bobzy Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 20 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said: I've yet to meet a vegan who isn't highly opinionated and largely judgmental on the whole subject. But then, I of course haven't met every vegan in the world. As a (sometimes ashamed) eater of basically everything including meat, I find that people who are vegan are passionate about why they are vegan, only to get ridiculed and abused by the meat eaters. Those types are the real dickheads (same goes for those who ignore climate change etc), not those who have a passion for eating a certain way. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bannedfromHandV Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 18 minutes ago, bobzy said: As a (sometimes ashamed) eater of basically everything including meat, I find that people who are vegan are passionate about why they are vegan, only to get ridiculed and abused by the meat eaters. Those types are the real dickheads (same goes for those who ignore climate change etc), not those who have a passion for eating a certain way. They've done their work on you pal. I have zero issue with anyone who makes a personal choice and keeps it as such, but when you have people trying to shame/guilt trip you into thinking what they think, in the most condescending tone possible - well they can just feck right off. And I'm sorry, but that accounts for the majority of vegans I know - it's a small sample size but I can only work off my experiences. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bannedfromHandV Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 39 minutes ago, Stevo985 said: Is there anything wrong with being opinionated? If someone has done something as drastic as going Vegan then it's likely they feel pretty strongly about the whole thing. And they have every right to be as, quite frankly, they're right. As for non-judgemental ones, there's loads, including a fair few in this thread. You should try talking about it instead of judging them Yeah but you like VAR so who cares what you think Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 10 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said: They've done their work on you pal. I have zero issue with anyone who makes a personal choice and keeps it as such, but when you have people trying to shame/guilt trip you into thinking what they think, in the most condescending tone possible - well they can just feck right off. And I'm sorry, but that accounts for the majority of vegans I know - it's a small sample size but I can only work off my experiences. "They've" haven't at all - I feel it myself because of the way a lot of 'meat' is processed. I'm comfortable enough eating nice stuff, but the rest is proper grim. I think the shaming/guilt tripping is relatively fine. Same way that ardent meat eaters bang on about "why are you just making things to be like meat?!?!?" - it's annoying, but I'm OK with it. The tirade is on both sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 45 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said: I have zero issue with anyone who makes a personal choice and keeps it as such, but when you have people trying to shame/guilt trip you into thinking what they think, in the most condescending tone possible - well they can just feck right off. We have almost completely opposite experiences. How do you know someone's vegan? Don't worry, you'll find them surrounded by half a dozen bellends asking "so if you were on a desert island with a pig...". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post snowychap Posted January 3, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted January 3, 2020 19 minutes ago, Davkaus said: if you were on a desert island with a pig 2 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted January 3, 2020 Moderator Share Posted January 3, 2020 I've been semi following this story with amusement more than anything until today Today I leanred that he wasn't working for some corporate machine, he was working for the League Against Cruel Sports and he was complaining about the amount of investments in the pension scheme that involved animal testing. My opinion has somewhat changed on the matter at hand because of these facts. I do think it could cause an awful lot of bother for the pension companies though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted January 3, 2020 Moderator Share Posted January 3, 2020 My thoughts are that yes veganism should be treated in the same way as a religion, it is an ethical philosophical choice. Trouble is, I think there should be no truck with any religion or ethical philosophical whatever in the workplace. No-one should have the right to impose their lifestyle choices on me when I'm trying to work. People should be allowed to work without fear of loonball lifestyle choices impacting on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted January 3, 2020 Author VT Supporter Share Posted January 3, 2020 10 minutes ago, bickster said: My thoughts are that yes veganism should be treated in the same way as a religion, it is an ethical philosophical choice. Trouble is, I think there should be no truck with any religion or ethical philosophical whatever in the workplace. No-one should have the right to impose their lifestyle choices on me when I'm trying to work. People should be allowed to work without fear of loonball lifestyle choices impacting on them. Isn’t that massively missing the point? Nobody is saying they should have the right to impose their lifestyle choices on you. Just that they shouldn’t be treated differently for having that lifestyle choice. In the same way nobody is saying you should be ok with someone trying to convert you to Catholicism in the workplace. But rather that you shouldn’t sack someone because they’re catholic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted January 3, 2020 Moderator Share Posted January 3, 2020 16 minutes ago, Stevo985 said: Isn’t that massively missing the point? Nobody is saying they should have the right to impose their lifestyle choices on you. Just that they shouldn’t be treated differently for having that lifestyle choice. In the same way nobody is saying you should be ok with someone trying to convert you to Catholicism in the workplace. But rather that you shouldn’t sack someone because they’re catholic. I think it's you missing the point. Determining where pension money gets invested is impacting on everyone in the cmpany. Thats what this case is about, pension investments. His complaint is that his pension money is being invested in what he considers to be unethical investments, which in iteself is absolutely right but he on his own will now be able to say that the companies pension money can't be invested with company X and company Y, I'm not sure it's really pheasable to expect companies to tailor their pension investments towards the biases of an individual staff member. I also get why he's doing it, working for the League Against Cruel Sports, they are massively hypocritical for investing the money in those pensions. My point isn't really about veganism, it's about the way anyone'slifestyle choices are then impacted against everyone else If my pension provider invested money in an American Healthcare Co that was very profitable and part of what it did was provide abortions, a Catholic (for example) could come along and insist this investment was removed from the portfolio as it was against their beliefs. But to claim this decision isn't about impacting others lifesytle choices on everyone else is rather spectacularly missing the point EDIT: swap my American healthcare provider with the London Rubber Company for a less controversial choice. I reckon theres a Catholic out there that would try this at somepoint now 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 It has not in any way been ruled that the company must invest as he desires. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted January 3, 2020 Moderator Share Posted January 3, 2020 1 minute ago, Davkaus said: It has not in any way been ruled that the company must invest as he desires. That is what the endgame is, that is what he wants. This is a ruling about whether veganism should be protected in the same way as religion, he's won this battle, he'll move onto the other battle shortly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ciggiesnbeer Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 I have gone mainly plant based this winter but I still am fairly chill about eating white meat occasionally. The Beyond and Impossible meats taste better than real red meat to me when I want that. Also I live in the Bay Area where pretty much everywhere there are very high quality plant based options. God I love Thai and Jain restaurants Anyways I have zero judgement on people who enjoy a red meat based diet, enjoy. I am just digging all these new foods I am into now. I really enjoyed The Game Changers on Netflix btw, worth watching if you fancy a manly plant based propaganda vid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 Just now, bickster said: That is what the endgame is, that is what he wants. This is a ruling about whether veganism should be protected in the same way as religion, he's won this battle, he'll move onto the other battle shortly Well yes and no. If my understanding is correct, he wants it ruled unlawful that he was dismissed for, as he sees it, whistleblowing. Even if he wins that, it doesn't follow that the company must comply with his wishes. I've got no issue with the ruling so far, I think individuals should be protected from discrimination. I think it very unlikely that the court would find that companies must therefore make business decisions in the interests of their employees beliefs. I don't think that's even up for consideration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted January 3, 2020 Moderator Share Posted January 3, 2020 1 minute ago, Davkaus said: I've got no issue with the ruling so far, Neither have I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 21 minutes ago, Stevo985 said: Nobody is saying they should have the right to impose their lifestyle choices on you. Just that they shouldn’t be treated differently for having that lifestyle choice. But the impact of deciding that veganism (or rather ethical veganism, which is a different and far less widespread belief) falls under equalities legislation is in part tgat employers should make reasonable adjustments; in other words, that someone holdimg that belief should be treated differently, in some respects and where it relates to that belief. As an example, I would think that someone could request that the employer provide them with a different seat if the existing office furniture contains leather, perhaps. That's not imposing beliefs on others in any strong sense, but it is about requiring them where practicable to make adjustments to arrangements, behaviour, design and so on where it seems reasonable and proportionate to do so. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted January 3, 2020 Author VT Supporter Share Posted January 3, 2020 27 minutes ago, bickster said: I think it's you missing the point. Determining where pension money gets invested is impacting on everyone in the cmpany. Thats what this case is about, pension investments. His complaint is that his pension money is being invested in what he considers to be unethical investments, which in iteself is absolutely right but he on his own will now be able to say that the companies pension money can't be invested with company X and company Y, I'm not sure it's really pheasable to expect companies to tailor their pension investments towards the biases of an individual staff member. I also get why he's doing it, working for the League Against Cruel Sports, they are massively hypocritical for investing the money in those pensions. My point isn't really about veganism, it's about the way anyone'slifestyle choices are then impacted against everyone else If my pension provider invested money in an American Healthcare Co that was very profitable and part of what it did was provide abortions, a Catholic (for example) could come along and insist this investment was removed from the portfolio as it was against their beliefs. But to claim this decision isn't about impacting others lifesytle choices on everyone else is rather spectacularly missing the point EDIT: swap my American healthcare provider with the London Rubber Company for a less controversial choice. I reckon theres a Catholic out there that would try this at somepoint now Ok. I did miss the point as I don’t know the case well enough. I was really just replying to the part of your post that said no one should have the right to impose their lifestyle choices on you while you work. Which I didn’t think anyone was arguing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted January 3, 2020 Author VT Supporter Share Posted January 3, 2020 17 minutes ago, peterms said: But the impact of deciding that veganism (or rather ethical veganism, which is a different and far less widespread belief) falls under equalities legislation is in part tgat employers should make reasonable adjustments; in other words, that someone holdimg that belief should be treated differently, in some respects and where it relates to that belief. As an example, I would think that someone could request that the employer provide them with a different seat if the existing office furniture contains leather, perhaps. That's not imposing beliefs on others in any strong sense, but it is about requiring them where practicable to make adjustments to arrangements, behaviour, design and so on where it seems reasonable and proportionate to do so. I think that sounds perfectly fair enough to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 Just now, Stevo985 said: I think that sounds perfectly fair enough to me. Yes. The examples that arise in the next few months will perhaps try to establish where things go beyond what is fair and reasonable, and try to draw a line of some kind. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 15 minutes ago, peterms said: But the impact of deciding that veganism (or rather ethical veganism, which is a different and far less widespread belief) falls under equalities legislation is in part tgat employers should make reasonable adjustments; in other words, that someone holdimg that belief should be treated differently, in some respects and where it relates to that belief. Yup, and the one thing I'm wary of is the crazy bastards coming out of the woodwork and trying to push the limits of 'reasonable' making us all look bad. I was discussing some scenarios with 'my people' earlier and the chair one did come up actually. I'm fairly pragmatic with that sort of thing and I'd personally take the approach of, there is a chair. It was already here. It has leather, but me kicking up a fuss doesn't revive the cow. I will sit in the chair. If you're already buying new chairs for us all as part of a refurb, however, I might politely request a non-leather one. I think that's fairly reasonable. There were some pretty tragically mundane things that some people were happy about, such as being able to request vegan milk for tea/coffee when the dairy milk is paid for. Requesting a vegan option when work puts on food for everyone else. Those things never even occurred to me, because it's always just been a given at places I've worked, because they're not dickheads. They pay for everyone to have milk. Of course it's ok for us to have a bit of non-dairy milk instead. It'd take a pretty horiffic penny-pinching company to deny that, and I suspect if they did say no to it before this ruling, their answer will be to cut off everyone's milk for 'fairness'. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts