vegetarian option at my departmental lunch."
Either you believe in diversity or you don't. Either you believe in inclusion or you don't.
If you are excluding vegetarians, or excluding meat eaters, you are being discriminatory and exclusionary. It is a disgraceful attitude in this day and age.
People should be inclusionary and cater for all diets, or none at all.
Show me someone who exclusively eats meat, and I'll ensure they are catered for.
I eat meat with every meal. Why should I be excluded from dining, any more than someone who never eats meat?
If your concern is a lack of vegetarian options then order more vegetarian options, problem solved, don't reduce the meat options down to zero.
Is that a philosophical belief? A religion? The Church of Gammon?
Yes it is a philosophical belief, I am a carnivore and on a carnivore diet.
Now are you going to respect my beliefs and my choice and treat them as equally as you would anyone else, or will you be a bigot and discriminatory?
Wait.
You only eat meat?
I am on a carnivore ketogenic diet, yes.
Have been since October 2023.
Currently down 30lbs and in the best health I've been in years.
*Omnivore* ketogenic diet. Not carnivore.
You come across as someone going up to a trans person who identifies as one gender and are repeatedly and vehemently insisting they are the opposite.
I have told you I identify as a carnivore and I eat meat with every meal. I stick to animal related products, and do like cheese yes, but I will have cheese as a side with my meat not a replacement for it.
Now you can identify as what you want to identify as, and I can do the same. That's called inclusion. Maybe you need to become more woke.
Yet you've just told us you eat spinach. You're being unreasonable in complaining that I call that omnivory, which it is in any sane dictionary or zoological course.
Anyway: if you feel you have a genuine dietary reason that oyu can't simply adjust your other eating later on, then fair enough: but it's sufficiently unusual, in practical terms, that it comes under the 'special request' box in catering - like nut allergies, and so on. It's not something that can be anticipated in normal catering, especially in the ongoing drive to cut costs in most organizations in which flatbread and hummus etc. is decidedly favoured over more expensive options.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given 2lb of raw meat at my departmental lunch."
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given a vegetarian option at my departmental lunch."
Either you believe in diversity or you don't. Either you believe in inclusion or you don't.
If you are excluding vegetarians, or excluding meat eaters, you are being discriminatory and exclusionary. It is a disgraceful attitude in this day and age.
People should be inclusionary and cater for all diets, or none at all.
Show me someone who exclusively eats meat, and I'll ensure they are catered for.
I eat meat with every meal. Why should I be excluded from dining, any more than someone who never eats meat?
If your concern is a lack of vegetarian options then order more vegetarian options, problem solved, don't reduce the meat options down to zero.
Is that a philosophical belief? A religion? The Church of Gammon?
Yes it is a philosophical belief, I am a carnivore and on a carnivore diet.
Now are you going to respect my beliefs and my choice and treat them as equally as you would anyone else, or will you be a bigot and discriminatory?
Carnivore or omnivore?
I'm willing to believe that you do eat nothing but meat, and I have no intention of going through your bins to check. But even keto diets include vegetables.
And if, for whatever reasons (efficiency of service, reduced waste, sense of sharing) a meal is a one-option thing, making that vegetarian includes the most people and excludes the least.
And if you are concerned about it coding for wokeness (let's face it, that's the issue some people have), console yourself with the news that the famously unwoke Katharine Birbalsingh came to that conclusion for the lunch menus at her school.
Some people's keto diets include vegetables. I've gone for a simple carnivore diet.
At my work you can pay for your meals and get a choice, but I don't like any of the options so I pay elsewhere and bring in my own food. My lunch today was a chorizo ring.
I couldn't give less of a shit about "wokeness", ask Casino Royale, I am about as woke as right wingers can get.
But don't take my food away from me and call it progress, any more than I would take yours away from you. I respect equality, diversity and inclusion which is why I think there should be EDI for both meat eaters and vegetarians alike.
Chorizo has peppers in you fraud.
136g of pork per 100g, I consumed 200g so that's 272g of pork. I count that as meat, don't you?
Don't see peppers listed so your claim is wrong, but even if they were, no it doesn't make me a fraud and don't be rude.
Even worse - HERBS
I'm entirely fine with seasoning my meat.
Does that coffee that gets pooped through some furry animal or other count as a meat product? Given your java consumption you should probably go for it just to be on the safe side.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given 2lb of raw meat at my departmental lunch."
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given a vegetarian option at my departmental lunch."
Either you believe in diversity or you don't. Either you believe in inclusion or you don't.
If you are excluding vegetarians, or excluding meat eaters, you are being discriminatory and exclusionary. It is a disgraceful attitude in this day and age.
People should be inclusionary and cater for all diets, or none at all.
Show me someone who exclusively eats meat, and I'll ensure they are catered for.
I eat meat with every meal. Why should I be excluded from dining, any more than someone who never eats meat?
If your concern is a lack of vegetarian options then order more vegetarian options, problem solved, don't reduce the meat options down to zero.
Is that a philosophical belief? A religion? The Church of Gammon?
Yes it is a philosophical belief, I am a carnivore and on a carnivore diet.
Now are you going to respect my beliefs and my choice and treat them as equally as you would anyone else, or will you be a bigot and discriminatory?
Wait.
You only eat meat?
I am on a carnivore ketogenic diet, yes.
Have been since October 2023.
Currently down 30lbs and in the best health I've been in years.
*Omnivore* ketogenic diet. Not carnivore.
You come across as someone going up to a trans person who identifies as one gender and are repeatedly and vehemently insisting they are the opposite.
I have told you I identify as a carnivore and I eat meat with every meal. I stick to animal related products, and do like cheese yes, but I will have cheese as a side with my meat not a replacement for it.
Now you can identify as what you want to identify as, and I can do the same. That's called inclusion. Maybe you need to become more woke.
Yet you've just told us you eat spinach. You're being unreasonable in complaining that I call that omnivory, which it is in any sane dictionary or zoological course.
Anyway: if you feel you have a genuine dietary reason that oyu can't simply adjust your other eating later on, then fair enough: but it's sufficiently unusual, in practical terms, that it comes under the 'special request' box in catering - like nut allergies, and so on. It's not something that can be anticipated in normal catering, especially in the ongoing drive to cut costs in most organizations in which flatbread and hummus etc. is decidedly favoured over more expensive options.
Who said I eat spinach?
I linked to a site showing how to make a keto pizza base, using chicken instead of the wheat, I never said what toppings I'd put on my pizza. For what its worth, I'd typically put on bacon and pepperoni..
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given 2lb of raw meat at my departmental lunch."
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given a vegetarian option at my departmental lunch."
Either you believe in diversity or you don't. Either you believe in inclusion or you don't.
If you are excluding vegetarians, or excluding meat eaters, you are being discriminatory and exclusionary. It is a disgraceful attitude in this day and age.
People should be inclusionary and cater for all diets, or none at all.
Show me someone who exclusively eats meat, and I'll ensure they are catered for.
I eat meat with every meal. Why should I be excluded from dining, any more than someone who never eats meat?
If your concern is a lack of vegetarian options then order more vegetarian options, problem solved, don't reduce the meat options down to zero.
Is that a philosophical belief? A religion? The Church of Gammon?
Yes it is a philosophical belief, I am a carnivore and on a carnivore diet.
Now are you going to respect my beliefs and my choice and treat them as equally as you would anyone else, or will you be a bigot and discriminatory?
Carnivore or omnivore?
I'm willing to believe that you do eat nothing but meat, and I have no intention of going through your bins to check. But even keto diets include vegetables.
And if, for whatever reasons (efficiency of service, reduced waste, sense of sharing) a meal is a one-option thing, making that vegetarian includes the most people and excludes the least.
And if you are concerned about it coding for wokeness (let's face it, that's the issue some people have), console yourself with the news that the famously unwoke Katharine Birbalsingh came to that conclusion for the lunch menus at her school.
Some people's keto diets include vegetables. I've gone for a simple carnivore diet.
At my work you can pay for your meals and get a choice, but I don't like any of the options so I pay elsewhere and bring in my own food. My lunch today was a chorizo ring.
I couldn't give less of a shit about "wokeness", ask Casino Royale, I am about as woke as right wingers can get.
But don't take my food away from me and call it progress, any more than I would take yours away from you. I respect equality, diversity and inclusion which is why I think there should be EDI for both meat eaters and vegetarians alike.
Chorizo has peppers in you fraud.
136g of pork per 100g, I consumed 200g so that's 272g of pork. I count that as meat, don't you?
Don't see peppers listed so your claim is wrong, but even if they were, no it doesn't make me a fraud and don't be rude.
Much as I am loving this conversation in its mundanity. Surely you can’t believe you consumed more meat than it weighed? You are being sarcastic aren’t you?
