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: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06 2016, @08:04PM
> The alternative would be to NOT inconvenience people, or rather more realistically, minimize the amount of inconvenience you do to those people.
Anything that challenges the status quo will cause inconvenience. If it did not cause inconvenience, then it would be the status quo.
You seem to at least partially recognize that because you are now softening your position to "minimize." But that is a completely undefined definition, your version of minimal isn't necessarily going to be anyone else's definition.
> Ranty anecdote time:
I am not even going to read past that because your personal relationship problems are not a basis for a general principle. You trying to make them into such a principle is a variation on the appeal to authority fallacy because it lets you abdicate responsibility for working things out with this person in favor of unilaterally declaring them wrong and you right.
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Tuesday December 06 2016, @08:16PM
Why does anyone's definition of "minimize" need to be consistently defined across any set of people? For any given person, if you have principles, and your principles inconveniences that person sufficiently, that person will not like you and go elsewhere.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06 2016, @08:30PM
> Why does anyone's definition of "minimize" need to be consistently defined across any set of people?
Because you've offered it up as a general principle for when to judge if someone is in the wrong.
If it can't be consistently defined, then its not a general principle. Its situational.