SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Clearly Veg reports:
Barbara Hendricks, Germany's environment minister, has banned meat in all official functions and called for only vegetarian food to be served. The ban became clear through an email "to department heads from a senior civil servant in the environment ministry", according to The Telegraph . The e-mail noted that the ministry had a responsibility and should set an example to combat the "negative effects of meat consumption", with a statement by the ministry reading:
"We're not telling anyone what they should eat. But we want to set a good example for climate protection, because vegetarian food is more climate-friendly than meat and fish."
Unsurprisingly, the ban has caused a lot of controversy. Minister of food and agriculture Christian Schmidt, who has previously stated that he will push for a ban on "misleading" vegan labels such as vegan curry sausages, stated that he will not be having this "Veggie Day through the back door", and that "meat and fish are also part of a balanced diet".
[Ed Note: This submission vandalized by cmn32480.]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by PiMuNu on Friday February 24 2017, @08:32AM
As a (meat eating) member of the literati, I initially thought this is great - a politician acting on idealism, trying to do the right thing, without really overreaching too much. I'm not a vegetarian, but I don't mind veggies either.
But I tried to cast myself into the mind set of someone who would find this really annoying. So, for example, for me what would happen if said environment minister did something I strongly disagreed with, for example banning men (or women) from working in her department. Then I would be decrying this as horribly sexist and generally out of order. So what's the difference between the two situations? Why would banning meat be okay, but banning men be immoral?
Does it just come down to my own subjective preferences as to acceptable behaviour, or is there some objective difference between the two?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 24 2017, @08:48AM
You're way overthinking this. The real reason is that the bratwurst munchers are tired of their sterotype.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday February 25 2017, @12:47AM
They're Schisse eaters much more than they are Bratwurst eaters and as a way to atone for their sins of the past, they shall not only not eat animals but they eat their own human byproduct. The most valued guests get the plates spiced with undigested corn (or, as the Indians call it, Maize) kernels for more texture with Merkel herself eating the freshest bit drizzled over her face direct from the source.
(Score: 2) by mth on Friday February 24 2017, @09:11AM
This is not a ban on eating meat at the ministry, it's about purchase decisions made by the ministry. If you want bring your own bacon sandwich for lunch, no problem. So it's not restricting anyone's personal freedoms, it is restricting the way of working at the ministry.
Second difference is that eating meat is something you can easily suspend: not having meat at a lunch table or reception is at worst a minor inconvenience. Similarly, a workplace banning alcohol (banning consumption even, not just serving) does not prevent people from having a drink after work.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Friday February 24 2017, @07:02PM
It's a cost savings, like when they cook liver or tongue with lentils in school...
It's cheaper per kg, and you can cook a lot less of it because almost nobody will eat.
(Score: 1) by Chillgamesh on Friday February 24 2017, @08:39PM
Agreed. It's cost savings justified with by some sort of message of environmentalism
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 24 2017, @10:21AM
yes, it comes down to your subjective preferences.
you can think of "morality" as being generated by people's subjective desires.
objectivity does come in, but only to the extent that people actually care about it.
an "objective source of morality" must, in the end, be seen as a religion of some sort, since it places value on actions based on whether or not some abstract entity ("god", "society", "future historians") likes or dislikes those actions.
it would be objective because it would not be a single person's views, but in practice it's some sort of average of subjective preferences.
personally, I agree with you, in case that matters. public funds, government says there's a climate problem we need to solve, let's lead by example. they are putting their mouths where their mouths are.
(Score: 3, Informative) by bd on Friday February 24 2017, @10:57AM
To take a less extreme example, the moral difference is the difference between forcing everyone who works for her to wear a campaign slogan hat and
giving out free campaign slogan hats at an event.
It is not a ban on employee behaviour or what is on the lunch menu on ministry cafeterias. This is about catering for official ministry receptions.
Her reasoning was that when the ministry gives out free food, she, being the host of the event, gets to decide the menu.
An exception was even done for events that specifically are about meat (such as low environmental impact meat production).
