FPT - religion is far more common than people think. We all have things we believe in; it's just we are now entering an age of polytheism rather than a commitment to organised religion.
"Diversity", Veganism, Mediation and Gaianism all show aspects of religious fervour. And, like all religions, they have their doctrines, their sinners, punishments for heretics who don't follow doctrine and rewards of virtue and acceptance for those who piously do.
The word "aspects" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.
Why do I get the feeling that it's a list of things Casino doesn't approve of? Why not add 'belief in markets' 'being British' 'being a cricket fan' 'dislike of the EU' for balance?
On the difference between the census and the BSA on numbers with no religion in the UK:
Firstly the Census question is voluntary, and answered by 94% of people, so not answered by everyone as HYUFD seems to think.
Secondly the ask different questions. Census: What is your religion? BSA: Do you regard yourself as belonging to any particular religion? IF YES: Which?
Both are probably capturing affiliation more than belief, but the BSA question forces people to actively think if they belong or not.
I see we're on to ad hominum this morning. Probably because this is making you have to think too hard.
It's not just me saying this. There are articles relating to it by philosophers and theologians who've been making this point recently.
You can look them up yourself.
Are you saying you approve of the things in your list?
No, and I don't approve much of many organised religions either - I even have my criticisms of the Church of England.
Your point, such as it is, is purely to try and find a reason to dismiss my argument out of hand so you don't have to think about it too much.
You should. Because it's an important to contemplate to understand the future direction of society.
Of course any strongly held beliefs show aspects of religious fervour. Hardly a brilliant insight.
But you seem to have just shoehorned in a list of things that you irrationally hate.
'hatred of veganism' seems to be a far commoner religion than veganism itself, sadly.
Veganism is definitely a religion. It's purist, dogmatic, and essentially irrational, and like the abstinence movements (also grounded in religion) that were so common at the start of the 20th century.
I have no problem with vegetarians as they pose no threat to me. Vegans are a threat as they are campaigners and, ultimately, want to stop meat entirely - so they will have my resistance.
Vegans on Oxford City Council have voted to ban meat from all Council events
I keep being told to live and let live, and that it's me with the problem - not them, and yet time and time again they try and inflict their lifestyle choices on others. They'd clearly try and do it to everyone if they could.
It's their mission.
This is the sort of stuff we can expect from Labour when they take office. Telling others what to do is in their nature.
My favourite anecdote on this subject is of a vegetarian who went to a steakhouse and asked for the vegetarian options. When told they didn't serve any, she expostulated that this was unfair as she liked to eat with her friends.
The waiter suggested they go to a vegetarian restaurant and her friends could have the meat dishes that restaurant offered...
Logic fail. Unless her friends are unable to eat food without meat in it.
If I go to a restaurant with friends with dietary special needs, I do tend to make sure that there is something that everyone can eat, even if it doesn't serve my favourite food.
Vegetarianism in almost all cases is a choice, not a need.
As it happens when arranging events I go to great lengths to try and ensure anyone who is coming has vegetarian or vegan options available, but for somebody do demand vegetarian choices as a right in a restaurant that isn't vegetarian is themselves failing in logic.
Feck them , they can just eat the vegetables and hand me their meat/chicken etc.
FPT - religion is far more common than people think. We all have things we believe in; it's just we are now entering an age of polytheism rather than a commitment to organised religion.
"Diversity", Veganism, Mediation and Gaianism all show aspects of religious fervour. And, like all religions, they have their doctrines, their sinners, punishments for heretics who don't follow doctrine and rewards of virtue and acceptance for those who piously do.
The word "aspects" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.
Why do I get the feeling that it's a list of things Casino doesn't approve of? Why not add 'belief in markets' 'being British' 'being a cricket fan' 'dislike of the EU' for balance?
On the difference between the census and the BSA on numbers with no religion in the UK:
Firstly the Census question is voluntary, and answered by 94% of people, so not answered by everyone as HYUFD seems to think.
Secondly the ask different questions. Census: What is your religion? BSA: Do you regard yourself as belonging to any particular religion? IF YES: Which?
Both are probably capturing affiliation more than belief, but the BSA question forces people to actively think if they belong or not.
I see we're on to ad hominum this morning. Probably because this is making you have to think too hard.
It's not just me saying this. There are articles relating to it by philosophers and theologians who've been making this point recently.
You can look them up yourself.
Are you saying you approve of the things in your list?
No, and I don't approve much of many organised religions either - I even have my criticisms of the Church of England.
Your point, such as it is, is purely to try and find a reason to dismiss my argument out of hand so you don't have to think about it too much.
You should. Because it's an important to contemplate to understand the future direction of society.
Of course any strongly held beliefs show aspects of religious fervour. Hardly a brilliant insight.
But you seem to have just shoehorned in a list of things that you irrationally hate.
'hatred of veganism' seems to be a far commoner religion than veganism itself, sadly.
Veganism is definitely a religion. It's purist, dogmatic, and essentially irrational, and like the abstinence movements (also grounded in religion) that were so common at the start of the 20th century.
I have no problem with vegetarians as they pose no threat to me. Vegans are a threat as they are campaigners and, ultimately, want to stop meat entirely - so they will have my resistance.
Vegans on Oxford City Council have voted to ban meat from all Council events
I keep being told to live and let live, and that it's me with the problem - not them, and yet time and time again they try and inflict their lifestyle choices on others. They'd clearly try and do it to everyone if they could.
It's their mission.
This is the sort of stuff we can expect from Labour when they take office. Telling others what to do is in their nature.
My favourite anecdote on this subject is of a vegetarian who went to a steakhouse and asked for the vegetarian options. When told they didn't serve any, she expostulated that this was unfair as she liked to eat with her friends.
The waiter suggested they go to a vegetarian restaurant and her friends could have the meat dishes that restaurant offered...
Logic fail. Unless her friends are unable to eat food without meat in it.
If I go to a restaurant with friends with dietary special needs, I do tend to make sure that there is something that everyone can eat, even if it doesn't serve my favourite food.
Vegetarianism in almost all cases is a choice, not a need.
As it happens when arranging events I go to great lengths to try and ensure anyone who is coming has vegetarian or vegan options available, but for somebody do demand vegetarian choices as a right in a restaurant that isn't vegetarian is themselves failing in logic.
Sounds like she was offering good advice and the waiter was being an obnoxious arsehole. Presumably the party went elsewhere to eat.
Sure it's a choice, in the same way that it's a choice not to eat dogs. Not sure how people would react if asking why don't you have any options without dog, being told shut up and eat dog or piss off.
The anecdote was that she said it was unfair. That's the part that makes it stupid. If the anecdote were that she suggested it was bad business of them not to serve a veggie option I might agree with you.
As it is the scenario was they picked a steak place and didnt check its offering then whined about what it did serve.
Your alternative scenario doesn't help any. If I went to a restaurant that served primarily dog meat and then acted affronted at a lack of dog free options I'd expect not to receive sympathy from the proprietors.
The waiter was unnecessarily sassy about it, but what should they have done? Gotten on their knees and begged forgiveness the menu doesn't cater to everyone's tastes?
Blame the friends for presumption in their choice. I have a friend who cannot handle spicy stuff, so we avoid the Indian entirely.
The waiter could easily have suggested having a salad and baked potato, or chips served as a main course.
FPT - religion is far more common than people think. We all have things we believe in; it's just we are now entering an age of polytheism rather than a commitment to organised religion.
"Diversity", Veganism, Mediation and Gaianism all show aspects of religious fervour. And, like all religions, they have their doctrines, their sinners, punishments for heretics who don't follow doctrine and rewards of virtue and acceptance for those who piously do.
The word "aspects" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.
Why do I get the feeling that it's a list of things Casino doesn't approve of? Why not add 'belief in markets' 'being British' 'being a cricket fan' 'dislike of the EU' for balance?
On the difference between the census and the BSA on numbers with no religion in the UK:
Firstly the Census question is voluntary, and answered by 94% of people, so not answered by everyone as HYUFD seems to think.
Secondly the ask different questions. Census: What is your religion? BSA: Do you regard yourself as belonging to any particular religion? IF YES: Which?
Both are probably capturing affiliation more than belief, but the BSA question forces people to actively think if they belong or not.
I see we're on to ad hominum this morning. Probably because this is making you have to think too hard.
It's not just me saying this. There are articles relating to it by philosophers and theologians who've been making this point recently.
You can look them up yourself.
Are you saying you approve of the things in your list?
No, and I don't approve much of many organised religions either - I even have my criticisms of the Church of England.
Your point, such as it is, is purely to try and find a reason to dismiss my argument out of hand so you don't have to think about it too much.
You should. Because it's an important to contemplate to understand the future direction of society.
Of course any strongly held beliefs show aspects of religious fervour. Hardly a brilliant insight.
But you seem to have just shoehorned in a list of things that you irrationally hate.
'hatred of veganism' seems to be a far commoner religion than veganism itself, sadly.
Veganism is definitely a religion. It's purist, dogmatic, and essentially irrational, and like the abstinence movements (also grounded in religion) that were so common at the start of the 20th century.
I have no problem with vegetarians as they pose no threat to me. Vegans are a threat as they are campaigners and, ultimately, want to stop meat entirely - so they will have my resistance.
Vegans on Oxford City Council have voted to ban meat from all Council events
I keep being told to live and let live, and that it's me with the problem - not them, and yet time and time again they try and inflict their lifestyle choices on others. They'd clearly try and do it to everyone if they could.
It's their mission.
This is the sort of stuff we can expect from Labour when they take office. Telling others what to do is in their nature.
My favourite anecdote on this subject is of a vegetarian who went to a steakhouse and asked for the vegetarian options. When told they didn't serve any, she expostulated that this was unfair as she liked to eat with her friends.
The waiter suggested they go to a vegetarian restaurant and her friends could have the meat dishes that restaurant offered...
Logic fail. Unless her friends are unable to eat food without meat in it.
If I go to a restaurant with friends with dietary special needs, I do tend to make sure that there is something that everyone can eat, even if it doesn't serve my favourite food.
Vegetarianism in almost all cases is a choice, not a need.
As it happens when arranging events I go to great lengths to try and ensure anyone who is coming has vegetarian or vegan options available, but for somebody do demand vegetarian choices as a right in a restaurant that isn't vegetarian is themselves failing in logic.
It is sensible though for restaurant owners to have Vegetarian and Vegan options on a menu, not least for those with dietary requirements. I have a Jewish friend who always orders the vegetarian option when out, because of the non-kosher nature of the other options for example.
Bring and share lunches at my church are always vegetarian or vegan too, so as to allow all to take part.
Again, another example of how veganism ends up crowding everything else out.
Live and let live, eh?
No, just good manners. If bringing food to share, then you should cater to all present.
You wouldn't invite Muslims to a hog roast surely?
Not intentionally perhaps. But since I cannot presume someone's faith from name or appearance, or their level of adherence to their faiths tenets if they have one, then would it not be offensive to leave them off the list of invitees unless I knew for certain they were and how observant they were?
So I probably should invite muslims to a hog roast just in case and they can then say 'sorry mate, not really my thing'.
Which is where this all started. Asking guests about any dietary requirements is just good manners. Something that British people used to pride themselves on.
Mr. kamski, bacon sandwiches are great. And we're designed to eat it too, thanks to our incisor and canine teeth, specifically evolved for tearing meat.
I don't mind what others eat, provided they don't try and alter my diet. Roast parsnips and carrots are excellent. Especially alongside pork or beef.
We’re designed to eat insects. Our stomachs produce an enzyme to digest insect exoskeletons.
A prawn is just a giant cockroach in scuba gear. If you'd eat one then I don't why you wouldn't eat the other.
FPT - religion is far more common than people think. We all have things we believe in; it's just we are now entering an age of polytheism rather than a commitment to organised religion.
"Diversity", Veganism, Mediation and Gaianism all show aspects of religious fervour. And, like all religions, they have their doctrines, their sinners, punishments for heretics who don't follow doctrine and rewards of virtue and acceptance for those who piously do.
The word "aspects" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.
Why do I get the feeling that it's a list of things Casino doesn't approve of? Why not add 'belief in markets' 'being British' 'being a cricket fan' 'dislike of the EU' for balance?
On the difference between the census and the BSA on numbers with no religion in the UK:
Firstly the Census question is voluntary, and answered by 94% of people, so not answered by everyone as HYUFD seems to think.
Secondly the ask different questions. Census: What is your religion? BSA: Do you regard yourself as belonging to any particular religion? IF YES: Which?
Both are probably capturing affiliation more than belief, but the BSA question forces people to actively think if they belong or not.
I see we're on to ad hominum this morning. Probably because this is making you have to think too hard.
It's not just me saying this. There are articles relating to it by philosophers and theologians who've been making this point recently.
You can look them up yourself.
Are you saying you approve of the things in your list?
No, and I don't approve much of many organised religions either - I even have my criticisms of the Church of England.
Your point, such as it is, is purely to try and find a reason to dismiss my argument out of hand so you don't have to think about it too much.
You should. Because it's an important to contemplate to understand the future direction of society.
Of course any strongly held beliefs show aspects of religious fervour. Hardly a brilliant insight.
