3 ms·

Hell, no. People may be eating what they choose to eat with just as much moral conviction as your vegetarianism. That is not for you to decide. You have no ri

by makeset 10y ago

Hell, no. People may be eating what they choose to eat with just as much moral conviction as your vegetarianism. That is not for you to decide. You have no right to deceive others about what they are putting into their body, let alone in hopes of "convincing" or converting them. You have no right to physically force your own morality upon others without their informed consent. Think about what you have just argued for here.

Dylan16807 10y ago
It helps not to get too theoretical when it comes to morality. Someone that eats turkey and not vegetables out of moral conviction? That's not a sane thing to worry about and compensate for. There is a 0% chance of that being the case. If you worried about preferences that obscure/made-up you'd forbid every category of food, every color of food, every texture of food... On top of that, it's very likely that every ingredient in the "turkey loaf" was something that would not be out of place in an actual turkey loaf. In other words, no ingredients being secretly added, just one being removed.
- makeset 10y ago
  You happen to be wrong, I am a counterexample (I don't eat soy, and yes, for moral reasons), but I won't explain, because I don't have to. And what I am saying is that I shouldn't have to. Sure, you can decide to believe whatever you want on your own, but when it makes you justify feeding things to me that I have resolved not to eat, that's downright violating.
  - Dylan16807 10y ago
    I meant someone whose morality specifically insists that there be bird meat. Sorry for being unclear. So again here there is a difference adding a problem ingredient, and there being an ingredient you don't put in. For the former you need to ask about dietary restrictions and respect that. Which they did. For the latter, I don't think you're in much risk of violating anyone's moral system.
adrusi 10y ago
You're making a lot of assumptions: I'm not a vegetarian, first of all. My point is simply that tricking someone into eating tofurkey is objectively more moral than tricking them into eating turkey, because both involve equal trickery, but it is incredibly improbable that anyone has moral objections to tofurkey (and in the specific case, this was a certainty). With a stranger it's more complicated because they might have a soy allergy or some compelling reason other than ethics to avoid the fake meat, but that's not relevant to the specific situation.
- makeset 10y ago
  Fine, but you being vegetarian wasn't part of my objection. You're the one making assumptions. I don't eat tofu for ethical reasons, and I shouldn't have to justify them over your own to prevent you from violating my bodily integrity by deception if I were to eat at your table. Your argument is still deplorable and morally corrupt.
  - adrusi 10y ago
    In spite of my better judgement, I'll continue this discussion. What could possibly be your moral objection to soy? Is it GMO related? If it's Monsanto's abusive practices toward farmers, how is eating turkey any different, considering the similar entrapment practices of the poultry industry? If it's because you object to the idea of GMOs, then have you considered that GMO practices could help develop crops for cultivation in hunger-stricken areas, and that GMOs can enable the use of pesticides that are less damaging to the environment? How do you justify that objection when it stifles progress that could save lives? It seems similar to objections to stem cell research. If it's unrelated to GMOs, I'm genuinely interested in what your objection might be.

by makeset 10y ago

Dylan16807 10y ago

It helps not to get too theoretical when it comes to morality. Someone that eats turkey and not vegetables out of moral conviction? That's not a sane thing to worry about and compensate for. There is a 0% chance of that being the case. If you worried about preferences that obscure/made-up you'd forbid every category of food, every color of food, every texture of food... On top of that, it's very likely that every ingredient in the "turkey loaf" was something that would not be out of place in an actual turkey loaf. In other words, no ingredients being secretly added, just one being removed.

makeset 10y ago
You happen to be wrong, I am a counterexample (I don't eat soy, and yes, for moral reasons), but I won't explain, because I don't have to. And what I am saying is that I shouldn't have to. Sure, you can decide to believe whatever you want on your own, but when it makes you justify feeding things to me that I have resolved not to eat, that's downright violating.
- Dylan16807 10y ago
  I meant someone whose morality specifically insists that there be bird meat. Sorry for being unclear. So again here there is a difference adding a problem ingredient, and there being an ingredient you don't put in. For the former you need to ask about dietary restrictions and respect that. Which they did. For the latter, I don't think you're in much risk of violating anyone's moral system.

adrusi 10y ago

You're making a lot of assumptions: I'm not a vegetarian, first of all. My point is simply that tricking someone into eating tofurkey is objectively more moral than tricking them into eating turkey, because both involve equal trickery, but it is incredibly improbable that anyone has moral objections to tofurkey (and in the specific case, this was a certainty). With a stranger it's more complicated because they might have a soy allergy or some compelling reason other than ethics to avoid the fake meat, but that's not relevant to the specific situation.

makeset 10y ago
Fine, but you being vegetarian wasn't part of my objection. You're the one making assumptions. I don't eat tofu for ethical reasons, and I shouldn't have to justify them over your own to prevent you from violating my bodily integrity by deception if I were to eat at your table. Your argument is still deplorable and morally corrupt.
- adrusi 10y ago
  In spite of my better judgement, I'll continue this discussion. What could possibly be your moral objection to soy? Is it GMO related? If it's Monsanto's abusive practices toward farmers, how is eating turkey any different, considering the similar entrapment practices of the poultry industry? If it's because you object to the idea of GMOs, then have you considered that GMO practices could help develop crops for cultivation in hunger-stricken areas, and that GMOs can enable the use of pesticides that are less damaging to the environment? How do you justify that objection when it stifles progress that could save lives? It seems similar to objections to stem cell research. If it's unrelated to GMOs, I'm genuinely interested in what your objection might be.