(Score: 4, Insightful) by TheRaven on Friday February 24 2017, @12:44PM
As a vegetarian, I think this measure is a bit nonsense. It is absolutely true that meat has a higher area land usage impact per calorie than vegetables. Extrapolating from there to meat has a higher environmental impact than any vegetarian alternative is pure nonsense. Meat animals farmed on land that is not suitable for cultivation (because they can eat things that humans can't) and without mass-produced feed has a lower environmental impact than clearing forest land to provide space for growing crops, for example. A lot of meat substitutes are very energy intensive to produce and some have a higher environmental impact than dead animal as a result.
This kind of 'broad category X is always better than broad category Y' thinking very rarely leads to an improvement.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Friday February 24 2017, @01:15PM
"if people are not supposed to eat animals, how come they're all made of meat??"
;)
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 1, Redundant) by HiThere on Friday February 24 2017, @06:57PM
To rephrase your comment:
If people are not supposed to eat people, how come they're made of meat?
You may have been making a joke, of course, but without tone of voice and expression I can't really tell. It could have been sarcasm or even, for some people, irony.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 3, Informative) by maxwell demon on Friday February 24 2017, @08:38PM
Well, if you look carefully, you'll find that the line with the text is followed by another, in which a semicolon is followed by a closing parenthesis. You really should learn to interpret such character sequences. Not understanding them is similar to not understanding tone of voice and facial expressions in direct communication.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by HiThere on Saturday February 25 2017, @01:11AM
Yeah, so it's some sort of humorous construction. But the difference in meaning in this case between understanding it as a joke, as sarcasm, or as irony is considerable. (Sometimes it hardly matters, but in this case it could even reverse the meaning.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Saturday February 25 2017, @08:46AM
So is the difference between ":)" and ";)".
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by HiThere on Saturday February 25 2017, @06:52PM
OK. I don't follow emoticons, so even now I don't know which was indicated without a google search. Wikipedia reports the meaning as either a wink or a smirk...which leaves me confused, as neither seems to apply to your post.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Saturday February 25 2017, @10:02PM
To my post? I don't have several accounts.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday February 24 2017, @06:53PM
Carrying capacity of U.S. agricultural land: Ten diet scenarios [elementascience.org]
Using a biophysical simulation model we calculated human carrying capacity under ten diet scenarios. The scenarios included two reference diets based on actual consumption and eight “Healthy Diet” scenarios that complied with nutritional recommendations but varied in the level of meat content.
...
Carrying capacity was generally higher for scenarios with less meat and highest for the lacto-vegetarian diet. However, the carrying capacity of the vegan diet was lower than two of the healthy omnivore diet scenarios.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 24 2017, @08:28PM
meat has a higher area land usage impact per calorie than vegetables
Environmental impact seems to absolutely be the focus of the German Environment Ministry.
To land use, add water use.
How Water Intensive Food Choices Impact California’s Drought [ecology.com]
The guys also add the impact of livestock shit on groundwater.
Worried About Water? Mind The Meat [eecosphere.com]
...and on top of that, add livestock farts which are a significant source of greenhouse gases.
Long story short:
They also add
Their link to Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine is paywalled and robots.txt blocks the Wayback Machine. 8-(
If you eat a grain and a legume (e.g. rice and beans), you get all the amino acids that your body needs to build proteins.
The only thing that you get by eating animal products that you don't get with a vegan diet is Vitamin B12.
A once-a-day multi-vitamin pill or a B12 pill will give you that for a lot less than buying meat.
Essentially zero impact on the environment as well.
.
Meat animals farmed on land that is not suitable for cultivation
It now sounds like you're talking about goats.
Do a lot of Soylentils eat goat meat??
...and humans have been doing terraced farming and soil enrichment for millenia.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday February 24 2017, @04:26PM
Does it just come down to my own subjective preferences as to acceptable behaviour, or is there some objective difference between the two?
Well, that gets at the heart of the ontology of ethics. Asking about "objectivity" in this context is opening a can of worms. Are there moral issues that can be decided objectively in all times and places? And how far do they go?