But you seem to have just shoehorned in a list of things that you irrationally hate.
'hatred of veganism' seems to be a far commoner religion than veganism itself, sadly.
Veganism is definitely a religion. It's purist, dogmatic, and essentially irrational, and like the abstinence movements (also grounded in religion) that were so common at the start of the 20th century.
I have no problem with vegetarians as they pose no threat to me. Vegans are a threat as they are campaigners and, ultimately, want to stop meat entirely - so they will have my resistance.
Vegans on Oxford City Council have voted to ban meat from all Council events
I keep being told to live and let live, and that it's me with the problem - not them, and yet time and time again they try and inflict their lifestyle choices on others. They'd clearly try and do it to everyone if they could.
It's their mission.
This is the sort of stuff we can expect from Labour when they take office. Telling others what to do is in their nature.
My favourite anecdote on this subject is of a vegetarian who went to a steakhouse and asked for the vegetarian options. When told they didn't serve any, she expostulated that this was unfair as she liked to eat with her friends.
The waiter suggested they go to a vegetarian restaurant and her friends could have the meat dishes that restaurant offered...
Logic fail. Unless her friends are unable to eat food without meat in it.
If I go to a restaurant with friends with dietary special needs, I do tend to make sure that there is something that everyone can eat, even if it doesn't serve my favourite food.
Vegetarianism in almost all cases is a choice, not a need.
As it happens when arranging events I go to great lengths to try and ensure anyone who is coming has vegetarian or vegan options available, but for somebody do demand vegetarian choices as a right in a restaurant that isn't vegetarian is themselves failing in logic.
Feck them , they can just eat the vegetables and hand me their meat/chicken etc.
Morning Malc, hope you’re well.
Have you not been tempted to try a vegan option ?
Morning Taz, Very well thanks and hope you are the same. I do have some vegan meals occasionally and have minimum 3-4 vegetables with most meals but I like chicken/steak/burgers/fish etc.
I'm not a fan of all these labels. Vegan. Vegetarian. Pescitarian (sp?). Omnivore. Different people choose to eat different things. Some people have to restrict their diet for medical reasons. Let's all just be considerate to each other's needs and choices.
I think that it is a good thing that more meat free options are available. How can anyone see that as a problem?
I’d agree with this, it is only clickbait driven planks like Piers Morgan who seems to when he got irate about Greggs vegan sausage rolls. Although it was probably more attention seeking. I also find it tiresome that some vegans call people who have meat as part of their diet ‘carnivores’.
Yes, that’s really annoying. It’s a category error as herbivore/carnivore/omnivore are biological terms, not synonyms for people’s dietary or ethical preferences.
My cat is an obligate carnivore - insofar as she cannot eat vegetable matter in any meaningful volume, as her physiology precludes it.
Absolutely gripping on here this morning. Who'd have thought that different people like eating different things, and that food outlets might cater for different groups of such people?
Having said that, to link to politics, I reckon "We don't give a flying fuck what people eat" could be an appealing slogan.
FPT - religion is far more common than people think. We all have things we believe in; it's just we are now entering an age of polytheism rather than a commitment to organised religion.
"Diversity", Veganism, Mediation and Gaianism all show aspects of religious fervour. And, like all religions, they have their doctrines, their sinners, punishments for heretics who don't follow doctrine and rewards of virtue and acceptance for those who piously do.
The word "aspects" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.
Why do I get the feeling that it's a list of things Casino doesn't approve of? Why not add 'belief in markets' 'being British' 'being a cricket fan' 'dislike of the EU' for balance?
On the difference between the census and the BSA on numbers with no religion in the UK:
Firstly the Census question is voluntary, and answered by 94% of people, so not answered by everyone as HYUFD seems to think.
Secondly the ask different questions. Census: What is your religion? BSA: Do you regard yourself as belonging to any particular religion? IF YES: Which?
Both are probably capturing affiliation more than belief, but the BSA question forces people to actively think if they belong or not.
I see we're on to ad hominum this morning. Probably because this is making you have to think too hard.
It's not just me saying this. There are articles relating to it by philosophers and theologians who've been making this point recently.
You can look them up yourself.
Are you saying you approve of the things in your list?
No, and I don't approve much of many organised religions either - I even have my criticisms of the Church of England.
Your point, such as it is, is purely to try and find a reason to dismiss my argument out of hand so you don't have to think about it too much.
You should. Because it's an important to contemplate to understand the future direction of society.
Of course any strongly held beliefs show aspects of religious fervour. Hardly a brilliant insight.
But you seem to have just shoehorned in a list of things that you irrationally hate.
'hatred of veganism' seems to be a far commoner religion than veganism itself, sadly.
Veganism is definitely a religion. It's purist, dogmatic, and essentially irrational, and like the abstinence movements (also grounded in religion) that were so common at the start of the 20th century.
I have no problem with vegetarians as they pose no threat to me. Vegans are a threat as they are campaigners and, ultimately, want to stop meat entirely - so they will have my resistance.
Vegans on Oxford City Council have voted to ban meat from all Council events
I keep being told to live and let live, and that it's me with the problem - not them, and yet time and time again they try and inflict their lifestyle choices on others. They'd clearly try and do it to everyone if they could.
It's their mission.
This is the sort of stuff we can expect from Labour when they take office. Telling others what to do is in their nature.
My favourite anecdote on this subject is of a vegetarian who went to a steakhouse and asked for the vegetarian options. When told they didn't serve any, she expostulated that this was unfair as she liked to eat with her friends.
The waiter suggested they go to a vegetarian restaurant and her friends could have the meat dishes that restaurant offered...
Logic fail. Unless her friends are unable to eat food without meat in it.
If I go to a restaurant with friends with dietary special needs, I do tend to make sure that there is something that everyone can eat, even if it doesn't serve my favourite food.
Vegetarianism in almost all cases is a choice, not a need.
As it happens when arranging events I go to great lengths to try and ensure anyone who is coming has vegetarian or vegan options available, but for somebody do demand vegetarian choices as a right in a restaurant that isn't vegetarian is themselves failing in logic.
Feck them , they can just eat the vegetables and hand me their meat/chicken etc.
Morning Malc, hope you’re well.
Have you not been tempted to try a vegan option ?
Morning Taz, Very well thanks and hope you are the same. I do have some vegan meals occasionally and have minimum 3-4 vegetables with most meals but I like chicken/steak/burgers/fish etc.
And of course turnips are better lobbed as a weapon than eaten!
I was a vegetarian for many years and then a pescatarian for many years. This was my choice. I owned it.
If I was out and was presented with a meat and veg meal, I would just eat everything other than the meat. I certainly would not expect or demand that I was treated specially for what is my choice. I was never ill-mannered or "precious".
FPT - religion is far more common than people think. We all have things we believe in; it's just we are now entering an age of polytheism rather than a commitment to organised religion.
"Diversity", Veganism, Mediation and Gaianism all show aspects of religious fervour. And, like all religions, they have their doctrines, their sinners, punishments for heretics who don't follow doctrine and rewards of virtue and acceptance for those who piously do.
The word "aspects" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.
Why do I get the feeling that it's a list of things Casino doesn't approve of? Why not add 'belief in markets' 'being British' 'being a cricket fan' 'dislike of the EU' for balance?
On the difference between the census and the BSA on numbers with no religion in the UK:
Firstly the Census question is voluntary, and answered by 94% of people, so not answered by everyone as HYUFD seems to think.
Secondly the ask different questions. Census: What is your religion? BSA: Do you regard yourself as belonging to any particular religion? IF YES: Which?
Both are probably capturing affiliation more than belief, but the BSA question forces people to actively think if they belong or not.
I see we're on to ad hominum this morning. Probably because this is making you have to think too hard.
It's not just me saying this. There are articles relating to it by philosophers and theologians who've been making this point recently.
You can look them up yourself.
Are you saying you approve of the things in your list?
No, and I don't approve much of many organised religions either - I even have my criticisms of the Church of England.
Your point, such as it is, is purely to try and find a reason to dismiss my argument out of hand so you don't have to think about it too much.
You should. Because it's an important to contemplate to understand the future direction of society.
Of course any strongly held beliefs show aspects of religious fervour. Hardly a brilliant insight.
But you seem to have just shoehorned in a list of things that you irrationally hate.
'hatred of veganism' seems to be a far commoner religion than veganism itself, sadly.
Veganism is definitely a religion. It's purist, dogmatic, and essentially irrational, and like the abstinence movements (also grounded in religion) that were so common at the start of the 20th century.
I have no problem with vegetarians as they pose no threat to me. Vegans are a threat as they are campaigners and, ultimately, want to stop meat entirely - so they will have my resistance.
Vegans on Oxford City Council have voted to ban meat from all Council events
I keep being told to live and let live, and that it's me with the problem - not them, and yet time and time again they try and inflict their lifestyle choices on others. They'd clearly try and do it to everyone if they could.
It's their mission.
This is the sort of stuff we can expect from Labour when they take office. Telling others what to do is in their nature.
My favourite anecdote on this subject is of a vegetarian who went to a steakhouse and asked for the vegetarian options. When told they didn't serve any, she expostulated that this was unfair as she liked to eat with her friends.
The waiter suggested they go to a vegetarian restaurant and her friends could have the meat dishes that restaurant offered...
Logic fail. Unless her friends are unable to eat food without meat in it.
If I go to a restaurant with friends with dietary special needs, I do tend to make sure that there is something that everyone can eat, even if it doesn't serve my favourite food.
Vegetarianism in almost all cases is a choice, not a need.
As it happens when arranging events I go to great lengths to try and ensure anyone who is coming has vegetarian or vegan options available, but for somebody do demand vegetarian choices as a right in a restaurant that isn't vegetarian is themselves failing in logic.
It is sensible though for restaurant owners to have Vegetarian and Vegan options on a menu, not least for those with dietary requirements. I have a Jewish friend who always orders the vegetarian option when out, because of the non-kosher nature of the other options for example.
Bring and share lunches at my church are always vegetarian or vegan too, so as to allow all to take part.
Again, another example of how veganism ends up crowding everything else out.
Live and let live, eh?
No, just good manners. If bringing food to share, then you should cater to all present.
You wouldn't invite Muslims to a hog roast surely?
Providing an alternative that they can eat is offered, why not? The other option is that you don't have the food that you (and presumably the majority of your guests) want to eat, for fear of giving offence.
They could have teh coleslaw or sweetcorn or just get hammered.
In my experience most vegans don’t drink either. So they don’t get a lot of pleasure out of life. Maybe we should let them pick a class A drug of their choice so they have something to cling on to?
FPT - religion is far more common than people think. We all have things we believe in; it's just we are now entering an age of polytheism rather than a commitment to organised religion.
"Diversity", Veganism, Mediation and Gaianism all show aspects of religious fervour. And, like all religions, they have their doctrines, their sinners, punishments for heretics who don't follow doctrine and rewards of virtue and acceptance for those who piously do.
The word "aspects" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.
Why do I get the feeling that it's a list of things Casino doesn't approve of? Why not add 'belief in markets' 'being British' 'being a cricket fan' 'dislike of the EU' for balance?
On the difference between the census and the BSA on numbers with no religion in the UK:
Firstly the Census question is voluntary, and answered by 94% of people, so not answered by everyone as HYUFD seems to think.
Secondly the ask different questions. Census: What is your religion? BSA: Do you regard yourself as belonging to any particular religion? IF YES: Which?
Both are probably capturing affiliation more than belief, but the BSA question forces people to actively think if they belong or not.
I see we're on to ad hominum this morning. Probably because this is making you have to think too hard.
It's not just me saying this. There are articles relating to it by philosophers and theologians who've been making this point recently.
You can look them up yourself.
Are you saying you approve of the things in your list?
No, and I don't approve much of many organised religions either - I even have my criticisms of the Church of England.
Your point, such as it is, is purely to try and find a reason to dismiss my argument out of hand so you don't have to think about it too much.
You should. Because it's an important to contemplate to understand the future direction of society.
Of course any strongly held beliefs show aspects of religious fervour. Hardly a brilliant insight.
But you seem to have just shoehorned in a list of things that you irrationally hate.
'hatred of veganism' seems to be a far commoner religion than veganism itself, sadly.
Veganism is definitely a religion. It's purist, dogmatic, and essentially irrational, and like the abstinence movements (also grounded in religion) that were so common at the start of the 20th century.
I have no problem with vegetarians as they pose no threat to me. Vegans are a threat as they are campaigners and, ultimately, want to stop meat entirely - so they will have my resistance.
Vegans on Oxford City Council have voted to ban meat from all Council events
I keep being told to live and let live, and that it's me with the problem - not them, and yet time and time again they try and inflict their lifestyle choices on others. They'd clearly try and do it to everyone if they could.
It's their mission.
This is the sort of stuff we can expect from Labour when they take office. Telling others what to do is in their nature.
My favourite anecdote on this subject is of a vegetarian who went to a steakhouse and asked for the vegetarian options. When told they didn't serve any, she expostulated that this was unfair as she liked to eat with her friends.
The waiter suggested they go to a vegetarian restaurant and her friends could have the meat dishes that restaurant offered...
Logic fail. Unless her friends are unable to eat food without meat in it.
If I go to a restaurant with friends with dietary special needs, I do tend to make sure that there is something that everyone can eat, even if it doesn't serve my favourite food.
Vegetarianism in almost all cases is a choice, not a need.
As it happens when arranging events I go to great lengths to try and ensure anyone who is coming has vegetarian or vegan options available, but for somebody do demand vegetarian choices as a right in a restaurant that isn't vegetarian is themselves failing in logic.
It is sensible though for restaurant owners to have Vegetarian and Vegan options on a menu, not least for those with dietary requirements. I have a Jewish friend who always orders the vegetarian option when out, because of the non-kosher nature of the other options for example.
Bring and share lunches at my church are always vegetarian or vegan too, so as to allow all to take part.
Again, another example of how veganism ends up crowding everything else out.
Live and let live, eh?
No, just good manners. If bringing food to share, then you should cater to all present.
You wouldn't invite Muslims to a hog roast surely?
Not intentionally perhaps. But since I cannot presume someone's faith from name or appearance, or their level of adherence to their faiths tenets if they have one, then would it not be offensive to leave them off the list of invitees unless I knew for certain they were and how observant they were?
So I probably should invite muslims to a hog roast just in case and they can then say 'sorry mate, not really my thing'.
Which is where this all started. Asking guests about any dietary requirements is just good manners. Something that British people used to pride themselves on.
Would never cross my mind, I would get in a nice selection of refreshments though to be sure they could have their tipple of choice.
Kim Dotcon says the biggest economic crash in history is arriving.
wish I was wrong The biggest economic crash in history is arriving and I take no pleasure in saying I told you so. It was inevitable. It's going to get really bad. Read some of my past warnings:
Kim Dotcon says the biggest economic crash in history is arriving.
wish I was wrong The biggest economic crash in history is arriving and I take no pleasure in saying I told you so. It was inevitable. It's going to get really bad. Read some of my past warnings:
Most people, most of the time, don't exist in a state of constant vegan siege, belittled and bullied for their innocent meat-eating ways.
Anyone who claims they do is almost certainly one of those awful people who constantly needles at people for their choices then acts all affronted when you've wound them up so much they bite back.
Casino, you provoke people because you like being the heroic victim in your own little off-Broadway persecution drama. You know it and we know it.
I think I have upset a few people in the industry. I've done meat-alternatives for a decade, and have flipped straight to the other end of the spectrum to hustle premium charcuterie.
That I am not vegan, have never claimed to be vegan, have always said that I eat meat. And yet *the horror*. Its laughable really. The majority of people who eat vegan food are not vegan, and I think that is the thing that has wound up the hairshirt vegans, who enjoyed their suffering when there weren't any decent products...
For the hardcore veganism is a way of life. For most of us it’s a style of cuisine.
The vegan Beyond Meat burger at my local burger joint is absolutely delicious (especially when paired with real cheese!), but it’s 15% dearer than the almost-as-good real meat option, so I tend to stick to beef.
FPT - religion is far more common than people think. We all have things we believe in; it's just we are now entering an age of polytheism rather than a commitment to organised religion.
"Diversity", Veganism, Mediation and Gaianism all show aspects of religious fervour. And, like all religions, they have their doctrines, their sinners, punishments for heretics who don't follow doctrine and rewards of virtue and acceptance for those who piously do.
The word "aspects" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.
Why do I get the feeling that it's a list of things Casino doesn't approve of? Why not add 'belief in markets' 'being British' 'being a cricket fan' 'dislike of the EU' for balance?
On the difference between the census and the BSA on numbers with no religion in the UK:
Firstly the Census question is voluntary, and answered by 94% of people, so not answered by everyone as HYUFD seems to think.
Secondly the ask different questions. Census: What is your religion? BSA: Do you regard yourself as belonging to any particular religion? IF YES: Which?
Both are probably capturing affiliation more than belief, but the BSA question forces people to actively think if they belong or not.
I see we're on to ad hominum this morning. Probably because this is making you have to think too hard.
It's not just me saying this. There are articles relating to it by philosophers and theologians who've been making this point recently.
You can look them up yourself.
Are you saying you approve of the things in your list?
No, and I don't approve much of many organised religions either - I even have my criticisms of the Church of England.
Your point, such as it is, is purely to try and find a reason to dismiss my argument out of hand so you don't have to think about it too much.
You should. Because it's an important to contemplate to understand the future direction of society.
Of course any strongly held beliefs show aspects of religious fervour. Hardly a brilliant insight.
But you seem to have just shoehorned in a list of things that you irrationally hate.
'hatred of veganism' seems to be a far commoner religion than veganism itself, sadly.
Veganism is definitely a religion. It's purist, dogmatic, and essentially irrational, and like the abstinence movements (also grounded in religion) that were so common at the start of the 20th century.
I have no problem with vegetarians as they pose no threat to me. Vegans are a threat as they are campaigners and, ultimately, want to stop meat entirely - so they will have my resistance.
Vegans on Oxford City Council have voted to ban meat from all Council events
I keep being told to live and let live, and that it's me with the problem - not them, and yet time and time again they try and inflict their lifestyle choices on others. They'd clearly try and do it to everyone if they could.
It's their mission.
This is the sort of stuff we can expect from Labour when they take office. Telling others what to do is in their nature.
My favourite anecdote on this subject is of a vegetarian who went to a steakhouse and asked for the vegetarian options. When told they didn't serve any, she expostulated that this was unfair as she liked to eat with her friends.
The waiter suggested they go to a vegetarian restaurant and her friends could have the meat dishes that restaurant offered...
Logic fail. Unless her friends are unable to eat food without meat in it.
If I go to a restaurant with friends with dietary special needs, I do tend to make sure that there is something that everyone can eat, even if it doesn't serve my favourite food.
Vegetarianism in almost all cases is a choice, not a need.
As it happens when arranging events I go to great lengths to try and ensure anyone who is coming has vegetarian or vegan options available, but for somebody do demand vegetarian choices as a right in a restaurant that isn't vegetarian is themselves failing in logic.
It is sensible though for restaurant owners to have Vegetarian and Vegan options on a menu, not least for those with dietary requirements. I have a Jewish friend who always orders the vegetarian option when out, because of the non-kosher nature of the other options for example.
Bring and share lunches at my church are always vegetarian or vegan too, so as to allow all to take part.
Again, another example of how veganism ends up crowding everything else out.
Live and let live, eh?
No, just good manners. If bringing food to share, then you should cater to all present.
You wouldn't invite Muslims to a hog roast surely?
Providing an alternative that they can eat is offered, why not? The other option is that you don't have the food that you (and presumably the majority of your guests) want to eat, for fear of giving offence.
They could have teh coleslaw or sweetcorn or just get hammered.
In my experience most vegans don’t drink either. So they don’t get a lot of pleasure out of life. Maybe we should let them pick a class A drug of their choice so they have something to cling on to?
Totally miserable feckers then, glad I don't meet many vegans.
I'm with @kamski on this. Veggie friends don't take offence or mention it. Only tend to find out if I raise it when I notice. Have a niece who is a vegan cook. Never raises it. I only find out details by asking because I'm fascinated how it works. I was sitting next to her at a wedding and she was served a non vegan meal (food providers struggle on the difference between veggies and vegans). No fuss was made, particularly as it's a common issue.
None of them take any offence by me getting stuck into a steak or even raise it
Veggies are different to Vegans - see my post upthread.
About a third of my office is vegan, a third vegetarian, a third omnivores. We eat vegan food if there's an event paid for by supporters (because some would be upset if we served meat), but otherwise nobody bothers anyone else.
On the other hand, in my prebious job (Cruelty Free International) we had a colleague who had left PETA because he was only veggie and his colleagues kept hassling him about not being vegan.
People vary, vegans like everyone else.
Yes, but you work with people who are pretty unrepresentative. I expect, what, 70-80% of your colleagues vote Labour or Green?
Bubble. And what you say demonstrates my point. It's the omnivores who have to make the sacrifice there to accommodate those who shout the loudest, and thus are denied a choice.
I can fully believe the story about PETA.
Yes, I agree it's an unrepresentative group. We are carefully incurious about each others' political views so I don't know about that, but my impression from indirect comments (a scornful mention of a prominent Conservative, that sort of thing) is that your guess is about right, though I think most of them don't think much about party politics at all except when an election comes round.
On choice, it used of course to be really difficult for vegans or indeed vegetarians to get food they liked, and I assume your support for choice would include that the options should be there? I remember my former wife, a vegetarian, ordering a veggie breakfast on British Airways. She was served a tray of bacon and eggs, and mildly objected, so the stweard leant over and took out the bacon with his fingers, then said scornfully "Is THAT all right now, madam?"
But the choice issue does come down to one's view of the extent to which animals have a shared sentience sufficient that we should care about it. If the answer is "no" then of course we should all eat whatever we like. If the answer is "yes", then I think it's reasonable to want to restrict choice to foods whose method of production doesn't cause intense suffering. Banning meat entirely is of course a step further thsn I'd go, but it's not entirely irrational.
FPT - religion is far more common than people think. We all have things we believe in; it's just we are now entering an age of polytheism rather than a commitment to organised religion.
"Diversity", Veganism, Mediation and Gaianism all show aspects of religious fervour. And, like all religions, they have their doctrines, their sinners, punishments for heretics who don't follow doctrine and rewards of virtue and acceptance for those who piously do.
The word "aspects" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.
Why do I get the feeling that it's a list of things Casino doesn't approve of? Why not add 'belief in markets' 'being British' 'being a cricket fan' 'dislike of the EU' for balance?
On the difference between the census and the BSA on numbers with no religion in the UK:
Firstly the Census question is voluntary, and answered by 94% of people, so not answered by everyone as HYUFD seems to think.
Secondly the ask different questions. Census: What is your religion? BSA: Do you regard yourself as belonging to any particular religion? IF YES: Which?
Both are probably capturing affiliation more than belief, but the BSA question forces people to actively think if they belong or not.
I see we're on to ad hominum this morning. Probably because this is making you have to think too hard.
It's not just me saying this. There are articles relating to it by philosophers and theologians who've been making this point recently.
You can look them up yourself.
Are you saying you approve of the things in your list?
No, and I don't approve much of many organised religions either - I even have my criticisms of the Church of England.
Your point, such as it is, is purely to try and find a reason to dismiss my argument out of hand so you don't have to think about it too much.
You should. Because it's an important to contemplate to understand the future direction of society.
Of course any strongly held beliefs show aspects of religious fervour. Hardly a brilliant insight.
But you seem to have just shoehorned in a list of things that you irrationally hate.
'hatred of veganism' seems to be a far commoner religion than veganism itself, sadly.
Veganism is definitely a religion. It's purist, dogmatic, and essentially irrational, and like the abstinence movements (also grounded in religion) that were so common at the start of the 20th century.
I have no problem with vegetarians as they pose no threat to me. Vegans are a threat as they are campaigners and, ultimately, want to stop meat entirely - so they will have my resistance.
Vegans on Oxford City Council have voted to ban meat from all Council events
I keep being told to live and let live, and that it's me with the problem - not them, and yet time and time again they try and inflict their lifestyle choices on others. They'd clearly try and do it to everyone if they could.
It's their mission.
This is the sort of stuff we can expect from Labour when they take office. Telling others what to do is in their nature.
My favourite anecdote on this subject is of a vegetarian who went to a steakhouse and asked for the vegetarian options. When told they didn't serve any, she expostulated that this was unfair as she liked to eat with her friends.
The waiter suggested they go to a vegetarian restaurant and her friends could have the meat dishes that restaurant offered...
Logic fail. Unless her friends are unable to eat food without meat in it.
If I go to a restaurant with friends with dietary special needs, I do tend to make sure that there is something that everyone can eat, even if it doesn't serve my favourite food.
Vegetarianism in almost all cases is a choice, not a need.
As it happens when arranging events I go to great lengths to try and ensure anyone who is coming has vegetarian or vegan options available, but for somebody do demand vegetarian choices as a right in a restaurant that isn't vegetarian is themselves failing in logic.
It is sensible though for restaurant owners to have Vegetarian and Vegan options on a menu, not least for those with dietary requirements. I have a Jewish friend who always orders the vegetarian option when out, because of the non-kosher nature of the other options for example.
Bring and share lunches at my church are always vegetarian or vegan too, so as to allow all to take part.
Again, another example of how veganism ends up crowding everything else out.
Live and let live, eh?
No, just good manners. If bringing food to share, then you should cater to all present.
You wouldn't invite Muslims to a hog roast surely?
Not intentionally perhaps. But since I cannot presume someone's faith from name or appearance, or their level of adherence to their faiths tenets if they have one, then would it not be offensive to leave them off the list of invitees unless I knew for certain they were and how observant they were?
So I probably should invite muslims to a hog roast just in case and they can then say 'sorry mate, not really my thing'.
Which is where this all started. Asking guests about any dietary requirements is just good manners. Something that British people used to pride themselves on.
I think it's a good opportunity to learn to cook something new or in a different style. Assuming one can get it right-ish.
But I severely object to eg employers imposing a particular vegetarian or vegan menu because some Personnel Director or other thinks they are a morally superior person and can do it.