My recollection of cured meat is that there is a lot of water dragged out by curing process. Indeed there is a rough rule of thumb that says meat is properly cured when it is around 65% of its starting weight - hence 272g to 200g (although if you do the maths it is probably lower than 200g to account for all the other stuff that makes chorizo amazing).
Full disclosure I have attempted home curing to distinctly mixed results.
No I'm not being sarcastic, its standard to measure the weight by its raw, uncooked, untreated state.
So yes 272g of raw pork being present in 200g of chorizo.
Just as a 12oz steak is measured as 12oz while raw, not once its been cooked.
Fair enough. If that’s your view. Well it’s your view. Next time I consider a chorizo ring I will reflect on it being the Campbells condensed of the sausage world.
Nobody likes that shit. Even vegans look at it with sadness.
Apples. Vegan. Oranges. Vegan. Bananas. Vegan.
Never offer people a piece of fruit.
Yeah, but that's not what it is, is it?
No-one mind fruit and salad. Or beans. That's just part of a healthy balanced diet.
Vegan is "plant-based" wank as a main meal - and i use that term very loosely- with such horrors as tofu and it's almost always disgusting. Sometimes, it's downright fraudulent: like trying to pass off a slice of cauliflower as a steak, and causing abject misery in the process.
It has no tofu and is a main meal. Another is a pasta, spinach and mushroom pasta bake.
I love meat: I had a bacon and sausage breakfast baguette this morning before my swim (that *may* have been a mistake...). But it's totally ridiculous to say that vegan main meals are disgusting. They *can* be, but they can also be virtually indistinguishable from vegetarian, or even ones with small amounts of meat.
(*) If I can be bothered to use vegan cheese.
Mushroom risotto has a bad name, as it's the go to veggy/vegan dish on a thousand menus, and is rarely good.
Mine is great.
The thing is, it tastes a lot better if made with chicken stock, and then parmesan grated over.
Israel is now completely isolated. Run by a facist bully who can't see the wood for the trees, causing as much death and destruction as possible, he's managed to lose all of their allies. What a prat.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given 2lb of raw meat at my departmental lunch."
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given a vegetarian option at my departmental lunch."
Either you believe in diversity or you don't. Either you believe in inclusion or you don't.
If you are excluding vegetarians, or excluding meat eaters, you are being discriminatory and exclusionary. It is a disgraceful attitude in this day and age.
People should be inclusionary and cater for all diets, or none at all.
Show me someone who exclusively eats meat, and I'll ensure they are catered for.
I eat meat with every meal. Why should I be excluded from dining, any more than someone who never eats meat?
If your concern is a lack of vegetarian options then order more vegetarian options, problem solved, don't reduce the meat options down to zero.
Is that a philosophical belief? A religion? The Church of Gammon?
Yes it is a philosophical belief, I am a carnivore and on a carnivore diet.
Now are you going to respect my beliefs and my choice and treat them as equally as you would anyone else, or will you be a bigot and discriminatory?
Carnivore or omnivore?
I'm willing to believe that you do eat nothing but meat, and I have no intention of going through your bins to check. But even keto diets include vegetables.
And if, for whatever reasons (efficiency of service, reduced waste, sense of sharing) a meal is a one-option thing, making that vegetarian includes the most people and excludes the least.
And if you are concerned about it coding for wokeness (let's face it, that's the issue some people have), console yourself with the news that the famously unwoke Katharine Birbalsingh came to that conclusion for the lunch menus at her school.
Some people's keto diets include vegetables. I've gone for a simple carnivore diet.
At my work you can pay for your meals and get a choice, but I don't like any of the options so I pay elsewhere and bring in my own food. My lunch today was a chorizo ring.
I couldn't give less of a shit about "wokeness", ask Casino Royale, I am about as woke as right wingers can get.
But don't take my food away from me and call it progress, any more than I would take yours away from you. I respect equality, diversity and inclusion which is why I think there should be EDI for both meat eaters and vegetarians alike.
Chorizo has peppers in you fraud.
136g of pork per 100g, I consumed 200g so that's 272g of pork. I count that as meat, don't you?
Don't see peppers listed so your claim is wrong, but even if they were, no it doesn't make me a fraud and don't be rude.
Even worse - HERBS
I'm entirely fine with seasoning my meat.
Does that coffee that gets pooped through some furry animal or other count as a meat product? Given your java consumption you should probably go for it just to be on the safe side.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given 2lb of raw meat at my departmental lunch."
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given a vegetarian option at my departmental lunch."
Either you believe in diversity or you don't. Either you believe in inclusion or you don't.
If you are excluding vegetarians, or excluding meat eaters, you are being discriminatory and exclusionary. It is a disgraceful attitude in this day and age.
People should be inclusionary and cater for all diets, or none at all.
Show me someone who exclusively eats meat, and I'll ensure they are catered for.
I eat meat with every meal. Why should I be excluded from dining, any more than someone who never eats meat?
If your concern is a lack of vegetarian options then order more vegetarian options, problem solved, don't reduce the meat options down to zero.
Is that a philosophical belief? A religion? The Church of Gammon?
Yes it is a philosophical belief, I am a carnivore and on a carnivore diet.
Now are you going to respect my beliefs and my choice and treat them as equally as you would anyone else, or will you be a bigot and discriminatory?
Wait.
You only eat meat?
I am on a carnivore ketogenic diet, yes.
Have been since October 2023.
Currently down 30lbs and in the best health I've been in years.
*Omnivore* ketogenic diet. Not carnivore.
You come across as someone going up to a trans person who identifies as one gender and are repeatedly and vehemently insisting they are the opposite.
I have told you I identify as a carnivore and I eat meat with every meal. I stick to animal related products, and do like cheese yes, but I will have cheese as a side with my meat not a replacement for it.
Now you can identify as what you want to identify as, and I can do the same. That's called inclusion. Maybe you need to become more woke.
Yet you've just told us you eat spinach. You're being unreasonable in complaining that I call that omnivory, which it is in any sane dictionary or zoological course.
Anyway: if you feel you have a genuine dietary reason that oyu can't simply adjust your other eating later on, then fair enough: but it's sufficiently unusual, in practical terms, that it comes under the 'special request' box in catering - like nut allergies, and so on. It's not something that can be anticipated in normal catering, especially in the ongoing drive to cut costs in most organizations in which flatbread and hummus etc. is decidedly favoured over more expensive options.
Who said I eat spinach?
I linked to a site showing how to make a keto pizza base, using chicken instead of the wheat, I never said what toppings I'd put on my pizza. For what its worth, I'd typically put on bacon and pepperoni..
On the Badenoch/Staunton ding dong it’s worth noting that the government is taking a more activist line when it comes to departmental Non Executives in general. In my recent experience working for a big government department we suddenly went from a situation where NED recruitment was largely run from the Permanent Secretary’s office with little ministerial interference to one where the Cabinet Office got very granular with the process. We suddenly got all sorts of inquires from SPADs about the backgrounds of potential candidates and requests that they have certain types of experience etc. Part of this could be that Staunton was appointed before this process got going and Badenoch wanted an excuse to recruit someone more to her liking.
Anyone know what's going on in the Netherlands wrt forming a government?
Last I heard was that one of the centre-right or right-wing parties had decided against forming a coalition with Wilders, and the consequence was that a government would have to be formed without his party. Not sure how.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given 2lb of raw meat at my departmental lunch."
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given a vegetarian option at my departmental lunch."
Either you believe in diversity or you don't. Either you believe in inclusion or you don't.
If you are excluding vegetarians, or excluding meat eaters, you are being discriminatory and exclusionary. It is a disgraceful attitude in this day and age.
People should be inclusionary and cater for all diets, or none at all.
Show me someone who exclusively eats meat, and I'll ensure they are catered for.
I eat meat with every meal. Why should I be excluded from dining, any more than someone who never eats meat?
If your concern is a lack of vegetarian options then order more vegetarian options, problem solved, don't reduce the meat options down to zero.
Is that a philosophical belief? A religion? The Church of Gammon?
Yes it is a philosophical belief, I am a carnivore and on a carnivore diet.
Now are you going to respect my beliefs and my choice and treat them as equally as you would anyone else, or will you be a bigot and discriminatory?
Wait.
You only eat meat?
I am on a carnivore ketogenic diet, yes.
Have been since October 2023.
Currently down 30lbs and in the best health I've been in years.
And yet my NHS diet sheet (which reads like an advert for 1980s Weight Watchers) says you should be dead.
Puzzling.
Yes, for too long the standard medical communities advice has been to pump up the carbs and advertise "fat-free" as the "healthy" option - and then we wonder why that advice has led to rampant obesity and people eating "fat-free" "diet" food off the shelves are still obese.
Trying the reverse and cutting out carbs and pumping up the protein and fat does wonders for your health.
