3 ms·

Excusing the potential hypocrisy of the policy re: fish vs meat (given general movement in recent years as to the complexity of fish nervous systems) - As well

Excusing the potential hypocrisy of the policy re: fish vs meat (given general movement in recent years as to the complexity of fish nervous systems) - As well as the fact that 'fish' is not a useful term in biology... It seems extreme to say "Utterly disgraceful."... Let's assume the principle of charity here, and say that the move was about stopping net negative emotion in conscious entities. They aren't stopping you from doing it. They just aren't funding it themselves any more. Your reply appears very knee-jerk considering that the principle of charity essentially makes this news into: "Wework cannot morally pay expenses for things that were used in the forced behaviour, or at worst negative emotion of, animals in modern industrialised farming. However, you can still eat meat on our property" >Is anyone comfortable with a property holding company telling you what you can't eat on the property you pay them to use? You can. They just won't pay you for it. And this isn't about clients, it's about employees (As an aside, this is possibly a statement that was worth due diligence checks being done, before assuming and posting). I also note that many people are doing back of the envelope calculations on environmental impact of eggs vs flights etc. Can this not simply be "We [wework] don't want to pay for what we see as murder"?

easytiger 8y ago
> They aren't stopping you from doing it. The article states that it applies to any onsite event with catering a customer might hold. Perhaps I misunderstand. Given most events hosted there are done in cooperation with or illustrating a relationship between wework with no commercial payment from the third party, i dunno where the lines are. > "We [wework] don't want to pay for what we see as murder"? The questionable predicate for doing so is the environmental impact. Where do you get that from? They absolutely would not win any fans imposing moral absolutism on the eating habits of the majority of people.
- bootlooped 8y ago
  > They absolutely would not win any fans imposing moral absolutism on the eating habits of the majority of people. I don't think they're imposing anything, it seems like they're just saying they're no longer going to pay for it. From what I can tell, clients, employees and tenants would be free to eat their own meat-containing meals by simply paying for them.
TheCoelacanth 8y ago
They explicitly said it was because of the environmental impact, so the murder thing is not in any way a reasonable interpretation.
jonhendry18 8y ago
"Excusing the potential hypocrisy of the policy re: fish vs meat " Especially given the significant issues of fishing bycatch, waste, overfishing, etc. Fish is far from being environmentally "okay".

easytiger 8y ago

> They aren't stopping you from doing it. The article states that it applies to any onsite event with catering a customer might hold. Perhaps I misunderstand. Given most events hosted there are done in cooperation with or illustrating a relationship between wework with no commercial payment from the third party, i dunno where the lines are. > "We [wework] don't want to pay for what we see as murder"? The questionable predicate for doing so is the environmental impact. Where do you get that from? They absolutely would not win any fans imposing moral absolutism on the eating habits of the majority of people.

bootlooped 8y ago
> They absolutely would not win any fans imposing moral absolutism on the eating habits of the majority of people. I don't think they're imposing anything, it seems like they're just saying they're no longer going to pay for it. From what I can tell, clients, employees and tenants would be free to eat their own meat-containing meals by simply paying for them.

TheCoelacanth 8y ago

They explicitly said it was because of the environmental impact, so the murder thing is not in any way a reasonable interpretation.

jonhendry18 8y ago

"Excusing the potential hypocrisy of the policy re: fish vs meat " Especially given the significant issues of fishing bycatch, waste, overfishing, etc. Fish is far from being environmentally "okay".