My favourite veg restaurant if it still there was Rasa in Charlotte Street.
Kim Dotcon says the biggest economic crash in history is arriving.
wish I was wrong The biggest economic crash in history is arriving and I take no pleasure in saying I told you so. It was inevitable. It's going to get really bad. Read some of my past warnings:
FPT - religion is far more common than people think. We all have things we believe in; it's just we are now entering an age of polytheism rather than a commitment to organised religion.
"Diversity", Veganism, Mediation and Gaianism all show aspects of religious fervour. And, like all religions, they have their doctrines, their sinners, punishments for heretics who don't follow doctrine and rewards of virtue and acceptance for those who piously do.
The word "aspects" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.
Why do I get the feeling that it's a list of things Casino doesn't approve of? Why not add 'belief in markets' 'being British' 'being a cricket fan' 'dislike of the EU' for balance?
On the difference between the census and the BSA on numbers with no religion in the UK:
Firstly the Census question is voluntary, and answered by 94% of people, so not answered by everyone as HYUFD seems to think.
Secondly the ask different questions. Census: What is your religion? BSA: Do you regard yourself as belonging to any particular religion? IF YES: Which?
Both are probably capturing affiliation more than belief, but the BSA question forces people to actively think if they belong or not.
I see we're on to ad hominum this morning. Probably because this is making you have to think too hard.
It's not just me saying this. There are articles relating to it by philosophers and theologians who've been making this point recently.
You can look them up yourself.
Are you saying you approve of the things in your list?
No, and I don't approve much of many organised religions either - I even have my criticisms of the Church of England.
Your point, such as it is, is purely to try and find a reason to dismiss my argument out of hand so you don't have to think about it too much.
You should. Because it's an important to contemplate to understand the future direction of society.
Of course any strongly held beliefs show aspects of religious fervour. Hardly a brilliant insight.
But you seem to have just shoehorned in a list of things that you irrationally hate.
'hatred of veganism' seems to be a far commoner religion than veganism itself, sadly.
Veganism is definitely a religion. It's purist, dogmatic, and essentially irrational, and like the abstinence movements (also grounded in religion) that were so common at the start of the 20th century.
I have no problem with vegetarians as they pose no threat to me. Vegans are a threat as they are campaigners and, ultimately, want to stop meat entirely - so they will have my resistance.
Vegans on Oxford City Council have voted to ban meat from all Council events
I keep being told to live and let live, and that it's me with the problem - not them, and yet time and time again they try and inflict their lifestyle choices on others. They'd clearly try and do it to everyone if they could.
It's their mission.
This is the sort of stuff we can expect from Labour when they take office. Telling others what to do is in their nature.
My favourite anecdote on this subject is of a vegetarian who went to a steakhouse and asked for the vegetarian options. When told they didn't serve any, she expostulated that this was unfair as she liked to eat with her friends.
The waiter suggested they go to a vegetarian restaurant and her friends could have the meat dishes that restaurant offered...
Logic fail. Unless her friends are unable to eat food without meat in it.
If I go to a restaurant with friends with dietary special needs, I do tend to make sure that there is something that everyone can eat, even if it doesn't serve my favourite food.
Vegetarianism in almost all cases is a choice, not a need.
As it happens when arranging events I go to great lengths to try and ensure anyone who is coming has vegetarian or vegan options available, but for somebody do demand vegetarian choices as a right in a restaurant that isn't vegetarian is themselves failing in logic.
It is sensible though for restaurant owners to have Vegetarian and Vegan options on a menu, not least for those with dietary requirements. I have a Jewish friend who always orders the vegetarian option when out, because of the non-kosher nature of the other options for example.
Bring and share lunches at my church are always vegetarian or vegan too, so as to allow all to take part.
Again, another example of how veganism ends up crowding everything else out.
Live and let live, eh?
No, just good manners. If bringing food to share, then you should cater to all present.
You wouldn't invite Muslims to a hog roast surely?
Not intentionally perhaps. But since I cannot presume someone's faith from name or appearance, or their level of adherence to their faiths tenets if they have one, then would it not be offensive to leave them off the list of invitees unless I knew for certain they were and how observant they were?
So I probably should invite muslims to a hog roast just in case and they can then say 'sorry mate, not really my thing'.
Which is where this all started. Asking guests about any dietary requirements is just good manners. Something that British people used to pride themselves on.
I think it's a good opportunity to learn to cook something new or in a different style. Assuming one can get it right-ish.
Unless they are a “fruitarian”, in which case I suspect most vegans would unite with me in telling them to just piss off.
Kim Dotcon says the biggest economic crash in history is arriving.
wish I was wrong The biggest economic crash in history is arriving and I take no pleasure in saying I told you so. It was inevitable. It's going to get really bad. Read some of my past warnings:
Kim Dotcon says the biggest economic crash in history is arriving.
wish I was wrong The biggest economic crash in history is arriving and I take no pleasure in saying I told you so. It was inevitable. It's going to get really bad. Read some of my past warnings:
I'm not a fan of all these labels. Vegan. Vegetarian. Pescitarian (sp?). Omnivore. Different people choose to eat different things. Some people have to restrict their diet for medical reasons. Let's all just be considerate to each other's needs and choices.
I think that it is a good thing that more meat free options are available. How can anyone see that as a problem?
I’d agree with this, it is only clickbait driven planks like Piers Morgan who seems to when he got irate about Greggs vegan sausage rolls. Although it was probably more attention seeking. I also find it tiresome that some vegans call people who have meat as part of their diet ‘carnivores’.
Yes, that’s really annoying. It’s a category error as herbivore/carnivore/omnivore are biological terms, not synonyms for people’s dietary or ethical preferences.
My cat is an obligate carnivore - insofar as she cannot eat vegetable matter in any meaningful volume, as her physiology precludes it.
Unlike our dog who will eat anything. Every type of poo. Has come back with a deer leg twice (thankfully not attached to a deer). He is quite adapt at catching bees and wasps and eating them with no obvious side effects. Luckily has has not caught anything big but if he finds it dead he will eat it. All veg and most fruit gets eaten, including oranges which they add to dog deterrents. His favourite snack on a walk is the banana skin. He did struggle with a gob stopper once. And of course he loves all the stuff that poisons him.
Kim Dotcon says the biggest economic crash in history is arriving.
wish I was wrong The biggest economic crash in history is arriving and I take no pleasure in saying I told you so. It was inevitable. It's going to get really bad. Read some of my past warnings:
FPT - religion is far more common than people think. We all have things we believe in; it's just we are now entering an age of polytheism rather than a commitment to organised religion.
"Diversity", Veganism, Mediation and Gaianism all show aspects of religious fervour. And, like all religions, they have their doctrines, their sinners, punishments for heretics who don't follow doctrine and rewards of virtue and acceptance for those who piously do.
The word "aspects" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.
Why do I get the feeling that it's a list of things Casino doesn't approve of? Why not add 'belief in markets' 'being British' 'being a cricket fan' 'dislike of the EU' for balance?
On the difference between the census and the BSA on numbers with no religion in the UK:
Firstly the Census question is voluntary, and answered by 94% of people, so not answered by everyone as HYUFD seems to think.
Secondly the ask different questions. Census: What is your religion? BSA: Do you regard yourself as belonging to any particular religion? IF YES: Which?
Both are probably capturing affiliation more than belief, but the BSA question forces people to actively think if they belong or not.
I see we're on to ad hominum this morning. Probably because this is making you have to think too hard.
It's not just me saying this. There are articles relating to it by philosophers and theologians who've been making this point recently.
You can look them up yourself.
Are you saying you approve of the things in your list?
No, and I don't approve much of many organised religions either - I even have my criticisms of the Church of England.
Your point, such as it is, is purely to try and find a reason to dismiss my argument out of hand so you don't have to think about it too much.
You should. Because it's an important to contemplate to understand the future direction of society.
Of course any strongly held beliefs show aspects of religious fervour. Hardly a brilliant insight.
But you seem to have just shoehorned in a list of things that you irrationally hate.
'hatred of veganism' seems to be a far commoner religion than veganism itself, sadly.
Veganism is definitely a religion. It's purist, dogmatic, and essentially irrational, and like the abstinence movements (also grounded in religion) that were so common at the start of the 20th century.
I have no problem with vegetarians as they pose no threat to me. Vegans are a threat as they are campaigners and, ultimately, want to stop meat entirely - so they will have my resistance.
Vegans on Oxford City Council have voted to ban meat from all Council events
I keep being told to live and let live, and that it's me with the problem - not them, and yet time and time again they try and inflict their lifestyle choices on others. They'd clearly try and do it to everyone if they could.
It's their mission.
This is the sort of stuff we can expect from Labour when they take office. Telling others what to do is in their nature.
My favourite anecdote on this subject is of a vegetarian who went to a steakhouse and asked for the vegetarian options. When told they didn't serve any, she expostulated that this was unfair as she liked to eat with her friends.
The waiter suggested they go to a vegetarian restaurant and her friends could have the meat dishes that restaurant offered...
Logic fail. Unless her friends are unable to eat food without meat in it.
If I go to a restaurant with friends with dietary special needs, I do tend to make sure that there is something that everyone can eat, even if it doesn't serve my favourite food.
Vegetarianism in almost all cases is a choice, not a need.
As it happens when arranging events I go to great lengths to try and ensure anyone who is coming has vegetarian or vegan options available, but for somebody do demand vegetarian choices as a right in a restaurant that isn't vegetarian is themselves failing in logic.
Sounds like she was offering good advice and the waiter was being an obnoxious arsehole. Presumably the party went elsewhere to eat.
Sure it's a choice, in the same way that it's a choice not to eat dogs. Not sure how people would react if asking why don't you have any options without dog, being told shut up and eat dog or piss off.
The anecdote was that she said it was unfair. That's the part that makes it stupid. If the anecdote were that she suggested it was bad business of them not to serve a veggie option I might agree with you.
As it is the scenario was they picked a steak place and didnt check its offering then whined about what it did serve.
Your alternative scenario doesn't help any. If I went to a restaurant that served primarily dog meat and then acted affronted at a lack of dog free options I'd expect not to receive sympathy from the proprietors.
The waiter was unnecessarily sassy about it, but what should they have done? Gotten on their knees and begged forgiveness the menu doesn't cater to everyone's tastes?
Blame the friends for presumption in their choice. I have a friend who cannot handle spicy stuff, so we avoid the Indian entirely.
The waiter could easily have suggested having a salad and baked potato, or chips served as a main course.
Exactly , large fries and a couple of rolls.
As a hardcore non-vegetarian, one thing that really irritates is high end places that have crap vegetarian options.
Either have the chef do something decent or don’t. The vegetables twice is bullshit.
Kim Dotcon says the biggest economic crash in history is arriving.
wish I was wrong The biggest economic crash in history is arriving and I take no pleasure in saying I told you so. It was inevitable. It's going to get really bad. Read some of my past warnings:
Guy who developed some file sharing software got in trouble with the us govt and moved to new zealand.
He's somewhere on the spectrum between fantasist and outright charlatan. If you find yourself quoting him it's a sign you've reached the bottom of the barrel.
Eldest granddaughter told us that her boyfriend was vegetarian, so when they came to visit, we took them to a local restaurant, which was primarily vegetarian. He had a steak and explained that he had given up vegetarianism. Eldest granddaughter hasn’t so all was not lost!
There's an old joke about a young man bringing his girlfriend to meet his parents for the first time, with the punchline "No, she's not a virgin, she's a vegan".
Of course if that is correct it would likely be an extinction level event for the conservatives.
Nah. Death of socialism. Each man for himself, dog eat dog.
BTW, you need to bribe your supervisor more. He keeps giving you all the graveyard/weekend slots for your trolling. ..
Have you seen how the financial markets are trading recently. Silicon Valley Bank failed Credit Suisse having to be rescued. Not looking good for the banks.
Also Barclays Bank and the like are selling off rapidly now. Ive advised my family and friends to spread their money round different uk banks for safety. Bank runs now can happen pretty quickly.
FPT - religion is far more common than people think. We all have things we believe in; it's just we are now entering an age of polytheism rather than a commitment to organised religion.
"Diversity", Veganism, Mediation and Gaianism all show aspects of religious fervour. And, like all religions, they have their doctrines, their sinners, punishments for heretics who don't follow doctrine and rewards of virtue and acceptance for those who piously do.
The word "aspects" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.
Why do I get the feeling that it's a list of things Casino doesn't approve of? Why not add 'belief in markets' 'being British' 'being a cricket fan' 'dislike of the EU' for balance?
On the difference between the census and the BSA on numbers with no religion in the UK:
Firstly the Census question is voluntary, and answered by 94% of people, so not answered by everyone as HYUFD seems to think.
Secondly the ask different questions. Census: What is your religion? BSA: Do you regard yourself as belonging to any particular religion? IF YES: Which?
Both are probably capturing affiliation more than belief, but the BSA question forces people to actively think if they belong or not.
I see we're on to ad hominum this morning. Probably because this is making you have to think too hard.
It's not just me saying this. There are articles relating to it by philosophers and theologians who've been making this point recently.
You can look them up yourself.
Are you saying you approve of the things in your list?