I'd go for "a bit of a mix" in my personal case. But the narrow line of the NHS really worries me. I have a terrible reaction to having refined carbs too often, for instance. I mentioned that to the practice nurse and GP. Zero. F**ks given. Eat. More. Refined. Carbs! Eggs are bad! Nuts are bad! etc, etc.
If I was less balshie I'd hate to think how much Gaviscon I'd be necking every week.
I do wonder how many poor people are being told "Eat X, eat Y!" without any attention to their circumstances or needs. I guess it's lucky they die young and pay for the pensions of GP's.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given 2lb of raw meat at my departmental lunch."
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given a vegetarian option at my departmental lunch."
Either you believe in diversity or you don't. Either you believe in inclusion or you don't.
If you are excluding vegetarians, or excluding meat eaters, you are being discriminatory and exclusionary. It is a disgraceful attitude in this day and age.
People should be inclusionary and cater for all diets, or none at all.
Show me someone who exclusively eats meat, and I'll ensure they are catered for.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given 2lb of raw meat at my departmental lunch."
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given a vegetarian option at my departmental lunch."
Either you believe in diversity or you don't. Either you believe in inclusion or you don't.
If you are excluding vegetarians, or excluding meat eaters, you are being discriminatory and exclusionary. It is a disgraceful attitude in this day and age.
People should be inclusionary and cater for all diets, or none at all.
Show me someone who exclusively eats meat, and I'll ensure they are catered for.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given 2lb of raw meat at my departmental lunch."
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given a vegetarian option at my departmental lunch."
Either you believe in diversity or you don't. Either you believe in inclusion or you don't.
If you are excluding vegetarians, or excluding meat eaters, you are being discriminatory and exclusionary. It is a disgraceful attitude in this day and age.
People should be inclusionary and cater for all diets, or none at all.
Show me someone who exclusively eats meat, and I'll ensure they are catered for.
"In October 2022, three people were arrested in Kerala, India, for performing an esoteric human sacrifice.[275] During interrogation, it was revealed that they killed two women and then cooked and ate the body parts of the victims in hopes of health and prosperity."
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given 2lb of raw meat at my departmental lunch."
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given a vegetarian option at my departmental lunch."
Either you believe in diversity or you don't. Either you believe in inclusion or you don't.
If you are excluding vegetarians, or excluding meat eaters, you are being discriminatory and exclusionary. It is a disgraceful attitude in this day and age.
People should be inclusionary and cater for all diets, or none at all.
Show me someone who exclusively eats meat, and I'll ensure they are catered for.
I eat meat with every meal. Why should I be excluded from dining, any more than someone who never eats meat?
If your concern is a lack of vegetarian options then order more vegetarian options, problem solved, don't reduce the meat options down to zero.
Is that a philosophical belief? A religion? The Church of Gammon?
Yes it is a philosophical belief, I am a carnivore and on a carnivore diet.
Now are you going to respect my beliefs and my choice and treat them as equally as you would anyone else, or will you be a bigot and discriminatory?
Wait.
You only eat meat?
I am on a carnivore ketogenic diet, yes.
Have been since October 2023.
Currently down 30lbs and in the best health I've been in years.
And yet my NHS diet sheet (which reads like an advert for 1980s Weight Watchers) says you should be dead.
Puzzling.
Give it time.
Well, that's a given.
Humans are as adaptable as rats and can exist on many different diets, from the high fat diet of the Inuit to the vegan diet of Buddhist monks.
Yes. But that's not what's on my diet sheet that was given to me after turning up with severe stress and anxiety. (Zero advice given for stress or anxiety apart from a hand-written note about an Indian mystic).
It's 'eat refined carbs'. Don't eat nuts, eggs, or any other cheap readily available natural food. I explained that refined carbs make me very, very unwell.
And I was told to just buy more Gaviscon as it was cheaper than paying for a prescription of the same thing via the NHS.
I truly worry how many people are being given that sort of advice without double checking for themselves that it's dangerous nonsense.
I mean, they're mostly poor people, so clearly count for less for both left and right. But personally it worries me.
Anyone know what's going on in the Netherlands wrt forming a government?
Last I heard was that one of the centre-right or right-wing parties had decided against forming a coalition with Wilders, and the consequence was that a government would have to be formed without his party. Not sure how.
Thanks for the update. Perhaps there'll be another election.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given 2lb of raw meat at my departmental lunch."
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given a vegetarian option at my departmental lunch."
Either you believe in diversity or you don't. Either you believe in inclusion or you don't.
If you are excluding vegetarians, or excluding meat eaters, you are being discriminatory and exclusionary. It is a disgraceful attitude in this day and age.
People should be inclusionary and cater for all diets, or none at all.
Show me someone who exclusively eats meat, and I'll ensure they are catered for.
I eat meat with every meal. Why should I be excluded from dining, any more than someone who never eats meat?
If your concern is a lack of vegetarian options then order more vegetarian options, problem solved, don't reduce the meat options down to zero.
Is that a philosophical belief? A religion? The Church of Gammon?
Yes it is a philosophical belief, I am a carnivore and on a carnivore diet.
Now are you going to respect my beliefs and my choice and treat them as equally as you would anyone else, or will you be a bigot and discriminatory?
Wait.
You only eat meat?
I am on a carnivore ketogenic diet, yes.
Have been since October 2023.
Currently down 30lbs and in the best health I've been in years.
And yet my NHS diet sheet (which reads like an advert for 1980s Weight Watchers) says you should be dead.
Puzzling.
Give it time.
Well, that's a given.
Humans are as adaptable as rats and can exist on many different diets, from the high fat diet of the Inuit to the vegan diet of Buddhist monks.
And here I am adding oatbran to everything in sight and watching my saturated fat intake like a hawk. Finally got it down to a healthy range after getting the shock last year of being told it was 6.7 with very high LDLs. Now at 3.9 after cutting out deep fried food and having porridge every morning and adding oatbran to meals.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given 2lb of raw meat at my departmental lunch."
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given a vegetarian option at my departmental lunch."
Either you believe in diversity or you don't. Either you believe in inclusion or you don't.
If you are excluding vegetarians, or excluding meat eaters, you are being discriminatory and exclusionary. It is a disgraceful attitude in this day and age.
People should be inclusionary and cater for all diets, or none at all.
Show me someone who exclusively eats meat, and I'll ensure they are catered for.
I eat meat with every meal. Why should I be excluded from dining, any more than someone who never eats meat?
If your concern is a lack of vegetarian options then order more vegetarian options, problem solved, don't reduce the meat options down to zero.
Is that a philosophical belief? A religion? The Church of Gammon?
Yes it is a philosophical belief, I am a carnivore and on a carnivore diet.
Now are you going to respect my beliefs and my choice and treat them as equally as you would anyone else, or will you be a bigot and discriminatory?
Wait.
You only eat meat?
I am on a carnivore ketogenic diet, yes.
Have been since October 2023.
Currently down 30lbs and in the best health I've been in years.
And yet my NHS diet sheet (which reads like an advert for 1980s Weight Watchers) says you should be dead.
Puzzling.
Give it time.
Well, that's a given.
Humans are as adaptable as rats and can exist on many different diets, from the high fat diet of the Inuit to the vegan diet of Buddhist monks.
Yes. But that's not what's on my diet sheet that was given to me after turning up with severe stress and anxiety. (Zero advice given for stress or anxiety apart from a hand-written note about an Indian mystic).
It's 'eat refined carbs'. Don't eat nuts, eggs, or any other cheap readily available natural food. I explained that refined carbs make me very, very unwell.
And I was told to just buy more Gaviscon as it was cheaper than paying for a prescription of the same thing via the NHS.
I truly worry how many people are being given that sort of advice without double checking for themselves that it's dangerous nonsense.
I mean, they're mostly poor people, so clearly count for less for both left and right. But personally it worries me.
The continued existence of the ‘diet food’ industry suggests that whatever NHS guidance is out there it’s either duff or ineffective. The amount of people I meet who still eat processed shit full of chemicals and think it’s good for them never ceases to astound me.
Absolute riot, the CEO strikes me as a complete dick bag.
"Seize and desist"
Tells Bloomberg he would never target someone livelihood in the way he says he's being targeted, proceeds to phone the woman's employer to get her sacked.
I'm shocked that these people exist and hold any kind of serious position in any company.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given 2lb of raw meat at my departmental lunch."
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given a vegetarian option at my departmental lunch."
Either you believe in diversity or you don't. Either you believe in inclusion or you don't.
If you are excluding vegetarians, or excluding meat eaters, you are being discriminatory and exclusionary. It is a disgraceful attitude in this day and age.
People should be inclusionary and cater for all diets, or none at all.
Show me someone who exclusively eats meat, and I'll ensure they are catered for.
I eat meat with every meal. Why should I be excluded from dining, any more than someone who never eats meat?
If your concern is a lack of vegetarian options then order more vegetarian options, problem solved, don't reduce the meat options down to zero.
Is that a philosophical belief? A religion? The Church of Gammon?
Yes it is a philosophical belief, I am a carnivore and on a carnivore diet.
Now are you going to respect my beliefs and my choice and treat them as equally as you would anyone else, or will you be a bigot and discriminatory?
Wait.
You only eat meat?
I am on a carnivore ketogenic diet, yes.
Have been since October 2023.
Currently down 30lbs and in the best health I've been in years.
And yet my NHS diet sheet (which reads like an advert for 1980s Weight Watchers) says you should be dead.
Puzzling.
Give it time.
Well, that's a given.
Humans are as adaptable as rats and can exist on many different diets, from the high fat diet of the Inuit to the vegan diet of Buddhist monks.
Yes. But that's not what's on my diet sheet that was given to me after turning up with severe stress and anxiety. (Zero advice given for stress or anxiety apart from a hand-written note about an Indian mystic).
It's 'eat refined carbs'. Don't eat nuts, eggs, or any other cheap readily available natural food. I explained that refined carbs make me very, very unwell.
And I was told to just buy more Gaviscon as it was cheaper than paying for a prescription of the same thing via the NHS.
I truly worry how many people are being given that sort of advice without double checking for themselves that it's dangerous nonsense.
I mean, they're mostly poor people, so clearly count for less for both left and right. But personally it worries me.
Yes the dangers of a high-carb, especially but not just processed carb diet seem to be increasingly aware in recent years but the NHS are well, well, well behind the curve.
As are other countries too. Its common for Americans in the Keto community to talk about the high carb diet recommended as the Standard American Diet (SAD) and its quite an appropriate acronym.
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given 2lb of raw meat at my departmental lunch."
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given a vegetarian option at my departmental lunch."
Either you believe in diversity or you don't. Either you believe in inclusion or you don't.
If you are excluding vegetarians, or excluding meat eaters, you are being discriminatory and exclusionary. It is a disgraceful attitude in this day and age.
People should be inclusionary and cater for all diets, or none at all.
Show me someone who exclusively eats meat, and I'll ensure they are catered for.
I eat meat with every meal. Why should I be excluded from dining, any more than someone who never eats meat?
If your concern is a lack of vegetarian options then order more vegetarian options, problem solved, don't reduce the meat options down to zero.
Is that a philosophical belief? A religion? The Church of Gammon?
Yes it is a philosophical belief, I am a carnivore and on a carnivore diet.
Now are you going to respect my beliefs and my choice and treat them as equally as you would anyone else, or will you be a bigot and discriminatory?
Wait.
You only eat meat?
I am on a carnivore ketogenic diet, yes.
Have been since October 2023.
Currently down 30lbs and in the best health I've been in years.
And yet my NHS diet sheet (which reads like an advert for 1980s Weight Watchers) says you should be dead.
Puzzling.
Give it time.
Well, that's a given.
Humans are as adaptable as rats and can exist on many different diets, from the high fat diet of the Inuit to the vegan diet of Buddhist monks.
Yes. But that's not what's on my diet sheet that was given to me after turning up with severe stress and anxiety. (Zero advice given for stress or anxiety apart from a hand-written note about an Indian mystic).
It's 'eat refined carbs'. Don't eat nuts, eggs, or any other cheap readily available natural food. I explained that refined carbs make me very, very unwell.
And I was told to just buy more Gaviscon as it was cheaper than paying for a prescription of the same thing via the NHS.
I truly worry how many people are being given that sort of advice without double checking for themselves that it's dangerous nonsense.
I mean, they're mostly poor people, so clearly count for less for both left and right. But personally it worries me.
That's bonkers advice. I have never heard of a high refined carbohydrate diet recommended by my organisation.
The Badenoch show rumbles on with grim fascination in the Commons. She now says "full of lies" refers to three claims made by Henry Staunton, recent Post Office Chair.
1. That she didn't apologise to him for finding out about his sacking from a journalist. This should be easy to check: Is there an s apology in the transcript of the conversation that she is about to be made public? 2. That she told him "someone has to take the rap". The absence of of such a statement in the transcript doesn't necessarily mean she didn't say it. 3. That he was told to slow down compensation claims. She has no way of knowing whether anyone said this to him or not.
On her claim that he was sacked for misconduct, this appears to be allegations of bullying rather than an actual finding of misconduct. We should find out if she mentioned any of this in the transcript She had a long list of other complaints about him but these weren't misconduct.
It doesn't appear she's in a stronger legal position after her statement than before.
It does sound a bit hit the law/hit the facts/hit the table, and Kemi B has moved on to stage 3.
Though given that she won't resign voluntarily, and Rishi is in far too weak a position to sack her unwillingly, it doesn't matter all that much.
I wonder also if Staunton has a claim of breach of confidentiality against Badenoch as many of her claims don't appear to address the points he made and there was no legal requirement on her to make these statements.
He's certainly not taking it lying down...
This is Henry Staunton’s reply to Kemi Badenoch.
Firstly, with regard to the comment made to Mr Staunton by the senior civil servant to the effect that he was to stall on compensation payments to Horizon victims and on spend on the Horizon replacement so the government could “limp into the election” with the lowest possible financial liability. Mr Staunton stands by this comment which he recorded at the time in a file note which he emailed to himself and to colleagues and which is therefore traceable on the Post Office Server...
Staunton doesn't need to prove it, the presumed fact he made a note at the time is at least corroboration. Badenoch on the other hand needs to prove that he didn't hear this plus a whole bunch of other claims she made to support her case that his account of the meeting was fabricated. She also needs to prove he was dismissed for misconduct - which doesn't appear to be the case. All of this is self inflicted. She could have stuck to a bland "We're the ones delivering the compensation, why bother with a useless ex-chairman?".
Badenoch is profoundly, and fascinatingly stupid, in addition to being uber-aggressive
So how would you have responded in her position?
And where is the evidence of her being uber aggressive? Forthright yes. You wouldn't be playing on a black female stereotype would you?
I literally quoted what I would have said in her position.
Badenoch has an advantage Staunton, Davey, Starmer etc don't have. She can pay the postmasters.
I'm not sure you have. If a former government employee goes off and does a dishonest* interview with the media are you really saying the government shouldn't really respond because he's entitled to confidentiality. That hardly seems fair.
*Hypothetically speaking. It has yet to be determined.
What I would not do is make broad and public claims of dishonesty and misconduct against a former colleague whom I dismissed, that I would struggle to stand up, and which are slam dunks for a defamation suit if I don't.
That's because I'm not as stupid as Badenoch. None of this is of any interest except this is a betting site and Badenoch is heir apparent for next Tory leader
We will see. However your determination to believe Badenoch is stupid feels agenda driven. Why?
Maybe can overdo stupid. Badenoch is extraordinarily aggressive however and doesn't seem to stop to think. Whatever. It's noteworthy none of her minister colleagues have rallied to her side, which might suggest she'll struggle to get past the MP vote and on the shortlist for next leader.
I agree with Frank, I think. It’s a game of which one is lying. And minister can’t lie to House of Commons. If you look at it objectively, without bias, Staunton is the likely liar.
What officially was Henry Staunton sacked for? That’s the first question to answer.
If not for bullying accusations against him, then what? Did Badenoch in Trumpesque doubling down today, gave a reason for his sacking to the commons, she hadn’t given him in her sacking conversation with him? Hard to believe, as lying to the commons today would be her political career hit below waterline.
Correct me where wrong, this Henry Staunton, through what sounds like a legal team, is trying to claim “Staunton had never been made aware Of bullying allegations against him and that they were certainly not raised by the secretary of state at any stage, and certainly not during the conversation which led to Mr Staunton’s dismissal.” So easy to answer. The transcript of that sacking meeting, Libdems, Labour and Keegan the current education secretary are all urging Badenoch to publish, will clear up the question if she told him about the bullying in that meeting or not, because that that can’t possibly be missing from the minute of that meeting, as that’s exactly what the meeting was all about, I’m sacking you for this reason.
I think I am doubting Staunton more in this game of “nail the liar to the wall”, if he is sacked for bullying accusations against him, but was never told that, then what different reason was he given for his sacking, for he doesn’t sound in the dark about why he was sacked, does he, he isn’t acting baffled that he accepted a “reasonless sacking” and now asking what for. He must have been told a reason by SoS, and he’s not coming clean about what that was, is he?
If Kemi Badenoch can demonstrate Henry Staunton was formally found guilty of bullying and that's the reason she sacked him, she is in the clear. If she can't, she is in deep trouble and potentially at the end of a ruinous libel suit. So far, based on her own words in parliament, she is well below that high bar.
Nothing Staunton has claimed is potentially libelous in the same way if his statements turn out incorrect.