I think just about all of us can see obvious differences between banning an entire gender vs. not offering a particular culinary choice at a free dinner. Frankly, I'm not even going to bother listing differences because they are so obvious. There are a whole bunch of assumptions about morality today that we operate under that govern the first issue, while there are a lot fewer moral assumptions about what you can serve at a free dinner.
I think a better and more comparable moral conundrum to pose in this regard is: would it be morally okay to ONLY offer meat-based dishes at official functions? That was pretty much the standard assumption only a few decades ago. If you ordered a vegetable at a restaurant, it might be cooked in butter or even lard. It's still the norm at some restaurants and in some places. These places excluded huge segments of the world's population who are (for religious or moral reasons) either vegetarian or vegan.
Now that a lot of Western society has become better educated about these things in the past few decades, most restaurants and caterers know to offer "vegetarian" and/or "vegan" options. But would it be some sort of moral lapse if they didn't? Or merely "impolite" or "insensitive" or something? And if we now determine it is ethically REQUIRED to offer such options, can a meat-eater similarly demand an alternative?
I've mentioned some issues that arise here in another post, but I think this is a better place to target your concerns about the subjective nature of ethical distinctions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 24 2017, @05:31PM
When my father visited Germany in the 1980s, he was offered what he though was bread with butter. Nope. It was bread with lard. They also dipped vegetables in it. Lard, lard, lard, glorious lard! The fact that hostile immigrants would have a fit over it is merely a bonus. You can't be properly German without lard.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Friday February 24 2017, @06:46PM
Why would banning meat be okay, but banning men be immoral?
Humans have human-rights. Food doesn't.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 24 2017, @08:34AM
Hypocrites.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Friday February 24 2017, @04:56PM
You can't solve all the world's problems at once. It's not hypocrisy; it's priorities.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 4, Funny) by Hartree on Friday February 24 2017, @09:04AM
They could set an even better example by only serving Breatharian cuisine at their events.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 24 2017, @09:59AM
What's left unsaid (or not made clear enough, in my opinion): This decision doesn't even apply to the canteen of the ministry. Every minister, secretary or other worker there is still free to choose his meal with meat / vegetarian / vegan / whatever. This "ban" only applies to official meals hosted by the ministery, where the caterers are required to provide a vegetarian food selection.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 24 2017, @11:06AM
Probably a way to bank pork without saying it.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by BenJeremy on Friday February 24 2017, @01:23PM
Actually, it is. Our company, for example, provides inclusive meals for everybody when they provide those meals. There are vegan, vegetarian, and meat options.
What this ministry is doing is paying for vegetarians' lunches and dinners during those official functions, while EXCLUDING meat eaters from the same benefit. I'd argue either all or none. Excluding one groups specifically from benefiting from the "free meal" provided out of the ministry's coffers is most certainly over the line, and the rationalization is simply over the top.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday February 24 2017, @04:10PM
What this ministry is doing is paying for vegetarians' lunches and dinners during those official functions, while EXCLUDING meat eaters from the same benefit. I'd argue either all or none.
I'm assuming you are a meat-eater. Do you have meat at every single meal? Will you suffer some sort of medical condition if your "meat needs" aren't met?
I personally love meats of various kinds. But both because of expense and nutritional concerns, I generally eat it at only a few meals per week. I've shown up to catered dinners and meals at lots of places that have no "meat option," and I don't have a fit. I like all kinds of food. I wasn't aware that meat-eaters had some sort of special dietary requirement that they NEED to consume meat all the time or they will keel over or something.
I'd argue either all or none. Excluding one groups specifically from benefiting from the "free meal" provided out of the ministry's coffers is most certainly over the line, and the rationalization is simply over the top.
We can argue about the validity for rationalization for it, but I really don't see how it harming or "excluding" meat eaters to give them a few more vegetables. Are there really people out there who exclusively ONLY ever eat meat? If so, I suppose an argument can be made that those people are excluded. But there are all sorts of potential reasons to avoid offering a "meat option." Personally, if I were a minister, I'd point out this is also an economy issue: meat almost always costs more, regardless of environmental impact. And frankly, I am grateful for the vegetarian dinners and events I attended, because they made me realize there's lots of great food out there, and having a hunk of meat is only one limited way of conceiving the "center" of a meal. (When I was growing up, having some sort of meat at the center of dinner was pretty pervasive; my parents wouldn't have understood living vegetarian, and neither would I have until I started realizing how many great meals I can make without meat at the center of a meal.)
Meat through most of history was a luxury. I can understand the reaction to this, particularly from meat-eaters who seethe at the vegetarians who ask for their special treatment and "vegetarian options." But I also just don't get the similarity. People who are vegetarian or vegan often are so for religious, cultural, ethical, or nutritional reasons. And I don't think it's an ethical lapse to NOT have a "vegan" option -- seriously, I've been with vegetarian or vegan friends a couple times at a BBQ joint, and there's basically nothing on the menu for them. That's not the BBQ restaurant's fault, and while it's nice to options for various diners, I don't think it should be required of all restaurants or something.
Also, does it really violate your religion or morality to NOT be served meat? Perhaps I'm just not sufficiently "pro-meat" to understand this. I really do LOVE meat, but I eat meals without it all the time. I don't see why I have the right to force anyone to serve it to me at a free meal.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday February 24 2017, @07:08PM
Well, at one time Eskimo, or possibly it was Inuit, diet consisted solely of meat for about 6-8 months out of the year. (IIUC, this only works if you eat raw fish guts.) And Scandinavian traditional crusine was in places heavily meat/fish based.
Outside of that I don't think anyone had an entirely meat based diet. In pre-refirgeration times there were people who practiced conspicuous consumption by having meat at every meat (because you couldn't save it very long).
That's all I can think of. I do wonder, however, whether she's considering milk to be non-vegetarian...but not enough to check.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday February 24 2017, @08:05PM
Well, at one time Eskimo, or possibly it was Inuit, diet consisted solely of meat for about 6-8 months out of the year. (IIUC, this only works if you eat raw fish guts.) And Scandinavian traditional crusine was in places heavily meat/fish based.
Being "heavy" on the meat/fish or even having it exclusively for part of the year isn't quite the same as requiring it at every meal.
In pre-refirgeration times there were people who practiced conspicuous consumption by having meat at every meat (because you couldn't save it very long).
Yeah, that's simply not true. The very fact that you had to literally slaughter an animal and consume it quickly meant that meat was a rarer thing, particularly in post-agricultural societies. You kept your cows and chickens and goats and sheep for their milk and eggs and wool and such; killing them wasn't something you could generally afford to do unless you were blessed with lots of extra animals around. There's a reason the Bible makes such a big deal about how they "killed the fatted calf" when the Prodigal Son returns: it was an unusual thing done for special feast, not a daily occurrence.
And actually, there were plenty of ways to preserve meat before refrigeration. Just a few that immediately come to mind: Drying, smoking, curing with salt or brine, using a "confit" system by cooking and preserving food anaerobically under congealed fat, and of course in some of the Scandinavian and Inuit cultures you actually mention, there were methods of fermentation and treatment with harsher chemicals (like lye). To this day, Alaska has by far the highest number of botulism cases compared to its population in the U.S., due to the use of traditional meat preservation techniques (some of which obviously don't actually work so well, but that's what people used to do to survive).
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday February 25 2017, @01:08AM
I believe I did state "conspicuous consumption". It wasn't something the common folk could do, but a Roman Emperor or a French King could do it...and some of them did. I wouldn't swear that there weren't any Barons or Merchant Princes that did it, either.