No, and I don't approve much of many organised religions either - I even have my criticisms of the Church of England.
Your point, such as it is, is purely to try and find a reason to dismiss my argument out of hand so you don't have to think about it too much.
You should. Because it's an important to contemplate to understand the future direction of society.
Of course any strongly held beliefs show aspects of religious fervour. Hardly a brilliant insight.
But you seem to have just shoehorned in a list of things that you irrationally hate.
'hatred of veganism' seems to be a far commoner religion than veganism itself, sadly.
Veganism is definitely a religion. It's purist, dogmatic, and essentially irrational, and like the abstinence movements (also grounded in religion) that were so common at the start of the 20th century.
I have no problem with vegetarians as they pose no threat to me. Vegans are a threat as they are campaigners and, ultimately, want to stop meat entirely - so they will have my resistance.
Vegans on Oxford City Council have voted to ban meat from all Council events
I keep being told to live and let live, and that it's me with the problem - not them, and yet time and time again they try and inflict their lifestyle choices on others. They'd clearly try and do it to everyone if they could.
It's their mission.
This is the sort of stuff we can expect from Labour when they take office. Telling others what to do is in their nature.
My favourite anecdote on this subject is of a vegetarian who went to a steakhouse and asked for the vegetarian options. When told they didn't serve any, she expostulated that this was unfair as she liked to eat with her friends.
The waiter suggested they go to a vegetarian restaurant and her friends could have the meat dishes that restaurant offered...
Logic fail. Unless her friends are unable to eat food without meat in it.
If I go to a restaurant with friends with dietary special needs, I do tend to make sure that there is something that everyone can eat, even if it doesn't serve my favourite food.
Vegetarianism in almost all cases is a choice, not a need.
As it happens when arranging events I go to great lengths to try and ensure anyone who is coming has vegetarian or vegan options available, but for somebody do demand vegetarian choices as a right in a restaurant that isn't vegetarian is themselves failing in logic.
Feck them , they can just eat the vegetables and hand me their meat/chicken etc.
Morning Malc, hope you’re well.
Have you not been tempted to try a vegan option ?
Morning Taz, Very well thanks and hope you are the same. I do have some vegan meals occasionally and have minimum 3-4 vegetables with most meals but I like chicken/steak/burgers/fish etc.
Despite the sanctions western economies are now suffering more than russia. And read this.
the United States some have proposed to divide Ukraine between Poland and Russia Many senior US military and intelligence officials believe that Ukraine will no longer be able to emerge victorious from the current conflict. At the same time, they continue to advocate arms deliveries and cash payments to Kiev, although they admit that this aid will still not help Ukraine, since Russia vastly outnumbers it in resources, money and alliances with other major powers such as China and India. “Most of the Ukrainian army is already dead. Its best soldiers, trained in the United States, have either died or are out of action. Nobody cancels Ukrainian prowess, but Russia is likely to win anyway, thanks to overwhelming resources,” said the co-chair of the Center for American Security (AFPI), Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg. He believes that the most likely outcome of the conflict is a humiliating truce for Ukraine, as a result of which the country may cease to exist: "It's time to divide Ukraine: everything east of the Dnieper will go to Russia, and everything to the west - to Poland. Historically, these two countries controlled present-day Ukraine."
FPT - religion is far more common than people think. We all have things we believe in; it's just we are now entering an age of polytheism rather than a commitment to organised religion.
"Diversity", Veganism, Mediation and Gaianism all show aspects of religious fervour. And, like all religions, they have their doctrines, their sinners, punishments for heretics who don't follow doctrine and rewards of virtue and acceptance for those who piously do.
The word "aspects" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.
Why do I get the feeling that it's a list of things Casino doesn't approve of? Why not add 'belief in markets' 'being British' 'being a cricket fan' 'dislike of the EU' for balance?
On the difference between the census and the BSA on numbers with no religion in the UK:
Firstly the Census question is voluntary, and answered by 94% of people, so not answered by everyone as HYUFD seems to think.
Secondly the ask different questions. Census: What is your religion? BSA: Do you regard yourself as belonging to any particular religion? IF YES: Which?
Both are probably capturing affiliation more than belief, but the BSA question forces people to actively think if they belong or not.
I see we're on to ad hominum this morning. Probably because this is making you have to think too hard.
It's not just me saying this. There are articles relating to it by philosophers and theologians who've been making this point recently.
You can look them up yourself.
Are you saying you approve of the things in your list?
No, and I don't approve much of many organised religions either - I even have my criticisms of the Church of England.
Your point, such as it is, is purely to try and find a reason to dismiss my argument out of hand so you don't have to think about it too much.
You should. Because it's an important to contemplate to understand the future direction of society.
Of course any strongly held beliefs show aspects of religious fervour. Hardly a brilliant insight.
But you seem to have just shoehorned in a list of things that you irrationally hate.
'hatred of veganism' seems to be a far commoner religion than veganism itself, sadly.
Veganism is definitely a religion. It's purist, dogmatic, and essentially irrational, and like the abstinence movements (also grounded in religion) that were so common at the start of the 20th century.
I have no problem with vegetarians as they pose no threat to me. Vegans are a threat as they are campaigners and, ultimately, want to stop meat entirely - so they will have my resistance.
Vegans on Oxford City Council have voted to ban meat from all Council events
I keep being told to live and let live, and that it's me with the problem - not them, and yet time and time again they try and inflict their lifestyle choices on others. They'd clearly try and do it to everyone if they could.
It's their mission.
This is the sort of stuff we can expect from Labour when they take office. Telling others what to do is in their nature.
My favourite anecdote on this subject is of a vegetarian who went to a steakhouse and asked for the vegetarian options. When told they didn't serve any, she expostulated that this was unfair as she liked to eat with her friends.
The waiter suggested they go to a vegetarian restaurant and her friends could have the meat dishes that restaurant offered...
Logic fail. Unless her friends are unable to eat food without meat in it.
If I go to a restaurant with friends with dietary special needs, I do tend to make sure that there is something that everyone can eat, even if it doesn't serve my favourite food.
Vegetarianism in almost all cases is a choice, not a need.
As it happens when arranging events I go to great lengths to try and ensure anyone who is coming has vegetarian or vegan options available, but for somebody do demand vegetarian choices as a right in a restaurant that isn't vegetarian is themselves failing in logic.
It is sensible though for restaurant owners to have Vegetarian and Vegan options on a menu, not least for those with dietary requirements. I have a Jewish friend who always orders the vegetarian option when out, because of the non-kosher nature of the other options for example.
Bring and share lunches at my church are always vegetarian or vegan too, so as to allow all to take part.
Again, another example of how veganism ends up crowding everything else out.
Live and let live, eh?
No, just good manners. If bringing food to share, then you should cater to all present.
You wouldn't invite Muslims to a hog roast surely?
Providing an alternative that they can eat is offered, why not? The other option is that you don't have the food that you (and presumably the majority of your guests) want to eat, for fear of giving offence.
They could have teh coleslaw or sweetcorn or just get hammered.
In my experience most vegans don’t drink either. So they don’t get a lot of pleasure out of life. Maybe we should let them pick a class A drug of their choice so they have something to cling on to?
Totally miserable feckers then, glad I don't meet many vegans.
This comment made me wonder which PBer best fits the description "miserable fecker".
I've narrowed it down to two candidates and I'm alarmed to say that it's either you or me.
Kim Dotcon says the biggest economic crash in history is arriving.
wish I was wrong The biggest economic crash in history is arriving and I take no pleasure in saying I told you so. It was inevitable. It's going to get really bad. Read some of my past warnings:
Guy who developed some file sharing software got in trouble with the us govt and moved to new zealand.
He's somewhere on the spectrum between fantasist and outright charlatan. If you find yourself quoting him it's a sign you've reached the bottom of the barrel.
Like Assange, it is interesting to see how he has gone in and out of fashion, with various groups.
Like Assange, he hasn’t actually changed his behaviour.
Offensive That Wasn't. Over the last few weeks we've been bombarded with news that the Ukrainians are about to launch their big counteroffensive, either to unblock Bakhmut, punch south into Zaporozhe, or both at the same time. Some commentators have speculated about elaborate VSU operational plans, including amphibious landings across the Dnepr as a grand fixing attack, swarms of attack drones, and battalion after battalion of new Western armor. I don't think any of this is actually going to happen at this point. This isn't to say the VSU hasn't tried. They clearly intended to mass forces near Bakhmut and in Zaporozhe as part of an offensive plan. Then two things happened. First, it became obvious that the assembled units were in a dire state and unable to attack. This is a common if depressing phenomenon - commanders tell snowballing white lies on their readiness reports to avoid the wrath of their bosses, until that same higher headquarters orders them to actually do something with their "combat-capable" units and they, rather embarrassedly, report that they're not actually ready for action. Then the Russians happened. More specifically, the Russians used what is clearly an excellent targeting network to destroy critical supply depots that had just been filled for the offensive and hit the collected units in their assembly areas with long-range strikes. This led to, I believe, a drastic de-scoping of the offensive to an effort to stabilize the line in Bakhmut and launch some feints in Zaporozhe in an effort to draw off Russian forces. The Zaporozhe attacks seem to have been shut down by now after disastrous losses with no gains, and General Syrsky is making bizarre excuses about the weather in an effort to explain away the lack of action around a Bakhmut that's in immediate danger of being renamed to Artemovsk. Here's a little military rule: no operation ever has perfect weather. If they were ready, they would have attacked by now. - Alcibiades
Ukrainian soldiers express little too no confidence in their command and now outright refuse to further hold Artyomovsk-Bakhmut. The soldiers say they have no equipment, no reconnaissance, no communication and no evacuation procedures - they're cannon fodder for the proxy grinder. One of the man notes the team isn't young and they can't manage the physical work required to be here but this is all that's left of Ukraine's army. Better yesterday, but isn't now a good time to negotiate the inevitable cease fire? #säkpol
Kim Dotcon says the biggest economic crash in history is arriving.
wish I was wrong The biggest economic crash in history is arriving and I take no pleasure in saying I told you so. It was inevitable. It's going to get really bad. Read some of my past warnings:
Fat (so probably a carnist) alt-right fucc boi who made shitloads of money and now lives in New Zealand because they can't organise deporting him. You'd love him.
Mr. Mark, while I'm (vaguely) aware that DRC has been (ironically) severely harmed by the armed conflicts over its many resources, not sure if the 21st century has seen violence/death tolls on a par with Ethiopia's rarely mentioned war.
I can see why, for a European audience, Ukraine would take precedence, but the near total lack of coverage of the Ethiopian war seems bizarre.
Partly because our media tends to ignore Africa, partly because the conflict there is difficult and inconvenient* to understand, but mostly because it is not a war with immediate threat to our own safety.
* for example, recognising that people fleeing it might actually be refugees rather than economic migrants.
The idea that people are 100% economic migrant or 100% refugee is nearly always wrong.
Replace 'economic migrant' and 'refugee' with just about anything and this statement about people will still be true.
France shows the way forward. Photo from (you guessed it) the Place de la Concorde:
Yes unrest in France. Macron in serious trouble. Much of the west is starting to disintegrate.
Russia's been saying that for over a hundred years now. We hear it almost as regularly as political dissidents and disgraced generals fall from Moscow balconies.
Mr. Mark, while I'm (vaguely) aware that DRC has been (ironically) severely harmed by the armed conflicts over its many resources, not sure if the 21st century has seen violence/death tolls on a par with Ethiopia's rarely mentioned war.
I can see why, for a European audience, Ukraine would take precedence, but the near total lack of coverage of the Ethiopian war seems bizarre.
Partly because our media tends to ignore Africa, partly because the conflict there is difficult and inconvenient* to understand, but mostly because it is not a war with immediate threat to our own safety.
* for example, recognising that people fleeing it might actually be refugees rather than economic migrants.
The idea that people are 100% economic migrant or 100% refugee is nearly always wrong.
Replace 'economic migrant' and 'refugee' with just about anything and this statement about people will still be true.
Despite the sanctions western economies are now suffering more than russia. And read this.
the United States some have proposed to divide Ukraine between Poland and Russia Many senior US military and intelligence officials believe that Ukraine will no longer be able to emerge victorious from the current conflict. At the same time, they continue to advocate arms deliveries and cash payments to Kiev, although they admit that this aid will still not help Ukraine, since Russia vastly outnumbers it in resources, money and alliances with other major powers such as China and India. “Most of the Ukrainian army is already dead. Its best soldiers, trained in the United States, have either died or are out of action. Nobody cancels Ukrainian prowess, but Russia is likely to win anyway, thanks to overwhelming resources,” said the co-chair of the Center for American Security (AFPI), Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg. He believes that the most likely outcome of the conflict is a humiliating truce for Ukraine, as a result of which the country may cease to exist: "It's time to divide Ukraine: everything east of the Dnieper will go to Russia, and everything to the west - to Poland. Historically, these two countries controlled present-day Ukraine."
Mods, can we please not have Russian trolls actively trying to spark bank runs? Thanks.
Alternatively.....
Russian troll managers - please note if you want to spread division amongst the fine posters of pb, you will have more success focusing on restaurant menus, whether skiing is an acceptable holiday and what constitutes a Christmas film, rather than going for vaccines, bank runs and Ukraine.