If she has the power to remove him as chairman under the Articles (as the read out says) she doesn’t need a reason
Off-topic, just seen that I got tagged as a lefty/Labour stooge a few days back. I've voted Lab at a GE once, out of six I've voted in. The same number of times I've voted Conservative in a GE. I will most likely make it 2/7 (for Lab, not Con!) at the next GE, but more a tactical than a conviction vote.
The mistake CR makes (possibly, I haven't fully untangled whether CR started it) is that I'm 'woke', not particularly left. Where 'woke' is used as a synonym for socially liberal.
Woke doesn't mean anything.
How is being a vegan woke?
Woke does mean something, just not the same to everyone. A bit like porn. How do you define porn? Different people get off on different things. Woke is different for different people.
In general things described as woke are not bad in themselves, but there can be unintended consequences.
For instance, you might decide that not enough women are involved in x industry. You might then start only recruiting women to make up the deficit. Is this fair? proportionate? You might be organising an event and insist on vegan only catering, to accommodate vegans, ignoring the fact that most people are not vegan and would prefer a choice.
You might even get hung up on whether a woman can have a penis.
Gonna stop you on the catering issue - I work in an office where about 25% of us are veggie or vegan. We had to stop ordering meat options because the meat eaters would eat the veggie / vegan options but we obviously couldn't eat the meaty options, so we were left hungry and we would have leftovers.
Woke is just "political correctness gone mad" which is just "loony lefties" again. Got to remember the original "loony left" usage was to attack local councils who were advocating for, shock horror, treating queer people like human beings and, gasp, catering to ethnic minorities in their communities. It's always been the same thing - if you argue for equitable treatment of people typically considered the out groups, people who benefit from the inequitable treatment complain and try and make you out as a weirdo.
On the food. Clearly if people are going hungry then a mistake has been made, but I don't think that means you have to order zero meat options. Surely there's a middle ground where there is a choice for those who might want to eat meat, but not so much that non-meat eaters are lefty without - though I'm speaking here as one of those omnivores who tends to avoid meat in a buffet situation, not knowing where it is from, or how long it has been waiting there.
As to woke generally, there is a lot which is simply this generation's treating people with respect, but there is an element, perhaps a product of the way in which people get riled up online, of being uncompromising, impatient, and, ironically, rude about it.
It's as though people forget that it might well be a new idea for other people, that it often takes people a while to get used to new ideas, and a bit of open-hearted patience and the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
Taking this back to the food example, if a 3:1 meat: no-meat order didn't work, why not try 1:1, or 1:3, before leaping straight away to no meat at all?
I don't understand why the meat thing is such an issue. When catering at a work do having only veggie / vegan options allows for a typically cheaper option that has (in my experience at least) less waste (and of course the impact of waste is different for meat products and non-meat products), and also means the actual vegetarians and vegans get enough food, rather than having to share the stuff they can eat with people who will also eat stuff (and leave behind stuff) we can't eat. It's not exclusionary - no one is unable to eat non-meat options. Meat is not an essential - there is no right to meat in every food option. It was also agreed by everyone, meat eaters and not.
It bloody is exclusionary and vile.
Its not a choice all the meat eaters made, if it were they'd have had choices at the meals and could choose meat. You mean its a choice some people made, without regard for the concerns for others - or did you seek unanimity of absolutely everyone invited before you made that discriminatory call?
Have a meat-free meal only for meat-eaters is as irresponsible as having a meat-only meal for vegetarians.
“999. What’s your emergency?”
“I’d like to report a crime against logic.”
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given 2lb of raw meat at my departmental lunch."
"I'm a snowflake petal gibbering at the very thought of not being given a vegetarian option at my departmental lunch."
Either you believe in diversity or you don't. Either you believe in inclusion or you don't.
If you are excluding vegetarians, or excluding meat eaters, you are being discriminatory and exclusionary. It is a disgraceful attitude in this day and age.
People should be inclusionary and cater for all diets, or none at all.
Show me someone who exclusively eats meat, and I'll ensure they are catered for.
I eat meat with every meal. Why should I be excluded from dining, any more than someone who never eats meat?
If your concern is a lack of vegetarian options then order more vegetarian options, problem solved, don't reduce the meat options down to zero.
Is that a philosophical belief? A religion? The Church of Gammon?
Yes it is a philosophical belief, I am a carnivore and on a carnivore diet.
Now are you going to respect my beliefs and my choice and treat them as equally as you would anyone else, or will you be a bigot and discriminatory?
Wait.
You only eat meat?
I am on a carnivore ketogenic diet, yes.
Have been since October 2023.
Currently down 30lbs and in the best health I've been in years.
And yet my NHS diet sheet (which reads like an advert for 1980s Weight Watchers) says you should be dead.
Puzzling.
Give it time.
Well, that's a given.
Humans are as adaptable as rats and can exist on many different diets, from the high fat diet of the Inuit to the vegan diet of Buddhist monks.
Yes. But that's not what's on my diet sheet that was given to me after turning up with severe stress and anxiety. (Zero advice given for stress or anxiety apart from a hand-written note about an Indian mystic).
It's 'eat refined carbs'. Don't eat nuts, eggs, or any other cheap readily available natural food. I explained that refined carbs make me very, very unwell.
And I was told to just buy more Gaviscon as it was cheaper than paying for a prescription of the same thing via the NHS.
I truly worry how many people are being given that sort of advice without double checking for themselves that it's dangerous nonsense.
I mean, they're mostly poor people, so clearly count for less for both left and right. But personally it worries me.
That's bonkers advice. I have never heard of a high refined carbohydrate diet recommended by my organisation.
The standard diet pushed by public health the world over tells you to get most of your calories from carbs.
The evidence of people having dreams that foretold Aberfan is quite compelling. Mad, but compelling
They were strangely vivid dreams about close friends or lovers, so people that I knew well. They felt different to more run of the mill dreams. Each became true within days to weeks.
The incidents were quite personal, but also prosaic. Meeting people that I hadn't seen for months for example. Not quite the same as deja but, but a related phenomenon I suppose.
Never had a prophetic dream. I don't believe in that old caper.
I was working from home on 7/7 and I was suddenly overcome by a feeling of dread. I went from my study to the lounge and turned on the TV and news was coming through about the Russell Square bus. I vaguely knew a woman from Ledbury who was killed in the tube at Lancaster Gate, but I had no real connection. It wasn't like I was being called to from the other side. It must have just been some bizarre coincidence.
I quite often dream I've come up with some startlingly brilliant invention.
When I wake up I either can't remember what it was or* the idea is utter shite.
(I have no illusions that the ones I can't remember were other than utter shite too.)
"They say we only use a fraction of our brain's true potential. Now that's when we're awake. When we're asleep, we can do almost anything."
One of my regular dreams is long jumping. I can soar to incredible distances.
The evidence of people having dreams that foretold Aberfan is quite compelling. Mad, but compelling
They were strangely vivid dreams about close friends or lovers, so people that I knew well. They felt different to more run of the mill dreams. Each became true within days to weeks.
The incidents were quite personal, but also prosaic. Meeting people that I hadn't seen for months for example. Not quite the same as deja but, but a related phenomenon I suppose.
Never had a prophetic dream. I don't believe in that old caper.
I was working from home on 7/7 and I was suddenly overcome by a feeling of dread. I went from my study to the lounge and turned on the TV and news was coming through about the Russell Square bus. I vaguely knew a woman from Ledbury who was killed in the tube at Lancaster Gate, but I had no real connection. It wasn't like I was being called to from the other side. It must have just been some bizarre coincidence.
I quite often dream I've come up with some startlingly brilliant invention.
When I wake up I either can't remember what it was or* the idea is utter shite.
(I have no illusions that the ones I can't remember were other than utter shite too.)
"They say we only use a fraction of our brain's true potential. Now that's when we're awake. When we're asleep, we can do almost anything."
One of my regular dreams is long jumping. I can soar to incredible distances.
Very occasionally, I dream of computer code; or perhaps best described as psrudeocode. I dream of a simple problem, and generate code to fix it. In my dream, I often get frustrated at not being able to do it. When I wake up, I often remember the problem, and snippets of the solution, but rarely enough to code it.
And on a few occasions, I've dreamt of machine code instructions that don't actually exist.
This still happens, even though I haven't been a professional coder for years.
Although also oddly, I remember far fewer dreams than I used to. When I was younger, I could recall them every morning. Now it's quite rare. Is this the same for everyone = that we remember fewer dreams as we get older?
Although also oddly, I remember far fewer dreams than I used to. When I was younger, I could recall them every morning. Now it's quite rare. Is this the same for everyone = that we remember fewer dreams as we get older?
I still occasionally wake up with the thought “shit, I’ve over slept and am late for finals”.
It can take a could of minutes before I realise that they were a while ago
Does anyone take seriously this talk of a general election in May?
