The French government issued a decree Tuesday banning the term “steak” on the label of vegetarian products, saying it was reserved for meat alone.
The French government issued a decree Tuesday banning the term “steak” on the label of vegetarian products, saying it was reserved for meat alone.
That kind of label already exists: It resembles the shape of the letters “Steak” so closely one might even mistake it for the word.
Why, pray tell, are you insistent on diluting the clarity of that label? Is it so aesthetically pleasing to you that you just cannot help yourself but enjoy it even though you don’t want to have to do anything with meat?
Well, I guess it shows that some people learn only shapes instead of reading.
Still unclear who was killed, maybe there are some more shapes around? They indicate what Animal it was, you know there is more than one?
Now imagine if you will, we could use that space where it says “pig” and replace it with “saitan” for example? Mind blown, if you put 2 or more of these cryptic runes together we can transport more information.
I don’t care much for it, it is for those who want to stop supporting the destruction of the planet and the murdering of billions of sentient beings for their pleasure. It makes it easier for them if they don’t have to change too much.
Now imagine if you will, we could use that space where it says “organic” and replace it with “pork”, for example? “pork cauliflower”. Makes perfect sense.
No. It is for people who want to proclaim superior morality but are too lazy to switch their shopping habits from “steak” to “soy patty”. If y’all are so virtuous that should really not be an issue for you.
Who do you think acts more superior, those who kill others for pleasure and destroy the ground, water and air by doing so, or those who don’t need that? Lion on top of the food chain, thats what you are, right?
That’s not the discussion at hand.
I tried very hard to have this discussion without getting into ethics, and I won’t have that discussion either, even if you try to force it on me, even if your personal set of ethics is all you care about in the world at the expense of everything else, including seeing other people’s point of view.
This is about labelling, in particular non-confusing labelling. And how “plant steak” is just as confusing and misleading as “meat cauliflower”.
Just as confusing and nonsensical as “plastic paper” or “liquid mug”. Are you cognitively capable of looking at those latter two terms without moralising? If yes, why not the the previous two?
You go into it. Not me.
Tell me what part of which animal “Steak” is and show me there are no variants and you win.
It is not only steak, it is milk where the industry lobbied hard to prevent the use even though plant milk is older than the milk of other species.
You are the one who brought up moral, maybe that is a you problem you should take care of without projecting.
You did:
You don’t even notice it, do you. You’re the walking, talking, stereotype of a preachy vegan, leaving out no opportunity to signal how oh superior you are to everyone else because you stick to a certain set of behaviours you call ethical. Tough luck: I’m not going to treat you as a saint for that but just like any other human with dietary preference for any random reason, and that’s for your own good.
What. You mean the Indo-European Urpeople ground nuts into paste and diluted them with water? They definitely had millstones but that’s a lot of work for what reason exactly, you can eat nuts and drink water without preparing them while meanwhile, they were nomadic pastoralists. It’s where the lot of Europe and India have our lactose tolerance from. Indians even kept the whole religious status of cows thing.
Might look differently in other parts of the world but generally speaking pastoralism is way older than agriculture and with it millstones, much less electricity to make the whole process worth doing for anyone but kings out to impress people.
You asked for reasons
And I gave reasons
Your cognitive dissonance fries your brain.
“It is for certain people” is not a reasoning. How is it for those people? What is the benefit they would gain from that? Is that benefit marginal, or significant? Does it impact other people? How do those things balance out? Should we ignore interests of other people because we judge them morally inferior, even if it’s a seemingly innocuous thing as a word continuing to signify what it has signified since time immemorial? Politically/strategically speaking, is pissing those people off by infringing on their language making it more or less likely that they adopt the set of morals we think they should adopt?