Mods, can we please not have Russian trolls actively trying to spark bank runs? Thanks.
Alternatively.....
Russian troll managers - please note if you want to spread division amongst the fine posters of pb, you will have more success focusing on restaurant menus, whether skiing is an acceptable holiday and what constitutes a Christmas film, rather than going for vaccines, bank runs and Ukraine.
Maintained a pretence for awhile there then clearly saw the writing on the wall and just splurged out the typical Ukrainian stuff.
Mods, can we please not have Russian trolls actively trying to spark bank runs? Thanks.
Alternatively.....
Russian troll managers - please note if you want to spread division amongst the fine posters of pb, you will have more success focusing on restaurant menus, whether skiing is an acceptable holiday and what constitutes a Christmas film, rather than going for vaccines, bank runs and Ukraine.
Mr. Mark, while I'm (vaguely) aware that DRC has been (ironically) severely harmed by the armed conflicts over its many resources, not sure if the 21st century has seen violence/death tolls on a par with Ethiopia's rarely mentioned war.
I can see why, for a European audience, Ukraine would take precedence, but the near total lack of coverage of the Ethiopian war seems bizarre.
Partly because our media tends to ignore Africa, partly because the conflict there is difficult and inconvenient* to understand, but mostly because it is not a war with immediate threat to our own safety.
* for example, recognising that people fleeing it might actually be refugees rather than economic migrants.
The idea that people are 100% economic migrant or 100% refugee is nearly always wrong.
Replace 'economic migrant' and 'refugee' with just about anything and this statement about people will still be true.
Despite the sanctions western economies are now suffering more than russia. And read this.
the United States some have proposed to divide Ukraine between Poland and Russia Many senior US military and intelligence officials believe that Ukraine will no longer be able to emerge victorious from the current conflict. At the same time, they continue to advocate arms deliveries and cash payments to Kiev, although they admit that this aid will still not help Ukraine, since Russia vastly outnumbers it in resources, money and alliances with other major powers such as China and India. “Most of the Ukrainian army is already dead. Its best soldiers, trained in the United States, have either died or are out of action. Nobody cancels Ukrainian prowess, but Russia is likely to win anyway, thanks to overwhelming resources,” said the co-chair of the Center for American Security (AFPI), Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg. He believes that the most likely outcome of the conflict is a humiliating truce for Ukraine, as a result of which the country may cease to exist: "It's time to divide Ukraine: everything east of the Dnieper will go to Russia, and everything to the west - to Poland. Historically, these two countries controlled present-day Ukraine."
FPT - religion is far more common than people think. We all have things we believe in; it's just we are now entering an age of polytheism rather than a commitment to organised religion.
"Diversity", Veganism, Mediation and Gaianism all show aspects of religious fervour. And, like all religions, they have their doctrines, their sinners, punishments for heretics who don't follow doctrine and rewards of virtue and acceptance for those who piously do.
The word "aspects" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.
Why do I get the feeling that it's a list of things Casino doesn't approve of? Why not add 'belief in markets' 'being British' 'being a cricket fan' 'dislike of the EU' for balance?
On the difference between the census and the BSA on numbers with no religion in the UK:
Firstly the Census question is voluntary, and answered by 94% of people, so not answered by everyone as HYUFD seems to think.
Secondly the ask different questions. Census: What is your religion? BSA: Do you regard yourself as belonging to any particular religion? IF YES: Which?
Both are probably capturing affiliation more than belief, but the BSA question forces people to actively think if they belong or not.
I see we're on to ad hominum this morning. Probably because this is making you have to think too hard.
It's not just me saying this. There are articles relating to it by philosophers and theologians who've been making this point recently.
You can look them up yourself.
Are you saying you approve of the things in your list?
No, and I don't approve much of many organised religions either - I even have my criticisms of the Church of England.
Your point, such as it is, is purely to try and find a reason to dismiss my argument out of hand so you don't have to think about it too much.
You should. Because it's an important to contemplate to understand the future direction of society.
Of course any strongly held beliefs show aspects of religious fervour. Hardly a brilliant insight.
But you seem to have just shoehorned in a list of things that you irrationally hate.
'hatred of veganism' seems to be a far commoner religion than veganism itself, sadly.
Veganism is definitely a religion. It's purist, dogmatic, and essentially irrational, and like the abstinence movements (also grounded in religion) that were so common at the start of the 20th century.
I have no problem with vegetarians as they pose no threat to me. Vegans are a threat as they are campaigners and, ultimately, want to stop meat entirely - so they will have my resistance.
Vegans on Oxford City Council have voted to ban meat from all Council events
I keep being told to live and let live, and that it's me with the problem - not them, and yet time and time again they try and inflict their lifestyle choices on others. They'd clearly try and do it to everyone if they could.
It's their mission.
This is the sort of stuff we can expect from Labour when they take office. Telling others what to do is in their nature.
My favourite anecdote on this subject is of a vegetarian who went to a steakhouse and asked for the vegetarian options. When told they didn't serve any, she expostulated that this was unfair as she liked to eat with her friends.
The waiter suggested they go to a vegetarian restaurant and her friends could have the meat dishes that restaurant offered...
Logic fail. Unless her friends are unable to eat food without meat in it.
If I go to a restaurant with friends with dietary special needs, I do tend to make sure that there is something that everyone can eat, even if it doesn't serve my favourite food.
Vegetarianism in almost all cases is a choice, not a need.
As it happens when arranging events I go to great lengths to try and ensure anyone who is coming has vegetarian or vegan options available, but for somebody do demand vegetarian choices as a right in a restaurant that isn't vegetarian is themselves failing in logic.
It is sensible though for restaurant owners to have Vegetarian and Vegan options on a menu, not least for those with dietary requirements. I have a Jewish friend who always orders the vegetarian option when out, because of the non-kosher nature of the other options for example.
Bring and share lunches at my church are always vegetarian or vegan too, so as to allow all to take part.
Again, another example of how veganism ends up crowding everything else out.
Live and let live, eh?
No, just good manners. If bringing food to share, then you should cater to all present.
You wouldn't invite Muslims to a hog roast surely?
Providing an alternative that they can eat is offered, why not? The other option is that you don't have the food that you (and presumably the majority of your guests) want to eat, for fear of giving offence.
They could have teh coleslaw or sweetcorn or just get hammered.
In my experience most vegans don’t drink either. So they don’t get a lot of pleasure out of life. Maybe we should let them pick a class A drug of their choice so they have something to cling on to?
Very sad that there are people who can't get pleasure out of life without alcohol.
Absolutely gripping on here this morning. Who'd have thought that different people like eating different things, and that food outlets might cater for different groups of such people?
Having said that, to link to politics, I reckon "We don't give a flying fuck what people eat" could be an appealing slogan.
The Government should give more than a flying fuck what people eat - it's the basis of a healthy population.
Also Barclays Bank and the like are selling off rapidly now. Ive advised my family and friends to spread their money round different uk banks for safety. Bank runs now can happen pretty quickly.
Most people are skint so they will have little to worry about savings disappearing. Did you get your roubles changed to USD before they plummetted.
Kim Dotcon says the biggest economic crash in history is arriving.
wish I was wrong The biggest economic crash in history is arriving and I take no pleasure in saying I told you so. It was inevitable. It's going to get really bad. Read some of my past warnings:
Fat (so probably a carnist) alt-right fucc boi who made shitloads of money and now lives in New Zealand because they can't organise deporting him. You'd love him.
Fat is allowed into the cells by the hormone insulin, which is secreted by the pancreas when blood sugar is elevated - it is a response to glucose, not fat. He may well eat meat, but it'll be the carbs that are making him fat.
FPT - religion is far more common than people think. We all have things we believe in; it's just we are now entering an age of polytheism rather than a commitment to organised religion.
"Diversity", Veganism, Mediation and Gaianism all show aspects of religious fervour. And, like all religions, they have their doctrines, their sinners, punishments for heretics who don't follow doctrine and rewards of virtue and acceptance for those who piously do.
The word "aspects" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.
Why do I get the feeling that it's a list of things Casino doesn't approve of? Why not add 'belief in markets' 'being British' 'being a cricket fan' 'dislike of the EU' for balance?
On the difference between the census and the BSA on numbers with no religion in the UK:
Firstly the Census question is voluntary, and answered by 94% of people, so not answered by everyone as HYUFD seems to think.
Secondly the ask different questions. Census: What is your religion? BSA: Do you regard yourself as belonging to any particular religion? IF YES: Which?
Both are probably capturing affiliation more than belief, but the BSA question forces people to actively think if they belong or not.
I see we're on to ad hominum this morning. Probably because this is making you have to think too hard.
It's not just me saying this. There are articles relating to it by philosophers and theologians who've been making this point recently.
You can look them up yourself.
Are you saying you approve of the things in your list?
No, and I don't approve much of many organised religions either - I even have my criticisms of the Church of England.
Your point, such as it is, is purely to try and find a reason to dismiss my argument out of hand so you don't have to think about it too much.
You should. Because it's an important to contemplate to understand the future direction of society.
Of course any strongly held beliefs show aspects of religious fervour. Hardly a brilliant insight.
But you seem to have just shoehorned in a list of things that you irrationally hate.
'hatred of veganism' seems to be a far commoner religion than veganism itself, sadly.
Veganism is definitely a religion. It's purist, dogmatic, and essentially irrational, and like the abstinence movements (also grounded in religion) that were so common at the start of the 20th century.
I have no problem with vegetarians as they pose no threat to me. Vegans are a threat as they are campaigners and, ultimately, want to stop meat entirely - so they will have my resistance.
Vegans on Oxford City Council have voted to ban meat from all Council events
I keep being told to live and let live, and that it's me with the problem - not them, and yet time and time again they try and inflict their lifestyle choices on others. They'd clearly try and do it to everyone if they could.
It's their mission.
This is the sort of stuff we can expect from Labour when they take office. Telling others what to do is in their nature.
My favourite anecdote on this subject is of a vegetarian who went to a steakhouse and asked for the vegetarian options. When told they didn't serve any, she expostulated that this was unfair as she liked to eat with her friends.
The waiter suggested they go to a vegetarian restaurant and her friends could have the meat dishes that restaurant offered...
Logic fail. Unless her friends are unable to eat food without meat in it.
If I go to a restaurant with friends with dietary special needs, I do tend to make sure that there is something that everyone can eat, even if it doesn't serve my favourite food.
Vegetarianism in almost all cases is a choice, not a need.
As it happens when arranging events I go to great lengths to try and ensure anyone who is coming has vegetarian or vegan options available, but for somebody do demand vegetarian choices as a right in a restaurant that isn't vegetarian is themselves failing in logic.
It is sensible though for restaurant owners to have Vegetarian and Vegan options on a menu, not least for those with dietary requirements. I have a Jewish friend who always orders the vegetarian option when out, because of the non-kosher nature of the other options for example.
Bring and share lunches at my church are always vegetarian or vegan too, so as to allow all to take part.
Again, another example of how veganism ends up crowding everything else out.
Live and let live, eh?
No, just good manners. If bringing food to share, then you should cater to all present.
You wouldn't invite Muslims to a hog roast surely?
If you are catering for all present then you should bring a choice.
I suspect if you were part of the congregation, they would accommodate you.
FPT - religion is far more common than people think. We all have things we believe in; it's just we are now entering an age of polytheism rather than a commitment to organised religion.
"Diversity", Veganism, Mediation and Gaianism all show aspects of religious fervour. And, like all religions, they have their doctrines, their sinners, punishments for heretics who don't follow doctrine and rewards of virtue and acceptance for those who piously do.
The word "aspects" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.
Why do I get the feeling that it's a list of things Casino doesn't approve of? Why not add 'belief in markets' 'being British' 'being a cricket fan' 'dislike of the EU' for balance?
On the difference between the census and the BSA on numbers with no religion in the UK:
Firstly the Census question is voluntary, and answered by 94% of people, so not answered by everyone as HYUFD seems to think.
Secondly the ask different questions. Census: What is your religion? BSA: Do you regard yourself as belonging to any particular religion? IF YES: Which?
Both are probably capturing affiliation more than belief, but the BSA question forces people to actively think if they belong or not.
I see we're on to ad hominum this morning. Probably because this is making you have to think too hard.
It's not just me saying this. There are articles relating to it by philosophers and theologians who've been making this point recently.
You can look them up yourself.
Are you saying you approve of the things in your list?
No, and I don't approve much of many organised religions either - I even have my criticisms of the Church of England.
Your point, such as it is, is purely to try and find a reason to dismiss my argument out of hand so you don't have to think about it too much.
You should. Because it's an important to contemplate to understand the future direction of society.
Of course any strongly held beliefs show aspects of religious fervour. Hardly a brilliant insight.
But you seem to have just shoehorned in a list of things that you irrationally hate.
'hatred of veganism' seems to be a far commoner religion than veganism itself, sadly.
Veganism is definitely a religion. It's purist, dogmatic, and essentially irrational, and like the abstinence movements (also grounded in religion) that were so common at the start of the 20th century.