P.S.: There *were* ways of preserving meat so that it didn't need to be eaten immediately, but those weren't used in "conspicuous consumption". Salt pork, various jerkeys, etc. The Romans pickled dormouse in honey, but I'm not sure that doesn't count as "conspicuous consumption" even though it preserved the meat, because honey was quite extravagantly expensive. (At least during the middle ages they didn't know how to harvest the honey without destroying the hive...if not the bees, at least the place they called home.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Friday February 24 2017, @04:58PM
What this ministry is doing is paying for vegetarians' lunches and dinners during those official functions, while EXCLUDING meat eaters from the same benefit. I'd argue either all or none. Excluding one groups specifically from benefiting from the "free meal"
Dude, you're not going to explode from eating vegetables. Your argument is bull.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by BenJeremy on Monday February 27 2017, @12:47PM
Not going to explode, no, but thanks for the hyperbole.
However, I prefer not to eat vegetarian, and in fact, many vegetarian dishes make me want to puke, so I have that going for me.
Vegetarianism is a choice, as is my own dietary choices. Being forced to eat vegetarian when I choose not to is the same as a vegetarian being force to eat meat when they choose not to. I dislike both situations.
Why is this so hard for vegetarians to understand? Oh, that's right... they want to convert as many people and be as obnoxious as possible in going about that task.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday February 28 2017, @06:50PM
I think the Venn diagram for "may or may not eat meat but don't mind vegetables" is a lot bigger than "eats meat and actively takes offense at vegetables."
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Friday February 24 2017, @06:56PM
What this ministry is doing is paying for vegetarians' lunches and dinners during those official functions, while EXCLUDING meat eaters from the same benefit.
They aren't excluded. They get the same lunch paid for as everyone else.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 24 2017, @11:12AM
Even Hitler didn't force his vegetarianism on everyone else.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Friday February 24 2017, @01:47PM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 24 2017, @02:28PM
Hitler was a vegetarian, and many other Nazis were environmentalists and defended animal rights as well (hence why Germany was the first country to ban vivisection). Hitler wanted to change the German diet to reduce the amount of meat. He refrained from doing so during the war as it'd disrupt their food production, which would be inconvenient during peace time but deadly during total war.
That said, I'd bet this politician is only banning meat to submit to the hagheads who believe eating pork lands you in hell but blowing up ten people gets you to heaven.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday February 24 2017, @05:04PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler_and_vegetarianism [wikipedia.org]
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by snufu on Friday February 24 2017, @11:40AM
Germany's secret anit-immigration plan.
(Score: 3, Funny) by butthurt on Friday February 24 2017, @06:26PM
First they came for the sausages, and I did not speak out—
because I don't fancy sausages.
Then they came for the knishes, and I did not speak out—
because the knishes I was getting were always soggy.
Then they came for the Hamburgers, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a Hamburger.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday February 24 2017, @07:11PM
If it's an anti-immigration plan I would expect them to coerce immigrants to eat pork sausages.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 24 2017, @11:46AM
A german minister calling for the extinction of meat, poultry and fish to make room for Germany to expand... Should anyone be surprised by the fact Hitler was a vegan?
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 24 2017, @01:28PM
Germany must have Liberwurst to be Great Again!
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 24 2017, @11:51AM
Soylent Red, Yellow, and Green: a cornucopia of flavor!
Or maybe just that shitty drink instead.
Germany continues down its path of becoming a pussy. Not surprising a woman is leading this action.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday February 24 2017, @07:45PM
Vaginas are damn tough. Know what's weak, fragile, and ridiculous? Balls. Find some other insult to get your point across.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 24 2017, @08:16PM
If you had some balls, my post wouldn't bother you so much that you had to reply to it.
Since you brought it up, vaginas are not strong, they are weak. They get infected easily (witness the broad line of vaginal yeast infection creams) and require regular checkups from a doctor specially dedicated to their problems (gyno).
But back to what I was saying, Germany is weakening itself at the hands of its female German leaders. Angela Merkel fucked (literally!) her countrymen and women by accepting the criminal rapist Muslim refugees. Foolish, self-inflicted damage done out of weakness to stand up for her own people.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday February 25 2017, @03:34AM
If I had balls, something would be seriously wrong, given I've got two X chromosomes. And if vaginas are weak, how the hell come they're constantly pushing out watermelon-sized living beings through them, huh? Have you ever seen anyone give birth? I watched my brother come into this world when I was 6, and my mother says she had me *without* an epidural, unlike him. Did you know the vikings would even afford a warrior's burial to a woman who died in childbirth?
