'Ethical veganism is 'philosophical belief'

[Nearly Sane]

With a variety of cases on what is or is not a philosophical belief, I find that I'm uncomfortable with the idea itself. It just seems to dress up strong opinion in an ill fitting suit, and I don't really see why any beliefs should necessarily have more protection than others


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50981359

[Udayana]

Surely it is not the belief (or opinion) itself that is "protected" but the human rights of the person holding it?

Why should people be discriminated against because they hold a particular opinion?

[Roses]

If an adult wishes to be a vegan that is up to them, however I don't think it is healthy for force a child to be a vegan

[Walter]

With a variety of cases on what is or is not a philosophical belief, I find that I'm uncomfortable with the idea itself. It just seems to dress up strong opinion in an ill fitting suit, and I don't really see why any beliefs should necessarily have more protection than others


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50981359

i totally agree
This situation is on the horizon 🙈🙉🙊
When the Thought Police start pecking my head , it'll be time to leave !

[Nearly Sane]

Surely it is not the belief (or opinion) itself that is "protected" but the human rights of the person holding it?

Why should people be discriminated against because they hold a particular opinion?

I don't think they should but the belief has to qualify as a 'philosophical' one and that seems an issue as it is building in discrimination.

[Nearly Sane]

If an adult wishes to be a vegan that is up to them, however I don't think it is healthy for force a child to be a vegan

But you think it is ok to make a child eat meat?

[Walter]

But you think it is ok to make a child eat meat?

Glaswegian children are made to eat deep fried battered spam fritters 😱

They're delicious 😆

[SteveH]

If an adult wishes to be a vegan that is up to them, however I don't think it is healthy for force a child to be a vegan

Wrong as regards fact, and also completely irrelevant to the discussion. Well up to your usual standard - well done.

[Roses]

But you think it is ok to make a child eat meat?

Children require milk, which vegans don't approve of.

[Nearly Sane]

Children require milk, which vegans don't approve of.

Total non sequitur to my question.

[Aruntraveller]

So if I'm a vegan, as opposed to an ethical vegan, it would presumably be ok to discriminate against me?

Or is it compulsory to be an ethical vegan?

[Walter]

So if I'm a vegan, as opposed to an ethical vegan, it would presumably be ok to discriminate against me?

Or is it compulsory to be an ethical vegan?

no, it should be compulsory to take the piss out of vegans and then discriminate 👍

[Robbie]

Children who have an intolerance to dairy products don't have milk, they have something else such as soy, almond, rice, hemp, and oat milk. It's possible for a child to be healthy on a vegan diet but it takes a lot of thought and care. Many children are brought up as vegetarians (I know that's not the same), Hindus for example and as long as there is variety in their diet they're fine. I presume that is a philosophically based choice.

I'd find it very difficult to be vegan, vegetarianism is as far as I'm prepared t go - like my cheese - but good on those who do take the next step as long as they don't preach about it.

[SteveH]

Children require milk, which vegans don't approve of.

No, they don't, except their mother's milk until they're weaned. The traditional Japanese diet has never included dairy prodcts, and is one of the healthiest diets in the world: the Japanese are one of the longest-lived people.
In any case, veganism in general is not the subject of the thread, but whether it should be considered a philosophical belief.

[jeremyp]

No, they don't, except their mother's milk until they're weaned. The traditional Japanese diet has never included dairy prodcts, and is one of the healthiest diets in the world: the Japanese are one of the longest-lived people.
In any case, veganism in general is not the subject of the thread, but whether it should be considered a philosophical belief.

Milk is a bad example. It's really only Western Europeans that have a tolerance for milk after a certain age. However, Homo sapiens has probably always been omnivorous. Certain nutrients are easier for us to get from animal flesh. That doesn't mean that children can't be raised on a vegan diet, but I think vegans have to be more careful to ensure their children get a balanced diet than meat eaters. The downside is that it is also easy to eat too much meat, especially as it's much more tasty than most vegan sources of protein.