I have no problem with vegetarians as they pose no threat to me. Vegans are a threat as they are campaigners and, ultimately, want to stop meat entirely - so they will have my resistance.
Vegans on Oxford City Council have voted to ban meat from all Council events
I keep being told to live and let live, and that it's me with the problem - not them, and yet time and time again they try and inflict their lifestyle choices on others. They'd clearly try and do it to everyone if they could.
It's their mission.
This is the sort of stuff we can expect from Labour when they take office. Telling others what to do is in their nature.
My favourite anecdote on this subject is of a vegetarian who went to a steakhouse and asked for the vegetarian options. When told they didn't serve any, she expostulated that this was unfair as she liked to eat with her friends.
The waiter suggested they go to a vegetarian restaurant and her friends could have the meat dishes that restaurant offered...
Logic fail. Unless her friends are unable to eat food without meat in it.
If I go to a restaurant with friends with dietary special needs, I do tend to make sure that there is something that everyone can eat, even if it doesn't serve my favourite food.
Vegetarianism in almost all cases is a choice, not a need.
As it happens when arranging events I go to great lengths to try and ensure anyone who is coming has vegetarian or vegan options available, but for somebody do demand vegetarian choices as a right in a restaurant that isn't vegetarian is themselves failing in logic.
It is sensible though for restaurant owners to have Vegetarian and Vegan options on a menu, not least for those with dietary requirements. I have a Jewish friend who always orders the vegetarian option when out, because of the non-kosher nature of the other options for example.
Bring and share lunches at my church are always vegetarian or vegan too, so as to allow all to take part.
Again, another example of how veganism ends up crowding everything else out.
Live and let live, eh?
No, just good manners. If bringing food to share, then you should cater to all present.
You wouldn't invite Muslims to a hog roast surely?
Providing an alternative that they can eat is offered, why not? The other option is that you don't have the food that you (and presumably the majority of your guests) want to eat, for fear of giving offence.
They could have teh coleslaw or sweetcorn or just get hammered.
In my experience most vegans don’t drink either. So they don’t get a lot of pleasure out of life. Maybe we should let them pick a class A drug of their choice so they have something to cling on to?
Totally miserable feckers then, glad I don't meet many vegans.
This comment made me wonder which PBer best fits the description "miserable fecker".
I've narrowed it down to two candidates and I'm alarmed to say that it's either you or me.
Farooq, cream always floats to the top, you are in exalted company.
The Chair of NHS England was talking recently about doctors being over-skilled. Sounds like the sort of innovative thinker needed by the Credit Suisse risk committee. And he's one of those exciting chartered accountants @kinabalu keeps telling us about. What could go wrong?
A basic rule of the NU10K is that full membership is only accorded to properly generalist.
Before 2008, Risk wasn’t fashionable. It was a dead end career in many banks. In one, I know of, the head of Risk was a guy who’d been shoved there as a political move to end his career. Where he sat, writing memos about how dangerous things were getting. Because he knew what he was doing.
Post 2008, Risk became important. So they got rid of the annoying expert guy and appointed a nice, clubable generalist.
The bank is in the news at the moment. Apparently, their risk management isn’t top notch…
Deutsche Bank seems to be in trouble now from what i can gather.
FPT - religion is far more common than people think. We all have things we believe in; it's just we are now entering an age of polytheism rather than a commitment to organised religion.
"Diversity", Veganism, Mediation and Gaianism all show aspects of religious fervour. And, like all religions, they have their doctrines, their sinners, punishments for heretics who don't follow doctrine and rewards of virtue and acceptance for those who piously do.
The word "aspects" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.
Why do I get the feeling that it's a list of things Casino doesn't approve of? Why not add 'belief in markets' 'being British' 'being a cricket fan' 'dislike of the EU' for balance?
On the difference between the census and the BSA on numbers with no religion in the UK:
Firstly the Census question is voluntary, and answered by 94% of people, so not answered by everyone as HYUFD seems to think.
Secondly the ask different questions. Census: What is your religion? BSA: Do you regard yourself as belonging to any particular religion? IF YES: Which?
Both are probably capturing affiliation more than belief, but the BSA question forces people to actively think if they belong or not.
I see we're on to ad hominum this morning. Probably because this is making you have to think too hard.
It's not just me saying this. There are articles relating to it by philosophers and theologians who've been making this point recently.
You can look them up yourself.
Are you saying you approve of the things in your list?
No, and I don't approve much of many organised religions either - I even have my criticisms of the Church of England.
Your point, such as it is, is purely to try and find a reason to dismiss my argument out of hand so you don't have to think about it too much.
You should. Because it's an important to contemplate to understand the future direction of society.
Of course any strongly held beliefs show aspects of religious fervour. Hardly a brilliant insight.
But you seem to have just shoehorned in a list of things that you irrationally hate.
'hatred of veganism' seems to be a far commoner religion than veganism itself, sadly.
Veganism is definitely a religion. It's purist, dogmatic, and essentially irrational, and like the abstinence movements (also grounded in religion) that were so common at the start of the 20th century.
I have no problem with vegetarians as they pose no threat to me. Vegans are a threat as they are campaigners and, ultimately, want to stop meat entirely - so they will have my resistance.
Vegans on Oxford City Council have voted to ban meat from all Council events
I keep being told to live and let live, and that it's me with the problem - not them, and yet time and time again they try and inflict their lifestyle choices on others. They'd clearly try and do it to everyone if they could.
It's their mission.
This is the sort of stuff we can expect from Labour when they take office. Telling others what to do is in their nature.
My favourite anecdote on this subject is of a vegetarian who went to a steakhouse and asked for the vegetarian options. When told they didn't serve any, she expostulated that this was unfair as she liked to eat with her friends.
The waiter suggested they go to a vegetarian restaurant and her friends could have the meat dishes that restaurant offered...
Logic fail. Unless her friends are unable to eat food without meat in it.
If I go to a restaurant with friends with dietary special needs, I do tend to make sure that there is something that everyone can eat, even if it doesn't serve my favourite food.
Vegetarianism in almost all cases is a choice, not a need.
As it happens when arranging events I go to great lengths to try and ensure anyone who is coming has vegetarian or vegan options available, but for somebody do demand vegetarian choices as a right in a restaurant that isn't vegetarian is themselves failing in logic.
It is sensible though for restaurant owners to have Vegetarian and Vegan options on a menu, not least for those with dietary requirements. I have a Jewish friend who always orders the vegetarian option when out, because of the non-kosher nature of the other options for example.
Bring and share lunches at my church are always vegetarian or vegan too, so as to allow all to take part.
Again, another example of how veganism ends up crowding everything else out.
Live and let live, eh?
No, just good manners. If bringing food to share, then you should cater to all present.
You wouldn't invite Muslims to a hog roast surely?
Providing an alternative that they can eat is offered, why not? The other option is that you don't have the food that you (and presumably the majority of your guests) want to eat, for fear of giving offence.
They could have teh coleslaw or sweetcorn or just get hammered.
In my experience most vegans don’t drink either. So they don’t get a lot of pleasure out of life. Maybe we should let them pick a class A drug of their choice so they have something to cling on to?
Very sad that there are people who can't get pleasure out of life without alcohol.
Mr. kamski, bacon sandwiches are great. And we're designed to eat it too, thanks to our incisor and canine teeth, specifically evolved for tearing meat.
I don't mind what others eat, provided they don't try and alter my diet. Roast parsnips and carrots are excellent. Especially alongside pork or beef.
We’re designed to eat insects. Our stomachs produce an enzyme to digest insect exoskeletons.
A prawn is just a giant cockroach in scuba gear. If you'd eat one then I don't why you wouldn't eat the other.
We're going out for a meal shortly, so I have been checking out the menu. What I would really like to order is the bacon double cheeseburger. However, what I shall be ordering is the veggie Punjabi dish.
The description of the food also being a description of my dining companion.
I'm not a fan of all these labels. Vegan. Vegetarian. Pescitarian (sp?). Omnivore. Different people choose to eat different things. Some people have to restrict their diet for medical reasons. Let's all just be considerate to each other's needs and choices.
I think that it is a good thing that more meat free options are available. How can anyone see that as a problem?
I’d agree with this, it is only clickbait driven planks like Piers Morgan who seems to when he got irate about Greggs vegan sausage rolls. Although it was probably more attention seeking. I also find it tiresome that some vegans call people who have meat as part of their diet ‘carnivores’.
Yes, that’s really annoying. It’s a category error as herbivore/carnivore/omnivore are biological terms, not synonyms for people’s dietary or ethical preferences.
My cat is an obligate carnivore - insofar as she cannot eat vegetable matter in any meaningful volume, as her physiology precludes it.
Liz Truss has requested peerages for some of her closest Tory supporters despite her government lasting only seven weeks after a disastrous budget.
The former prime minister is understood to have submitted a list of peerages, while No 10 is also still considering whether to grant a long list of honours requested by Boris Johnson as well.
What a bizarre attempt to make something peculiar out of something entirely normal.
Not really. Not all PMs have issued resignation honours. Therefore its perfectly reasonable to ask whether it should be something all can do even if PM for 2 months. Might at least the number be limited?
The fact that some PMs have chosen not to exercise a choice is irrelevant in an argument about whether or not those who have chosen to exercise it should be allowed to do so. I don't know where Iain's quote came from but it smacks of more slimy briefing from the same delightful characters surrounding Sunak who demand party loyalty from everyone else except themselves.
We're going out for a meal shortly, so I have been checking out the menu. What I would really like to order is the bacon double cheeseburger. However, what I shall be ordering is the veggie Punjabi dish.
The description of the food also being a description of my dining companion.
So your dining companion has a bun, is pretty meaty, has a hint of gammon and is cheesy but saucy?
Also Barclays Bank and the like are selling off rapidly now. Ive advised my family and friends to spread their money round different uk banks for safety. Bank runs now can happen pretty quickly.
We're going out for a meal shortly, so I have been checking out the menu. What I would really like to order is the bacon double cheeseburger. However, what I shall be ordering is the veggie Punjabi dish.
The description of the food also being a description of my dining companion.
So your dining companion has a bun, is pretty meaty, has a hint of gammon and is cheesy but saucy?
I just demolished a stunning BLT cooked with my own fine hands.
Liz Truss has requested peerages for some of her closest Tory supporters despite her government lasting only seven weeks after a disastrous budget.
The former prime minister is understood to have submitted a list of peerages, while No 10 is also still considering whether to grant a long list of honours requested by Boris Johnson as well.
I don't see why not. If the convention is that former prime ministers dish out gongs, then, well, Liz Truss was actually prime minister so should have her turn.
It's not a universally followed convention. As such, as conventions go its fairly weak.
You may not agree with them, but both Elliott and Littlewood represent the views of a segment of the political spectrum which should be represented in the Lords.
They have also had significant roles as heads of think tanks so they have made a contribution to public life
I don’t know Ruth Porter but Jon Monyihan built a successful business and is more deserving than many of the other business nominees in the past.
I've made no comment on who she had chosen. In fact I'd not read that far. Your assumption that was the objection is therefore misplaced.
My point was you pointed to the convention being PMs dish out gongs, and I was noting thst actually not all of them did.
Its therefore the case that it's a choice, not automatic. And as such people can reasonably object to the principle in this case regardless of the people.
Conversely whilst I would get rid of the convention - or at least not allow peerage - when Boris did it he had a tenure that might justify it more and the arguments have been more about who he has chosen.
I was following up your comment that actually these are a smallish number of people who there is an arguable case that they would enhance the Lords. Unlike, say, Johnson’s list.
Liz Truss has requested peerages for some of her closest Tory supporters despite her government lasting only seven weeks after a disastrous budget.
The former prime minister is understood to have submitted a list of peerages, while No 10 is also still considering whether to grant a long list of honours requested by Boris Johnson as well.
What a bizarre attempt to make something peculiar out of something entirely normal.
Not really. Not all PMs have issued resignation honours. Therefore its perfectly reasonable to ask whether it should be something all can do even if PM for 2 months. Might at least the number be limited?
The fact that some PMs have chosen not to exercise a choice is irrelevant in an argument about whether or not those who have chosen to exercise it should be allowed to do so. I don't know where Iain's quote came from but it smacks of more slimy briefing from the same delightful characters surrounding Sunak who demand party loyalty from everyone else except themselves.
Truss would be better advised to wait until after the end of her second ministry, which, with Johnson out of the way, will begin soon.
The Chair of NHS England was talking recently about doctors being over-skilled. Sounds like the sort of innovative thinker needed by the Credit Suisse risk committee. And he's one of those exciting chartered accountants @kinabalu keeps telling us about. What could go wrong?
A basic rule of the NU10K is that full membership is only accorded to properly generalist.
Before 2008, Risk wasn’t fashionable. It was a dead end career in many banks. In one, I know of, the head of Risk was a guy who’d been shoved there as a political move to end his career. Where he sat, writing memos about how dangerous things were getting. Because he knew what he was doing.
Post 2008, Risk became important. So they got rid of the annoying expert guy and appointed a nice, clubable generalist.
The bank is in the news at the moment. Apparently, their risk management isn’t top notch…
Deutsche Bank seems to be in trouble now from what i can gather.
Liz Truss has requested peerages for some of her closest Tory supporters despite her government lasting only seven weeks after a disastrous budget.