Sort of. I don't think it will happen, but it reflects a growing realisation within the party that an already bad situation is getting worse. Once they take a shellacking at the locals there's a good chance they spiral further downwards as they tear into each other and become more desperate and despondent.
Going in May would acknowledge that, so is unlikely, but I think more MPs are considering if it might save at least some of them.
Although also oddly, I remember far fewer dreams than I used to. When I was younger, I could recall them every morning. Now it's quite rare. Is this the same for everyone = that we remember fewer dreams as we get older?
I've never really been able to recall my dreams. A few nightmares when very young, and very very occasionally retaining a loose sense of a dream ever since.
Notwithstanding writing this before 6am as I've been unable to sleep well tonight, perhaps it's a positive sign of getting through a full cycle before waking?
Absolute riot, the CEO strikes me as a complete dick bag.
The lack of self awareness in lambasting his target for supposed childishness whilst acting like an insane toddler is remarkable.
The internet has a unique capability. It can help you find that 1 in a billion level of crazy person. With a reliability of finding them in the long nines.
Although also oddly, I remember far fewer dreams than I used to. When I was younger, I could recall them every morning. Now it's quite rare. Is this the same for everyone = that we remember fewer dreams as we get older?
I've never really been able to recall my dreams. A few nightmares when very young, and very very occasionally retaining a loose sense of a dream ever since.
Notwithstanding writing this before 6am as I've been unable to sleep well tonight, perhaps it's a positive sign of getting through a full cycle before waking?
I've been dreaming a lot of late, due to anxiety or work stress I assume. I can remember my dreams quite well for a few minutes, moreover I am aware of being in a dream sometimes. On realisation I can usually concentrate hard and wake up.
The Badenoch show rumbles on with grim fascination in the Commons. She now says "full of lies" refers to three claims made by Henry Staunton, recent Post Office Chair.
1. That she didn't apologise to him for finding out about his sacking from a journalist. This should be easy to check: Is there an s apology in the transcript of the conversation that she is about to be made public? 2. That she told him "someone has to take the rap". The absence of of such a statement in the transcript doesn't necessarily mean she didn't say it. 3. That he was told to slow down compensation claims. She has no way of knowing whether anyone said this to him or not.
On her claim that he was sacked for misconduct, this appears to be allegations of bullying rather than an actual finding of misconduct. We should find out if she mentioned any of this in the transcript She had a long list of other complaints about him but these weren't misconduct.
It doesn't appear she's in a stronger legal position after her statement than before.
It does sound a bit hit the law/hit the facts/hit the table, and Kemi B has moved on to stage 3.
Though given that she won't resign voluntarily, and Rishi is in far too weak a position to sack her unwillingly, it doesn't matter all that much.
I wonder also if Staunton has a claim of breach of confidentiality against Badenoch as many of her claims don't appear to address the points he made and there was no legal requirement on her to make these statements.
He's certainly not taking it lying down...
This is Henry Staunton’s reply to Kemi Badenoch.
Firstly, with regard to the comment made to Mr Staunton by the senior civil servant to the effect that he was to stall on compensation payments to Horizon victims and on spend on the Horizon replacement so the government could “limp into the election” with the lowest possible financial liability. Mr Staunton stands by this comment which he recorded at the time in a file note which he emailed to himself and to colleagues and which is therefore traceable on the Post Office Server...
Staunton doesn't need to prove it, the presumed fact he made a note at the time is at least corroboration. Badenoch on the other hand needs to prove that he didn't hear this plus a whole bunch of other claims she made to support her case that his account of the meeting was fabricated. She also needs to prove he was dismissed for misconduct - which doesn't appear to be the case. All of this is self inflicted. She could have stuck to a bland "We're the ones delivering the compensation, why bother with a useless ex-chairman?".
Badenoch is profoundly, and fascinatingly stupid, in addition to being uber-aggressive
So how would you have responded in her position?
And where is the evidence of her being uber aggressive? Forthright yes. You wouldn't be playing on a black female stereotype would you?
I literally quoted what I would have said in her position.
Badenoch has an advantage Staunton, Davey, Starmer etc don't have. She can pay the postmasters.
I'm not sure you have. If a former government employee goes off and does a dishonest* interview with the media are you really saying the government shouldn't really respond because he's entitled to confidentiality. That hardly seems fair.
*Hypothetically speaking. It has yet to be determined.
What I would not do is make broad and public claims of dishonesty and misconduct against a former colleague whom I dismissed, that I would struggle to stand up, and which are slam dunks for a defamation suit if I don't.
That's because I'm not as stupid as Badenoch. None of this is of any interest except this is a betting site and Badenoch is heir apparent for next Tory leader
We will see. However your determination to believe Badenoch is stupid feels agenda driven. Why?
Maybe can overdo stupid. Badenoch is extraordinarily aggressive however and doesn't seem to stop to think. Whatever. It's noteworthy none of her minister colleagues have rallied to her side, which might suggest she'll struggle to get past the MP vote and on the shortlist for next leader.
I agree with Frank, I think. It’s a game of which one is lying. And minister can’t lie to House of Commons. If you look at it objectively, without bias, Staunton is the likely liar.
What officially was Henry Staunton sacked for? That’s the first question to answer.
If not for bullying accusations against him, then what? Did Badenoch in Trumpesque doubling down today, gave a reason for his sacking to the commons, she hadn’t given him in her sacking conversation with him? Hard to believe, as lying to the commons today would be her political career hit below waterline.
Correct me where wrong, this Henry Staunton, through what sounds like a legal team, is trying to claim “Staunton had never been made aware Of bullying allegations against him and that they were certainly not raised by the secretary of state at any stage, and certainly not during the conversation which led to Mr Staunton’s dismissal.” So easy to answer. The transcript of that sacking meeting, Libdems, Labour and Keegan the current education secretary are all urging Badenoch to publish, will clear up the question if she told him about the bullying in that meeting or not, because that that can’t possibly be missing from the minute of that meeting, as that’s exactly what the meeting was all about, I’m sacking you for this reason.
I think I am doubting Staunton more in this game of “nail the liar to the wall”, if he is sacked for bullying accusations against him, but was never told that, then what different reason was he given for his sacking, for he doesn’t sound in the dark about why he was sacked, does he, he isn’t acting baffled that he accepted a “reasonless sacking” and now asking what for. He must have been told a reason by SoS, and he’s not coming clean about what that was, is he?
If Kemi Badenoch can demonstrate Henry Staunton was formally found guilty of bullying and that's the reason she sacked him, she is in the clear. If she can't, she is in deep trouble and potentially at the end of a ruinous libel suit. So far, based on her own words in parliament, she is well below that high bar.
Nothing Staunton has claimed is potentially libelous in the same way if his statements turn out incorrect.
If she has the power to remove him as chairman under the Articles (as the read out says) she doesn’t need a reason
Of course - but that doesn't give her a free pass to lie about her reasons, which is what's alleged.
Although also oddly, I remember far fewer dreams than I used to. When I was younger, I could recall them every morning. Now it's quite rare. Is this the same for everyone = that we remember fewer dreams as we get older?
my sleep habits changed and now I dream regularly, really vivid dreams with recognizable people in familiar surroundings, and often remember them clearly
Does anyone take seriously this talk of a general election in May?
Sort of. I don't think it will happen, but it reflects a growing realisation within the party that an already bad situation is getting worse. Once they take a shellacking at the locals there's a good chance they spiral further downwards as they tear into each other and become more desperate and despondent.
Going in May would acknowledge that, so is unlikely, but I think more MPs are considering if it might save at least some of them.
It would be a decision for long-term benefit, damaging for them in the short-term. So it should be almost axiomatic that a bunch of politicians won’t take it.
The evidence of people having dreams that foretold Aberfan is quite compelling. Mad, but compelling
They were strangely vivid dreams about close friends or lovers, so people that I knew well. They felt different to more run of the mill dreams. Each became true within days to weeks.
The incidents were quite personal, but also prosaic. Meeting people that I hadn't seen for months for example. Not quite the same as deja but, but a related phenomenon I suppose.
Never had a prophetic dream. I don't believe in that old caper.
I was working from home on 7/7 and I was suddenly overcome by a feeling of dread. I went from my study to the lounge and turned on the TV and news was coming through about the Russell Square bus. I vaguely knew a woman from Ledbury who was killed in the tube at Lancaster Gate, but I had no real connection. It wasn't like I was being called to from the other side. It must have just been some bizarre coincidence.
I quite often dream I've come up with some startlingly brilliant invention.
When I wake up I either can't remember what it was or* the idea is utter shite.
(I have no illusions that the ones I can't remember were other than utter shite too.)
"They say we only use a fraction of our brain's true potential. Now that's when we're awake. When we're asleep, we can do almost anything."
One of my regular dreams is long jumping. I can soar to incredible distances.