Anyway, I think veganism can be a philosophical belief. But I think, even if it isn't, people should not be fired simply for being vegans.

I don't believe the person in this case was fired for being a vegan but for disseminating confidential information. If he broke the company rules and the rules were not illegal, he is going to be at risk of being fired and he should have been aware of that.

[Roses]

I think moderation in all things where food is concerned. We don't eat meat every day, only two or three times a week.

[SteveH]

I think moderation in all things where food is concerned. We don't eat meat every day, only two or three times a week.

Why do you think that? This is yet another of your evidence-and-reasoning-free "I think this" posts.

[Roses]

Why do you think that? This is yet another of your evidence-and-reasoning-free "I think this" posts.

You are talking about yours posts, my dear.

[ad_orientem]

I think moderation in all things where food is concerned. We don't eat meat every day, only two or three times a week.

You can eat meat moderately every day.

[SteveH]

You are talking about yours posts, my dear.

As I've pointed out before, most people grow out of "talking about yourself" ripostes roughly when they enter their teens. Quote a post of mine in which I expressed an opinion without justifying it.

[Nearly Sane]

Moderator Repetitive sniping about posting style amounts to a derail. Please get back to veganism or we might have to go all mod-ish

[SteveH]

I see that Wetherspoons are promoting "Veganuary". Sod that. There is an ethical case for veganism, and I am eating less meat these days, especially red meat, but these months for giving things up get right on my wick. The time for giving things up is Lent. Mind you, 'Spoons are also selling haggis, neeps and tatties for a couple of weeks starting next Friday, to mark Burns night on Jan 25th, so they're not being altogether consistent. I will certainly be having some, with a double Talisker single malt, next Friday. Haggis is delicious, but not very healthy, being high in saturated fats, and als, if not prepared by an expert chef, may contain harmful bacteria according to a google I've just done. Probably best just to have it once a year, on or around Burns night, then.

[ProfessorDavey]

With a variety of cases on what is or is not a philosophical belief, I find that I'm uncomfortable with the idea itself. It just seems to dress up strong opinion in an ill fitting suit

I guess you need to assess the claims against the tests used for other beliefs, the most notable of which in terms of protection being religious beliefs.

, and I don't really see why any beliefs should necessarily have more protection than others

But isn't this the point - precisely that these beliefs are being accorded similar protection to other beliefs, particularly religious belief, as both demonstrate the same features and manifest in a similar manner in the believers.

I think the key here is the assessment of a belief on the basis of the individual believer. That there are millions of other similar believers should not be determinative as all but one of those believers aren't that individual. Similarly that a belief has persisted over generations should be determinative either for the same reasons. A strong and totally committed believer in ethical veganism seems to me to have a greater call for protection than a cultural christian for whom christianity has no real bearing on their day to day life.

[Nearly Sane]

I guess you need to assess the claims against the tests used for other beliefs, the most notable of which in terms of protection being religious beliefs.
But isn't this the point - precisely that these beliefs are being accorded similar protection to other beliefs, particularly religious belief, as both demonstrate the same features and manifest in a similar manner in the believers.

I think the key here is the assessment of a belief on the basis of the individual believer. That there are millions of other similar believers should not be determinative as all but one of those believers aren't that individual. Similarly that a belief has persisted over generations should be determinative either for the same reasons. A strong and totally committed believer in ethical veganism seems to me to have a greater call for protection than a cultural christian for whom christianity has no real bearing on their day to day life.

I don't see why any beliefs should be protected, and I don't think you can make judgments based on some idea of how strongly they are held since it would seem to be the beliefs that are being judged as passing the test, not the believer.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't see why any beliefs should be protected ...

Fair point - but my previous post addressed a different point of yours:

'... and I don't really see why any beliefs should necessarily have more protection than others'.

and I don't think you can make judgments based on some idea of how strongly they are held since it would seem to be the beliefs that are being judged as passing the test, not the believer.

Protection, if it is to be there, should protect the believer, not the belief.