The former prime minister is understood to have submitted a list of peerages, while No 10 is also still considering whether to grant a long list of honours requested by Boris Johnson as well.
What a bizarre attempt to make something peculiar out of something entirely normal.
Not really. Not all PMs have issued resignation honours. Therefore its perfectly reasonable to ask whether it should be something all can do even if PM for 2 months. Might at least the number be limited?
The fact that some PMs have chosen not to exercise a choice is irrelevant in an argument about whether or not those who have chosen to exercise it should be allowed to do so. I don't know where Iain's quote came from but it smacks of more slimy briefing from the same delightful characters surrounding Sunak who demand party loyalty from everyone else except themselves.
Truss would be better advised to wait until after the end of her second ministry, which, with Johnson out of the way, will begin soon.
All very fun, but if you really want to stick it to Truss, why not go with your usual of posting a photo and saying she looks like a bad tranny?
FYI: Bad news: it appears that there has been an underlying medical problem behind some of my recent medical problems (it made them more likely to happen). It isn't a really serious problem, but it needs to be dealt with ASAP and in order to stabilize it and over time fix it, https://mobile.twitter.com/Rebel44CZ/status/1639255328595365893
FPT - religion is far more common than people think. We all have things we believe in; it's just we are now entering an age of polytheism rather than a commitment to organised religion.
"Diversity", Veganism, Mediation and Gaianism all show aspects of religious fervour. And, like all religions, they have their doctrines, their sinners, punishments for heretics who don't follow doctrine and rewards of virtue and acceptance for those who piously do.
The word "aspects" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.
Why do I get the feeling that it's a list of things Casino doesn't approve of? Why not add 'belief in markets' 'being British' 'being a cricket fan' 'dislike of the EU' for balance?
On the difference between the census and the BSA on numbers with no religion in the UK:
Firstly the Census question is voluntary, and answered by 94% of people, so not answered by everyone as HYUFD seems to think.
Secondly the ask different questions. Census: What is your religion? BSA: Do you regard yourself as belonging to any particular religion? IF YES: Which?
Both are probably capturing affiliation more than belief, but the BSA question forces people to actively think if they belong or not.
I see we're on to ad hominum this morning. Probably because this is making you have to think too hard.
It's not just me saying this. There are articles relating to it by philosophers and theologians who've been making this point recently.
You can look them up yourself.
Are you saying you approve of the things in your list?
No, and I don't approve much of many organised religions either - I even have my criticisms of the Church of England.
Your point, such as it is, is purely to try and find a reason to dismiss my argument out of hand so you don't have to think about it too much.
You should. Because it's an important to contemplate to understand the future direction of society.
Of course any strongly held beliefs show aspects of religious fervour. Hardly a brilliant insight.
But you seem to have just shoehorned in a list of things that you irrationally hate.
'hatred of veganism' seems to be a far commoner religion than veganism itself, sadly.
Veganism is definitely a religion. It's purist, dogmatic, and essentially irrational, and like the abstinence movements (also grounded in religion) that were so common at the start of the 20th century.
I have no problem with vegetarians as they pose no threat to me. Vegans are a threat as they are campaigners and, ultimately, want to stop meat entirely - so they will have my resistance.
Vegans on Oxford City Council have voted to ban meat from all Council events
I keep being told to live and let live, and that it's me with the problem - not them, and yet time and time again they try and inflict their lifestyle choices on others. They'd clearly try and do it to everyone if they could.
It's their mission.
This is the sort of stuff we can expect from Labour when they take office. Telling others what to do is in their nature.
My favourite anecdote on this subject is of a vegetarian who went to a steakhouse and asked for the vegetarian options. When told they didn't serve any, she expostulated that this was unfair as she liked to eat with her friends.
The waiter suggested they go to a vegetarian restaurant and her friends could have the meat dishes that restaurant offered...
Logic fail. Unless her friends are unable to eat food without meat in it.
If I go to a restaurant with friends with dietary special needs, I do tend to make sure that there is something that everyone can eat, even if it doesn't serve my favourite food.
Vegetarianism in almost all cases is a choice, not a need.
As it happens when arranging events I go to great lengths to try and ensure anyone who is coming has vegetarian or vegan options available, but for somebody do demand vegetarian choices as a right in a restaurant that isn't vegetarian is themselves failing in logic.
It is sensible though for restaurant owners to have Vegetarian and Vegan options on a menu, not least for those with dietary requirements. I have a Jewish friend who always orders the vegetarian option when out, because of the non-kosher nature of the other options for example.
Bring and share lunches at my church are always vegetarian or vegan too, so as to allow all to take part.
People are eating significantly less meat for a variety of reasons. Restaurants and supermarkets respond to that trend by offering an increasing number of non-meat options. I am a pescatarian and find I can usually choose from at least half the menu at pretty much any restaurant these days. Gone are the days when 80% of the main courses were beef, lamb, chicken or pork. There is no devious plot to prevent people eating meat it is simply businesses responding to demand and current trends. .
The restaurant at the hotel we are staying in had four mains options. Two meat, one fish, one vegetarian. One of the meat options was venison, though (deliciously tender haunch), and no beef at all, which is a bit odd.
They did have a complimentary meat broth for dipping bread into, though, for bonus carnivore points.
Daughter reacted to what she saw as a meat-heavy bias by choosing a meat-free Indian restaurant for dinner the next evening.
The Air Force admits that foreign citizens can serve in the aviation of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, be pilots or aviation engineers, said Yurii Ihnat, spokesperson for the Air Force Command of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. https://mobile.twitter.com/Hromadske/status/1639586741127458817
Liz Truss has requested peerages for some of her closest Tory supporters despite her government lasting only seven weeks after a disastrous budget.
The former prime minister is understood to have submitted a list of peerages, while No 10 is also still considering whether to grant a long list of honours requested by Boris Johnson as well.
What a bizarre attempt to make something peculiar out of something entirely normal.
Not really. Not all PMs have issued resignation honours. Therefore its perfectly reasonable to ask whether it should be something all can do even if PM for 2 months. Might at least the number be limited?
The fact that some PMs have chosen not to exercise a choice is irrelevant in an argument about whether or not those who have chosen to exercise it should be allowed to do so. I don't know where Iain's quote came from but it smacks of more slimy briefing from the same delightful characters surrounding Sunak who demand party loyalty from everyone else except themselves.
Truss would be better advised to wait until after the end of her second ministry, which, with Johnson out of the way, will begin soon.
All very fun, but if you really want to stick it to Truss, why not go with your usual of posting a photo and saying she looks like a bad tranny?
“Drag” is not the same thing as Trans and I would never use such an insulting term. I never, ever, post photos of people to insult. . Although I was in Truss’s year at Oxford, I never met her, Shirley Bothroyd I do know and have met on several occasions. I commented on how bad she looked in a Telegraph photo. Happy to clarify.
MOD 1/4) Russia’s assault on the Donbas town of Bakhmut has largely stalled. This is likely primarily a result of extreme attrition of the Russian force. Ukraine has also suffered heavy casualties during its defence... ...(4/4) This suggests an overall return to a more defensive operational design after inconclusive results from its attempts to conduct a general offensive since January 2023. https://mobile.twitter.com/DefenceHQ/status/1639516419279949825
Kim Dotcon says the biggest economic crash in history is arriving.
wish I was wrong The biggest economic crash in history is arriving and I take no pleasure in saying I told you so. It was inevitable. It's going to get really bad. Read some of my past warnings:
Comments
Have you not been tempted to try a vegan option ?
Non Trekkies would like it but some won’t due to all the plot points for all the other series and films.
My cat is an obligate carnivore - insofar as she cannot eat vegetable matter in any meaningful volume, as her physiology precludes it.
Having said that, to link to politics, I reckon "We don't give a flying fuck what people eat" could be an appealing slogan.
I was a vegetarian for many years and then a pescatarian for many years. This was my choice. I owned it.
If I was out and was presented with a meat and veg meal, I would just eat everything other than the meat. I certainly would not expect or demand that I was treated specially for what is my choice. I was never ill-mannered or "precious".
Only 68%?
OMG we are still too trusting.
wish I was wrong The biggest economic crash in history is arriving and I take no pleasure in saying I told you so. It was inevitable. It's going to get really bad. Read some of my past warnings:
https://twitter.com/KimDotcom/status/1639549261426864128?s=20
Found myself watching this video this morning.
"Worst Rated Hotel - International Hotel, London - Is It That Bad?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wO-Eji4aow
Those corridors in the basement are a bit creepy. Why are they so narrow, and so meandering instead of being in a straight line?
On choice, it used of course to be really difficult for vegans or indeed vegetarians to get food they liked, and I assume your support for choice would include that the options should be there? I remember my former wife, a vegetarian, ordering a veggie breakfast on British Airways. She was served a tray of bacon and eggs, and mildly objected, so the stweard leant over and took out the bacon with his fingers, then said scornfully "Is THAT all right now, madam?"
But the choice issue does come down to one's view of the extent to which animals have a shared sentience sufficient that we should care about it. If the answer is "no" then of course we should all eat whatever we like. If the answer is "yes", then I think it's reasonable to want to restrict choice to foods whose method of production doesn't cause intense suffering. Banning meat entirely is of course a step further thsn I'd go, but it's not entirely irrational.
But I severely object to eg employers imposing a particular vegetarian or vegan menu because some Personnel Director or other thinks they are a morally superior person and can do it.
My favourite veg restaurant if it still there was Rasa in Charlotte Street.
BTW, you need to bribe your supervisor more. He keeps giving you all the graveyard/weekend slots for your trolling. ..
Either have the chef do something decent or don’t. The vegetables twice is bullshit.
It makes inviting a group out a pain.
with the punchline "No, she's not a virgin, she's a vegan".
https://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.com/2023/03/exercising-mind-with-history-podcasts.html
That is pretty much my view too.
the United States some have proposed to divide Ukraine between Poland and Russia Many senior US military and intelligence officials believe that Ukraine will no longer be able to emerge victorious from the current conflict. At the same time, they continue to advocate arms deliveries and cash payments to Kiev, although they admit that this aid will still not help Ukraine, since Russia vastly outnumbers it in resources, money and alliances with other major powers such as China and India. “Most of the Ukrainian army is already dead. Its best soldiers, trained in the United States, have either died or are out of action. Nobody cancels Ukrainian prowess, but Russia is likely to win anyway, thanks to overwhelming resources,” said the co-chair of the Center for American Security (AFPI), Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg. He believes that the most likely outcome of the conflict is a humiliating truce for Ukraine, as a result of which the country may cease to exist: "It's time to divide Ukraine: everything east of the Dnieper will go to Russia, and everything to the west - to Poland. Historically, these two countries controlled present-day Ukraine."
3:24 PM · Mar 23, 2023
·
237.7K
Views
https://twitter.com/PeImeniPusha/status/1638924658757210113?s=20
I've narrowed it down to two candidates and I'm alarmed to say that it's either you or me.
Like Assange, he hasn’t actually changed his behaviour.
https://twitter.com/PeImeniPusha/status/1639010022649921536?s=20
https://twitter.com/mazzenilsson/status/1638479044940316674?s=20
I love TOS, and have enjoyed Voyager and TNG myself.
Just wondering how accessible it was.
Russian troll managers - please note if you want to spread division amongst the fine posters of pb, you will have more success focusing on restaurant menus, whether skiing is an acceptable holiday and what constitutes a Christmas film, rather than going for vaccines, bank runs and Ukraine.
Are we giving the PRC to Taiwan while we are at it?
As for fake sausages or steaks, made out of vegetable substitutes, I'd sooner eat orc excrement.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/24/hotel-rwanda-paul-rusesabagina-to-be-released-from-prison
The description of the food also being a description of my dining companion.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/65074698
$1m fine for old men being a bit racist and homophobic is not going to work.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65038587
MI5 spy reveals secret 'unauthorised' IRA talks
I say well done him, ballsy with personal risk from both sides, but paid off.
I was following up your comment that actually these are a smallish number of people who there is an arguable case that they would enhance the Lords. Unlike, say, Johnson’s list.
https://mobile.twitter.com/Rebel44CZ/status/1639255328595365893
I will take over updating the Russian and Ukrainian losses for a month. If no permanent solution is found by then, we'll kill off all lists related to the Russo-Ukrainian War.
https://mobile.twitter.com/oryxspioenkop/status/1639592320550019075
They did have a complimentary meat broth for dipping bread into, though, for bonus carnivore points.
Daughter reacted to what she saw as a meat-heavy bias by choosing a meat-free Indian restaurant for dinner the next evening.
https://mobile.twitter.com/Hromadske/status/1639586741127458817
1/4) Russia’s assault on the Donbas town of Bakhmut has largely stalled. This is likely primarily a result of extreme attrition of the Russian force. Ukraine has also suffered heavy casualties during its defence...
...(4/4) This suggests an overall return to a more defensive operational design after inconclusive results from its attempts to conduct a general offensive since January 2023.
https://mobile.twitter.com/DefenceHQ/status/1639516419279949825
3 levels of the NZ court system (including the Supreme Court) have said that he can be extradited but wiki said he is seeking judicial review