SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Rainbow Vegetarian Café in Cambridge, England, has announced that it will not accept the new £5 polymer notes, introduced by the Bank of England in September. Last week the British vegan community discovered that the notes contain trace amounts of beef tallow, which is animal fat, and are therefore unacceptable by their cruelty-free standards. A heated online controversy has resulted, including a petition asking the Bank to remove tallow from the polymer.
The Rainbow Café's owner, Sharon Meijland, told The Telegraph that her stance was announced last Wednesday, at the end of a BBC radio interview on the unrelated topic of Christmas food.
"We sponsor the Vegan Fair and announced on Wednesday we would not be accepting the £5 notes because they are dubious ethically. We have been providing food for vegans for 30 years and have tried to be as ethical as we possibly can...This is not just a restaurant, it's a restaurant where tiny details like this are really important."
Is any of our money cruelty-free?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Tuesday December 06 2016, @04:28PM
How many people here refuse to use credit cards because of the tracking infrastructure behind them?
If they were refusing to take credit cards people here would be lauding them.
This is really no different.
No, it's completely different. Accepting credit cards requires you to be set up to do so, which necessitates paying a credit processing fee. Accepting money is virtually zero effort.
The proprietors of this restaurant have one set of principles which they are sticking to. If they took that cash how many would accuse them of being hypocrites?
Probably nobody except some percentage of their customers, which we've generally established are already unreasonable :P
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06 2016, @04:32PM
No, it's completely different. Accepting credit cards requires you to be set up to do so, which necessitates paying a credit processing fee. Accepting money is virtually zero effort.
The mechanics have nothing to do with it.
If they rejected credit cards out of principle it would be exactly the same thing.
The only difference is that it would be a principle you are more open to.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday December 06 2016, @04:35PM
If they rejected credit cards out of principle
Well, this is a clause I never agreed was part of the argument. I don't care whether they refuse to take CC for practical or idealistic reasons, or indeed at all.
Just recently Aldi started accepting credit cards. I would assume their reasoning for not doing so before was a cost-saving measure, since it seems they only have like 2-4 people working there at any given time.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06 2016, @04:43PM
> Well, this is a clause I never agreed was part of the argument.
Well, if you ignore the entire point of my post, you can dispute anything!
See the subject line "ideologically consistent" - you shouldn't have continued to use the same subject line if you were talking about some wholly unrelated concept.
Next time argue in good faith or don't argue at all.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday December 06 2016, @04:47PM
Because changing the subject line in a reply definitely isn't ambushing us :P
Next time argue in good faith or don't argue at all.
I could say the same thing about you getting an actual damn username.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06 2016, @04:53PM
> Because changing the subject line in a reply definitely isn't ambushing us
I changed it because the new subject line was descriptive of the point being made.
In fact, its a direct-cut-and-paste from the text that I wrote in the post too.
There was no ambush. Unless you are admitting to being a puppet account of janrinok.
Stop trying to save face, you went all red herring and have been called on your bullshit.
Admit your error and move on. Or just stop replying, either is identical.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06 2016, @06:22PM
Straight to ad hominems, eh? Talk about arguing in bad faith.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday December 06 2016, @07:56PM
You can't ad hominem someone who refuses to name themself. The entire meaning of ad hominem relies on you already knowing who they are.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06 2016, @08:10PM
> You can't ad hominem someone who refuses to name themself.
Apparently you don't know what word means.
"You are wrong because you suck" is an ad hominem.
It doesn't matter who you are, just as long the unrelated "you suck" is the basis for judging the validity of the argument.
You said he's not arguing in good faith because he doesn't have a username, the two are completely unrelated. The argument stands on its own regardless of who makes it.
And you might as well face it, nobody know who the fuck tangomargarine is either.
(Score: 3, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday December 06 2016, @09:32PM
Accepting credit cards requires you to be set up to do so, which necessitates paying a credit processing fee. Accepting money is virtually zero effort.
While I'm not going to dispute other things you say, that latter statement is problematic. Accepting cash most certainly requires significant effort and resources, which most studies (and businesses) generally estimate to be roughly 1-2% of the transaction costs. Cash creates overhead because small businesses have to stock enough cash for change, which will require you to often get such cash from the bank and transport it (safely). There's the safety issues involved in storing cash and then transporting it TO the bank for deposit, which may incur costs for safes and other security (perhaps even armored car transport, if your business is large enough). Of course this is all because of the risk of robbery. And there is the additional labor involved in "balancing the register" each day and concern about theft from employees as well. Etc.
It's generally NOT as expensive as credit card fees for merchants, but accepting and processing cash transactions most certainly is more than "zero effort."
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07 2016, @05:30AM
Probably nobody except some percentage of their customers,
What have you been smoking? There are countless incredibly petty people who would waste no time mocking them for apparent hypocrisy. It's quite popular to accuse others of being hypocrites, even if it isn't necessarily true; it's a lazy way to dismiss someone's arguments without doing the hard work of actually debunking them.
which we've generally established are already unreasonable :P
No such thing has been established.