5 ms·
ECHR confirms ethical veganism is a protected philosophical belief
- xvxvx 3mo agoI spent 2 weeks in the UK recently and they are light years ahead of the US in terms of veganism and cruelty free products. I was actually quite shocked about how many options the grocery stores had and how almost every restaurant had a vegan option, or even a vegan menu. The trend in the US has been to hide the word ‘vegan’ from consumers and bury it in their website somewhere. Not so in the UK. Brands seem super happy about showing which products in their selection are vegan. No list of ‘secretly/accidentally vegan’ products over there, they happily let you know right in the packaging. People there are generally more aware of veganism too. No need to explain what it is like I constantly do in the US. ‘Can vegans eat eggs?’ What part of ‘no animal products’ don’t you understand?
- PeterHolzwarth 3mo agoI think veganism in America went through a popular phase, then simply faded as a pop concept. Perhaps your experiences in the UK merely reflect that, there, it is just going through a temporary uptick of fad.
- bestouff 3mo agoIt's been there for decades.
- PeterHolzwarth 3mo agoIt's been everywhere for decades - that's not the point. It's fadishness that is what may be going on here: restaurants are the tip of the spear of new trends.
- bestouff 3mo agoYeah sure. The world is full of (working) right-wing propaganda. People with "differences" (be it skin color or food taste) won't be catered for. So veganism will probably falter like DEI or other progressive initiatives. But right now I don't think it's the case yet in the UK.
- userbinator 3mo agoPeople have gotten sick of the constant virtue-signaling.
- PeterHolzwarth 3mo agoAnd then they get un-sick of it. Fads come and go, constantly re-inventing themselves and getting rediscovered.
- kubb 3mo agoThat would suggest a fundamental difference in practical ethics between the two cultures. It sounds like people over there in America don’t do things because they enjoy doing them or because they’re convinced that those are the right things to do, but rather they do them to impress others or improve their social standing. It doesn’t sound right to me, I mean a culture can’t be so totally obsessed with the self.
- drivingmenuts 3mo ago> It doesn’t sound right to me, I mean a culture can’t be so totally obsessed with the self. One of our (the US) early political mottoes is "Don't Tread On Me" and it has a flag. And, yes, we can be and to varying degrees, are. Which is why we can't get along with ourselves very well, much less everyone else. We're tetchy.
- kubb 3mo agoRight, but that would mean the „Don’t tread on me” motto is also a type of persona assumed (like veganism) by people who like being perceived as tough and unruly because that’s respected. (I guess „persona” would be a better word for it than „the self”.)
- InsideOutSanta 3mo agoI think you've pinpointed the reason, although unintentionally: the US is so focused on culture wars that people can't visibly follow a vegan diet without being attacked for it.
- constantius 3mo agoI always found it weird when people confidently speak from the wrong end. And the crab mentality of "it's only good there temporarily, then it'll.be the same shit as here" is tiring. If you had lived in the UK, you'd understand that it's not about temporary vegan menus in restaurants but about the whole country, even in a chain in the middle of nowhere, having vegan alternatives and packaging for years and years.
- conception 3mo agoThat’s interesting. I wonder if that’s a byproduct of the strong Indian influences? I would imagine its popular there as well.
- kurthr 3mo agoHindu drink milk and eat cheese, butter, and honey. Not vegan.
- orbisvicis 3mo agoI know vegans who consume dairy/eggs once they become responsible for the husbandry of those sources.
- zxexz 3mo agoI wish this form of Veganism was more well-known. I know a few Vegans who went down a similar path and who were told by a few people they were no longer Vegan. They took the easier path and stopped calling themselves Vegans, which I thought was sad given their objectives when becoming Vegan were clear from the get-go.
- Imustaskforhelp 3mo agoI wish more Vegans were able to accept this form of spectrum that you are talking about. Food is quite a social thing. JaidenAnimation has done a great video[0] summarizing something like this of her vegan journey and exactly this type of nuance as well, I highly recommend checking it out Let me give you a personal example as well, I am Hindu and Milk is very very preferred where I live. Due to my taste preference, I dislike Milk but I am really expected to have something milk based so I like Yogurt. Even just this small act of preference of yogurt rather than Milk which could seem pretty small has genuinely left my relatives asking many many questions and I am sometimes forced to drink milk when I go to people when I would prefer otherwise because of social pressure. I can probably take vegan yogurt if I particularly want so but we take milk fresh from the milkman who owns the cow in their house. where I live, the way people treat animals in their house is a very ethical point of view, its basically like how pets are except they help in livelihood/income So I have some sympathies to people who you are talking about. There is enough social pressure from the people around you. More broadly speaking, Veganism might perhaps land better as a spectrum rather than a binary switch. It has a lot of things going for it which could help its future but at the same time, it gets a large amount of flack from a loud minority and bad clips [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gKJ9mMPuIQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gKJ9mMPuIQ
- SuperNinKenDo 3mo agoI was kind of surprised when I traveled to NY and SF from Melbourne. I knew Melbourne was fairly up there in vego/vegan friendliness, but took it for granted that NY and SF would be a cakewalk. Hardly appalling, but there were times I could not eat anything on the menu at some places and I'm only vegetarian, and in many instances I had only a single option. Was a little strange.