No, you didn't know any of this. Then again, I'd be amazed if you've ever been near the female reproductive tract in your life barring your 0th birthday...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @04:11AM
You are avoiding addressing my argument about weak female German leaders, instead remaining hung up on your stupid genitals.
In the spirit of getting past this, I will address you using a gender neutral term: Asshole! Surely that will sit better with you. Have a lovely weekend.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday February 25 2017, @05:07AM
Ahh...projection, hypocrisy, and ignorance, the unholy trinity of the alt-reich. Fuck you too, manlet. You got your cheetos-inflated ass beat, now waddle off.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @07:46AM
Nasty dyke nobody wants just can't let it go.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday February 25 2017, @05:01PM
So Elizabeth is "no one" now? :) Son, I guaran-god-damn-tee you I get more pussy in a week than you have--or will!--in your entire pathetic basement-dwelling incel life. And YOU were the one who brought it up, not me. Stick the flounce already; you're actually making me feel guilty for beating on you this hard!
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @08:10PM
I totally read you within a couple of posts.
You, on the other hand, couldn't be more wrong of my dating history, marital status, or
housing situation. What's the difference? I *listen* to people. You instead project your own worldview onto others without bothering to learn if it matches reality, i.e., no listening.
Going by these posts, I would hold onto your SO because you sound like the more difficult partner, and it could be hard for you to find someone else.
I know "winning" is really important to you, so I promise no further replies. Get in the last word, as my weekend gift to you. And thanks for giving me a real laugh with your posts! Fear the balls! Ha.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @01:20PM
That is +5 Insightful?
It's just a weird, off-kilter rant. There is no information in that post, so it didn't deserve any additional points. Welcome to echo chamber Soylent where "You go, girl!" posts get top modding.
(Score: 0, Troll) by garrulus on Friday February 24 2017, @12:03PM
these sjw people will all go into the ovens eventually.
(Score: 1) by redneckmother on Friday February 24 2017, @02:47PM
I should drink more coffee before scanning SN headlines - I read "Bans" as "Beats".
Hmmm... perhaps my first take was correct?
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 1) by oldmac31310 on Friday February 24 2017, @08:09PM
She will then implement measures to spank the monkey and choke the chicken. Bashing the bishop will be next. The department's resources will be spent.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Taibhsear on Friday February 24 2017, @03:01PM
meat and fish
Possibly offtopic but as a scientist (and someone who knows that words have meanings) it bugs me to no end when people keep saying things this way. I don't understand the absurd reasons people seem to put fish and other seafood into some strange unnecessary isolated category (particularly christians).
FISH
IS
MEAT
If it has muscles, it's meat.
(Score: 4, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday February 24 2017, @03:44PM
If it has muscles, it's meat.
Well, that's YOUR definition, but historically that's a pretty recent definition of the word.
Words can have different definitions or connotations depending on context. There are a number of potentially valid reasons to separate "fish" as a culinary category from the muscles of mammals and birds, etc. -- for example, types of preparation are often very different, and fish have a unique nutritional profile that makes it a bit different from other "meat" (in general). Plus, there is a longstanding historical distinction between the groups, as in the traditional Catholic prohibition of "meat" on Fridays while allowing fish.
Also, the word "meat" in English originally just meant "food." Eventually it developed a sense of the "important" food, like the most substantive dish of the meal. Since animal flesh was more nutritious (and tastier to most), it became the center of formal meals. But we still use the category of "meat" as "important element" all the time in English -- "get to the 'meat' of the argument," etc. And we still use it even when not talking about animals at all to refer to the "good part" of food, e.g., the "meat" of a nut (as opposed to the shell) or even of a peach (as opposed to the skin, pit, etc.). And from this perspective, fish in traditional formal dining was considered a separate item from the "main course": you had the "fish" and then the "meat," i.e., the primary course.