Very occasionally, I dream of computer code; or perhaps best described as psrudeocode. I dream of a simple problem, and generate code to fix it. In my dream, I often get frustrated at not being able to do it. When I wake up, I often remember the problem, and snippets of the solution, but rarely enough to code it.
And on a few occasions, I've dreamt of machine code instructions that don't actually exist.
This still happens, even though I haven't been a professional coder for years.
This has led me to conclude that I am weird.
As if all this running about along bus routes were not evidence enough?
Overseas elections from more than 30 years ago are rarely hot topics of conversation in modern UK politics. But whisper “Canada 1993” into a Conservative MP’s ear and don’t be surprised if they break into a sudden cold sweat.
This is the model for the “extinction-level event” experienced by a previously dominant rightwing party – one that some Tory opponents of Rishi Sunak warn he risks emulating at the next general election.
The basic and, for Tory MPs, chilling facts are that in October 1993 the Progressive Conservative party, in power in Canada since 1984, slumped from 167 federal seats to just two, eventually leading to its dissolution and merger into the new Conservative party of Canada.
There are some curiously precise parallels: a complacent conservative incumbent that had recently ditched its leader (Kim Campbell replacing Brian Mulroney) was struggling with the economy and faced a new, insurgent rightwing party – called Reform.
Overseas elections from more than 30 years ago are rarely hot topics of conversation in modern UK politics. But whisper “Canada 1993” into a Conservative MP’s ear and don’t be surprised if they break into a sudden cold sweat.
This is the model for the “extinction-level event” experienced by a previously dominant rightwing party – one that some Tory opponents of Rishi Sunak warn he risks emulating at the next general election.
The basic and, for Tory MPs, chilling facts are that in October 1993 the Progressive Conservative party, in power in Canada since 1984, slumped from 167 federal seats to just two, eventually leading to its dissolution and merger into the new Conservative party of Canada.
There are some curiously precise parallels: a complacent conservative incumbent that had recently ditched its leader (Kim Campbell replacing Brian Mulroney) was struggling with the economy and faced a new, insurgent rightwing party – called Reform.
Yes, I’d be pretty confident that Farage and Tice both know the history and have this in mind when they talk about destroying (aka taking over) the Conservative Party. As the party of government with hundreds of MPs and thousands of councillors, peers, donors, and a network of patronage and support acrosss political society, there is no way that a bunch of renegades could march in and take it over; electorally utterly destroyed, however, and it becomes a new ball game.
Overseas elections from more than 30 years ago are rarely hot topics of conversation in modern UK politics. But whisper “Canada 1993” into a Conservative MP’s ear and don’t be surprised if they break into a sudden cold sweat.
This is the model for the “extinction-level event” experienced by a previously dominant rightwing party – one that some Tory opponents of Rishi Sunak warn he risks emulating at the next general election.
The basic and, for Tory MPs, chilling facts are that in October 1993 the Progressive Conservative party, in power in Canada since 1984, slumped from 167 federal seats to just two, eventually leading to its dissolution and merger into the new Conservative party of Canada.
There are some curiously precise parallels: a complacent conservative incumbent that had recently ditched its leader (Kim Campbell replacing Brian Mulroney) was struggling with the economy and faced a new, insurgent rightwing party – called Reform.
Yes, I’d be pretty confident that Farage and Tice both know the history and have this in mind when they talk about destroying (aka taking over) the Conservative Party. As the party of government with hundreds of MPs and thousands of councillors, peers, donors, and a network of patronage and support acrosss political society, there is no way that a bunch of renegades could march in and take it over; electorally utterly destroyed, however, and it becomes a new ball game.
Important difference is that RefCan had a decent number of MPs as a result of that election. They were regionally focused so FPTP worked for them.
RefUK, less so. If they can only get 13% in Wellingborough, it's not easy to see them getting more than a handful of MPs, most likely none at all. What they can do is massively cut the number of Conservative MPs.
But destruction has always come more easily to Farage than creation.
Overseas elections from more than 30 years ago are rarely hot topics of conversation in modern UK politics. But whisper “Canada 1993” into a Conservative MP’s ear and don’t be surprised if they break into a sudden cold sweat.
This is the model for the “extinction-level event” experienced by a previously dominant rightwing party – one that some Tory opponents of Rishi Sunak warn he risks emulating at the next general election.
The basic and, for Tory MPs, chilling facts are that in October 1993 the Progressive Conservative party, in power in Canada since 1984, slumped from 167 federal seats to just two, eventually leading to its dissolution and merger into the new Conservative party of Canada.
There are some curiously precise parallels: a complacent conservative incumbent that had recently ditched its leader (Kim Campbell replacing Brian Mulroney) was struggling with the economy and faced a new, insurgent rightwing party – called Reform.
Yes, I’d be pretty confident that Farage and Tice both know the history and have this in mind when they talk about destroying (aka taking over) the Conservative Party. As the party of government with hundreds of MPs and thousands of councillors, peers, donors, and a network of patronage and support acrosss political society, there is no way that a bunch of renegades could march in and take it over; electorally utterly destroyed, however, and it becomes a new ball game.
Important difference is that RefCan had a decent number of MPs as a result of that election. They were regionally focused so FPTP worked for them.
RefUK, less so. If they can only get 13% in Wellingborough, it's not easy to see them getting more than a handful of MPs, most likely none at all. What they can do is massively cut the number of Conservative MPs.
But destruction has always come more easily to Farage than creation.
So the conservatives are worrying about Canada 1993 (not going to happen) and Labour are shitting themselves about Australia 2019 (also not going to happen). It’s going to be UK 2024.
Cons will survive and bounce back. Hopefully as Labour gets tired and loses steam by around its third term, there will be an influx of new younger members to the conservatives bringing with them more modern ideas.
Overseas elections from more than 30 years ago are rarely hot topics of conversation in modern UK politics. But whisper “Canada 1993” into a Conservative MP’s ear and don’t be surprised if they break into a sudden cold sweat.
This is the model for the “extinction-level event” experienced by a previously dominant rightwing party – one that some Tory opponents of Rishi Sunak warn he risks emulating at the next general election.
The basic and, for Tory MPs, chilling facts are that in October 1993 the Progressive Conservative party, in power in Canada since 1984, slumped from 167 federal seats to just two, eventually leading to its dissolution and merger into the new Conservative party of Canada.
There are some curiously precise parallels: a complacent conservative incumbent that had recently ditched its leader (Kim Campbell replacing Brian Mulroney) was struggling with the economy and faced a new, insurgent rightwing party – called Reform.
Yes, I’d be pretty confident that Farage and Tice both know the history and have this in mind when they talk about destroying (aka taking over) the Conservative Party. As the party of government with hundreds of MPs and thousands of councillors, peers, donors, and a network of patronage and support acrosss political society, there is no way that a bunch of renegades could march in and take it over; electorally utterly destroyed, however, and it becomes a new ball game.
Important difference is that RefCan had a decent number of MPs as a result of that election. They were regionally focused so FPTP worked for them.
RefUK, less so. If they can only get 13% in Wellingborough, it's not easy to see them getting more than a handful of MPs, most likely none at all. What they can do is massively cut the number of Conservative MPs.
But destruction has always come more easily to Farage than creation.
So the conservatives are worrying about Canada 1993 (not going to happen) and Labour are shitting themselves about Australia 2019 (also not going to happen). It’s going to be UK 2024.
Cons will survive and bounce back. Hopefully as Labour gets tired and loses steam by around its third term, there will be an influx of new younger members to the conservatives bringing with them more modern ideas.
Im sort of struggling to see what Labour's "modern" ideas are. Labour will simply be continuity Sunak. But without the ethnic leader. Or the femlae one.
Overseas elections from more than 30 years ago are rarely hot topics of conversation in modern UK politics. But whisper “Canada 1993” into a Conservative MP’s ear and don’t be surprised if they break into a sudden cold sweat.
This is the model for the “extinction-level event” experienced by a previously dominant rightwing party – one that some Tory opponents of Rishi Sunak warn he risks emulating at the next general election.
The basic and, for Tory MPs, chilling facts are that in October 1993 the Progressive Conservative party, in power in Canada since 1984, slumped from 167 federal seats to just two, eventually leading to its dissolution and merger into the new Conservative party of Canada.
There are some curiously precise parallels: a complacent conservative incumbent that had recently ditched its leader (Kim Campbell replacing Brian Mulroney) was struggling with the economy and faced a new, insurgent rightwing party – called Reform.
Yes, I’d be pretty confident that Farage and Tice both know the history and have this in mind when they talk about destroying (aka taking over) the Conservative Party. As the party of government with hundreds of MPs and thousands of councillors, peers, donors, and a network of patronage and support acrosss political society, there is no way that a bunch of renegades could march in and take it over; electorally utterly destroyed, however, and it becomes a new ball game.
Important difference is that RefCan had a decent number of MPs as a result of that election. They were regionally focused so FPTP worked for them.
RefUK, less so. If they can only get 13% in Wellingborough, it's not easy to see them getting more than a handful of MPs, most likely none at all. What they can do is massively cut the number of Conservative MPs.
But destruction has always come more easily to Farage than creation.
So the conservatives are worrying about Canada 1993 (not going to happen) and Labour are shitting themselves about Australia 2019 (also not going to happen). It’s going to be UK 2024.
Cons will survive and bounce back. Hopefully as Labour gets tired and loses steam by around its third term, there will be an influx of new younger members to the conservatives bringing with them more modern ideas.
Im sort of struggling to see what Labour's "modern" ideas are. Labour will simply be continuity Sunak. But without the ethnic leader. Or the femlae one.
The point seems to be give the Tory party nothing to grip on to and attack come the election.
Edit - and with the Tory party being so disliked I actually think we are component and not Sunak and co is probably more than enough for Labour to get elected - especially because the last thing Starmer and co would want is a 200 seat majority…
Israel is now completely isolated. Run by a facist bully who can't see the wood for the trees, causing as much death and destruction as possible, he's managed to lose all of their allies. What a prat.
Comments
Have been since October 2023.
Currently down 30lbs and in the best health I've been in years.
Mostly this doesn't bother me.
Except chicken stock. That's the one thing that I *wish* there was a decent vegetarian alternative for. I just wish that all those fake meat companies concentrated on making a really good (non-chicken) chicken stock.
And on another issue (but related) - there is a huge collision due between those who espouse vegans m for health reasons (many do) and those who decry ultra processed food. Much of the vegan food in supermarkets is definitely in the ultra processed category.
*Trigger warning. This is a joke.*
If someone is a vegan and wants to make their own choice but not push theirs down anyone else's throat either, then I totally respect that.
To each their own, I respect diversity, do you?
Fuck 'em. If they want good food they can pay for it themselves.
Bed time for me. Tomorrow I will be sampling a buffet lunch. I will report back on quality, content and meat/non-meat balance.
I'm willing to believe that you do eat nothing but meat, and I have no intention of going through your bins to check. But even keto diets include vegetables.
And if, for whatever reasons (efficiency of service, reduced waste, sense of sharing) a meal is a one-option thing, making that vegetarian includes the most people and excludes the least.
And if you are concerned about it coding for wokeness (let's face it, that's the issue some people have), console yourself with the news that the famously unwoke Katharine Birbalsingh came to that conclusion for the lunch menus at her school.
At my work you can pay for your meals and get a choice, but I don't like any of the options so I pay elsewhere and bring in my own food. My lunch today was a chorizo ring.
I couldn't give less of a shit about "wokeness", ask Casino Royale, I am about as woke as right wingers can get.
But don't take my food away from me and call it progress, any more than I would take yours away from you. I respect equality, diversity and inclusion which is why I think there should be EDI for both meat eaters and vegetarians alike.
I have told you I identify as a carnivore and I eat meat with every meal. I stick to animal related products, and do like cheese yes, but I will have cheese as a side with my meat not a replacement for it.
Now you can identify as what you want to identify as, and I can do the same. That's called inclusion. Maybe you need to become more woke.
It's my impression that fungi are somwhat mose closely related to animals than plants, despite their looks.
(For the record: I am an omnivore, like many other successful animals.)
I’m actually quite impressed you never eat a meat free meal. If that includes breakfast it’s doubly impressive.
136g of pork per 100g, I consumed 200g so that's 272g of pork. I count that as meat, don't you?
Don't see peppers listed so your claim is wrong, but even if they were, no it doesn't make me a fraud and don't be rude.
I either have bacon, sausages, chorizo, Measter (Aldi's own brand Pepperami, absolutely love that!) or skip breakfast entirely.
https://x.com/newscientist/status/1759555912992227804
Is it time for a more subtle view on the ultimate taboo: cannibalism?
My recollection of cured meat is that there is a lot of water dragged out by curing process. Indeed there is a rough rule of thumb that says meat is properly cured when it is around 65% of its starting weight - hence 272g to 200g (although if you do the maths it is probably lower than 200g to account for all the other stuff that makes chorizo amazing).
Full disclosure I have attempted home curing to distinctly mixed results.
Puzzling.
So yes 272g of raw pork being present in 200g of chorizo.
Just as a 12oz steak is measured as 12oz while raw, not once its been cooked.
There, I've said it.
Trying the reverse and cutting out carbs and pumping up the protein and fat does wonders for your health.
Anyway: if you feel you have a genuine dietary reason that oyu can't simply adjust your other eating later on, then fair enough: but it's sufficiently unusual, in practical terms, that it comes under the 'special request' box in catering - like nut allergies, and so on. It's not something that can be anticipated in normal catering, especially in the ongoing drive to cut costs in most organizations in which flatbread and hummus etc. is decidedly favoured over more expensive options.
https://web.archive.org/web/20040109223238/https://www.city-journal.org/html/eon_01_05_04td.html
You're all banned from my kitchen.
I linked to a site showing how to make a keto pizza base, using chicken instead of the wheat, I never said what toppings I'd put on my pizza. For what its worth, I'd typically put on bacon and pepperoni..
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1080/1080-h/1080-h.htm
If I was less balshie I'd hate to think how much Gaviscon I'd be necking every week.
I do wonder how many poor people are being told "Eat X, eat Y!" without any attention to their circumstances or needs. I guess it's lucky they die young and pay for the pensions of GP's.
Oddly enough, youtube has just autoplayed "Kinky boots!" for me :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1i9PWJhqUsc
"In October 2022, three people were arrested in Kerala, India, for performing an esoteric human sacrifice.[275] During interrogation, it was revealed that they killed two women and then cooked and ate the body parts of the victims in hopes of health and prosperity."
My cat is an obligate carnivore even though she sometimes tries to eat breadcrumbs.
https://www.dexerto.com/tiktok/parchment-paper-ceo-melts-down-over-womans-cooking-video-in-viral-saga-2543023/
Absolute riot, the CEO strikes me as a complete dick bag.
It's 'eat refined carbs'. Don't eat nuts, eggs, or any other cheap readily available natural food. I explained that refined carbs make me very, very unwell.
And I was told to just buy more Gaviscon as it was cheaper than paying for a prescription of the same thing via the NHS.
I truly worry how many people are being given that sort of advice without double checking for themselves that it's dangerous nonsense.
I mean, they're mostly poor people, so clearly count for less for both left and right. But personally it worries me.
I'm shocked that these people exist and hold any kind of serious position in any company.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w53SeU11yqs
As are other countries too. Its common for Americans in the Keto community to talk about the high carb diet recommended as the Standard American Diet (SAD) and its quite an appropriate acronym.
Video detailing efforts to deal with the problems caused by Teddy Boys in Northampton in the 1950s.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tn5IuCdLPI8
And on a few occasions, I've dreamt of machine code instructions that don't actually exist.
This still happens, even though I haven't been a professional coder for years.
This has led me to conclude that I am weird.
It can take a could of minutes before I realise that they were a while ago
Going in May would acknowledge that, so is unlikely, but I think more MPs are considering if it might save at least some of them.
Notwithstanding writing this before 6am as I've been unable to sleep well tonight, perhaps it's a positive sign of getting through a full cycle before waking?
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Why-We-Sleep-Science-Dreams-ebook/dp/B06Y649387
my sleep habits changed and now I dream regularly, really vivid dreams with recognizable people in familiar surroundings, and often remember them clearly
We just have to hope that Starmer is either clever or bold, or ideally both, once he wins.
Weird.
This is the model for the “extinction-level event” experienced by a previously dominant rightwing party – one that some Tory opponents of Rishi Sunak warn he risks emulating at the next general election.
The basic and, for Tory MPs, chilling facts are that in October 1993 the Progressive Conservative party, in power in Canada since 1984, slumped from 167 federal seats to just two, eventually leading to its dissolution and merger into the new Conservative party of Canada.
There are some curiously precise parallels: a complacent conservative incumbent that had recently ditched its leader (Kim Campbell replacing Brian Mulroney) was struggling with the economy and faced a new, insurgent rightwing party – called Reform.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/20/canada-93-tory-sunak-critics-extinction-level-election-result
RefUK, less so. If they can only get 13% in Wellingborough, it's not easy to see them getting more than a handful of MPs, most likely none at all. What they can do is massively cut the number of Conservative MPs.
But destruction has always come more easily to Farage than creation.
Cons will survive and bounce back. Hopefully as Labour gets tired and loses steam by around its third term, there will be an influx of new younger members to the conservatives bringing with them more modern ideas.
Edit - and with the Tory party being so disliked I actually think we are component and not Sunak and co is probably more than enough for Labour to get elected - especially because the last thing Starmer and co would want is a 200 seat majority…