- myvoiceismypass 3mo agoI can confirm that SF is less vegan-friendly today than it was a decade ago. It is quite a bummer.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- xvxvx 3mo agoAustin, TX had a reputation for being very vegan friendly until COVID hit and many small businesses shut down. Now it’s as bad as anywhere else. I went on a hike at a national park in Scotland a few months ago, and they had a small cafe there with limited options for everyone. Even they had solid vegan options though. Blows my mind that this cafe was more welcoming than the majority of restaurants in a major liberal city.
- dleink 3mo agoThe trends in NYC are kinda pro-meat but if you're a day-to-day vegetarian or looking for it, there's plenty. I can definitely see showing up at a NY restaurant and everything on the menu having beef tallow in it somehow.
- joeconway 3mo agoGood
- moi2388 3mo ago[flagged]
- SuperNinKenDo 3mo ago[flagged]
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- kelseyfrog 3mo agoDo you hold any philosophical beliefs? If so, would you be willing to share them?
- cute_boi 3mo agoI think you are being ridiculous here. Rare steak is expensive compared to rice and beans. And providing vegan meal is super easy.
- pdpi 3mo agoDoesn’t seem like these two guys were vegan for Instagram internet points or for following a trend. They’re not trying to game the system for steak, medium rare. Their dietary restrictions are part of a larger belief system — they’re vegans because it’s the only diet consistent with their beliefs about animal rights. Irrespectively of my own personal opinion on ethical veganism, if it’s a sincerely held belief, it should be treated the same as, say, a Jewish inmate requesting to eat kosher, or a Muslim inmate requesting to eat halal. A prison sentence shouldn’t effectively force you to break with those beliefs.
- moi2388 3mo ago[flagged]
- red75prime 3mo agoThey probably can't order tofu. It would be B12-fortified oatmeal or something like this.
- 3mo ago
- Gathering6678 3mo ago(1) An inmate is not allowed (essentially, by the society) a specific diet dictated by his/her belief; and, (2) A poor person cannot afford (essentially, because of the society) a nutritious and delicious meal dictated by his/her needs or wants. What are the differences between them? Are there differences at all?
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- thrance 3mo ago(1) is a negative liberty: freedom from being forced to eat a certain diet. (2) is a positive liberty: actual ability to eat a certain diet. Western society is still mostly blind to the latter type of liberty. Similarly, everyone is free to own a home, but ensuring everyone has the means to actually do so is just not something politicians will even talk about, and is often labelled as "communist" or some other kind of thought-terminating label. Everyone is free, some people are just freer than others.
- spwa4 3mo agoWell of course. If you want to know what a "right" is, legally, you need to reverse it. For diet it is quite reasonable: a duty for certain products to be available for purchase (it does make clear that this right does not exist. A few vendors go out of business and your right to eat vegan goes with them) For owning a home, this would be a duty for everyone else to build you a home, satisfying your requirements. One thing everyone agrees on is that other people do NOT have the right to force you to work. But that is the only way governments would be able to guarantee a right like this. And, of course, one of the rights people demanded is the right to not participate in any right or duty that goes against your beliefs ... it is, of course, totally impossible to have this right and either of the other ones in society, or your rights would become very brittle indeed.
- cindyllm 3mo ago[dead]
- burnt-resistor 3mo agoNot providing vegan options is morally equivalent to forcing Jews to have pork or non-Kosher meals or Muslims pork or non-Halal meals; it's mean spirited, insensitive, and/or disrespectful treatment. Plus, there are many major religious/ethnic groups that skew towards mandatory and high probability of veganism. PSA: Meat ag is a danger to us all just on rational grounds: antibiotic resistance (bacteria evolution), pandemics (viral evolution), air-water-soil pollution, and climate change. For most Westerners, we have all kinds of food choices that are perfectly nutritious without inflicting all of the risks of unnecessary demand for meat. It will hopefully be eventually viewed in the distant future with such disdain and repugnance as cannibalism or consuming pets or exotic animals.
- joenot443 3mo ago> It will hopefully be eventually viewed in the distant future with such disdain and repugnance as cannibalism or consuming pets or exotic animals Hm, I fundamentally disagree and I sincerely hope there will ever be a time when meat consumption is viewed as equivalent to cannibalism. That sounds like a society I wouldn’t want to be a part of. I’m surprised you’d come to such a drastic conclusion. I have nothing but respect for your right to eat the diet you choose, but it’s a shame that isn’t something you’re willing to extend to others.
- burnt-resistor 2mo agoYou chose to throw in your two cents without addressing or admitting the facts, just to criticize and rationalize your own inaction. When lifestyle choices put others at risk of pandemics and untreatable diseases, it becomes my problem. This makes you yet another normalized deviant projecting your unsustainable lifestyle choices on others and trying to shame others who dare to criticize abominable practices. Furthermore, predominant repugnant views of many people currently include enabling the genocide of Palestinians and Lebanese, death penalty, fossil fuel usage, and animal slaughter... these are no good. And why don't you or anyone eat their pets? Besides distance, utility, and/or cuteness, there's no fundamental difference between wildlife, livestock, and pets when it comes to inflicting suffering.