And historically, "meat" in different regions and dialects referred to various types of foods. In areas of the U.S. a century or more ago, "meat" referred exclusively to pork and would generally not be used to refer to beef, mutton, etc. In some areas of South Asia, "meat" often referred only to mutton or goat. In other contexts, a distinction is made between beef as "meat" vs. all other things.
Bottom line: "meat" means a whole bunch of different things depending on context. Not everyone understands it to mean "the muscles of all animals."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 24 2017, @08:11PM
the word "meat" in English originally just meant "food".
Eventually it developed a sense of the "important" food, like the most substantive dish of the meal.
"If you don't eat your meat, how can you have any pudding?"
Brit:USAian :: pudding:dessert
In areas of the U.S. a century or more ago, "meat" referred exclusively to pork
This is news to me.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 24 2017, @08:20PM
Yeah. If people are restrictive about what meat means in the US, meat would be beef, not pork.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 24 2017, @11:24PM
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.''
(Score: 2) by Taibhsear on Tuesday February 28 2017, @03:49PM
Well, that's YOUR definition
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/meat?s=t [dictionary.com]
noun
1. the flesh of animals as used for food.
It's literally the first entry.
Do you happen to have a citation for the historical contexts you mentioned? I'm genuinely curious. I've never heard any of that except the nut part.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Friday February 24 2017, @04:15PM
I've met three vegetarians that still ate fish...
I don't understand it but "it's a thing". When asked about it they all said the vegetarianism was for health reasons and not moral ones. I think the name just sucks. How about, "i don't eat land meat" or something?
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 1) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Friday February 24 2017, @04:34PM
Some eat chicken as well. I suspect it is because chicken takes less land/food to raise than other meats.
Vatted meat will make things even more confusing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 24 2017, @07:08PM
i am considering the option of eating only meat from non-mammals.
if there's an objective way of deciding what to eat, we may as well look at the tree of life and choose to not eat things that are objectively close to us.
also, i think farmed mammals consume more resources per kg of end product than farmed birds or fish.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Taibhsear on Tuesday February 28 2017, @03:45PM
That's called pescatarian.
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Friday February 24 2017, @04:29PM
don't understand the absurd reasons people seem to put fish and other seafood into some strange unnecessary isolated category
I think "cuteness" is a factor. Hence why some (silly) people balk at eating horses and rabbits. Fish aren't very cuddly, but I think it might be hard to sell whole, steamed clownfish since Finding Nemo came out.
As for the German decision, I really don't see a problem with an environmental agency promoting vegetarian food - apart from the environmental message it avoids having to pussy-foot around a lot of silly (non-medical) dietary "requirements" when mass catering.
(particularly christians).
What particular combination of misconceptions leads you to try and subject religion to logical analysis?
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 24 2017, @08:14PM
steamed clownfish
Every discussion has to be about Trump.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 24 2017, @05:27PM
You may know that words have meanings, but you obviously don't know too much about what meanings the words have. You think because you use the word with a specific meaning, that meaning must be the only "correct" one.
Actually already the idea of there existing a "correct" meaning of a word is highly questionable. A word means what people use it to mean. Not more, not less. And if different people use it to mean different things, it means different things to different people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 24 2017, @05:43PM
i see you are not a wizard from earthsea : )
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthsea)
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday February 24 2017, @07:15PM
I think you're objecting to Zipf's law in action. Common words tend to adopt shorter forms, and "red meat" is considerably longer than just meat. Actually something that accurately reflects what is meant would be even longer since you'd also need to include pork, which is also called (by marketers) "the other white meat".
Your meaning is quite useful within the correct context, outside that context, it's annoyingly verbose.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by DutchUncle on Friday February 24 2017, @06:02PM
Which definition of "vegetarian" are they using? Is dairy permitted (milk, cheese, etc) or is this fruit-and-veg only? The one advantage of veggie meals is that everyone should be able to eat them . . . except for allergy issues . . .
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 27 2017, @05:59AM
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jain_vegetarianism [wikipedia.org]