Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

In response to Philip Boucher-Hayes' documentary

Options
1356

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Mancomb Seepgood
    Closed Accounts Posts: 417 ✭✭Mancomb Seepgood


    banie01 wrote: »
    The original Email has been posted publicly on the Vegetarian Society's Facebook page.

    After browsing the comments there, it really is an eye opener to dangers of Echo Chambers and the effect that continuous confirmation bias can have.

    The author of the letter also confirms that her stance regarding the EHRC breech is "the law" and that she is writing to RTE as a lawyer!

    Much of what she says is fair comment and I don't necessarily disagree with it,but I'd find it disturbing that she'd challenge this on the basis of the ECHR. I'm no lawyer but article 9 is succinct and easy for anyone to understand. From my read it would protect someone's right to be a vegetarian or vegan, but not prevent criticism of a vegetarian diet. It's such a bizarre position for her to take.

    And yes, Facebook groups tend to be echo chambers.


  • Options
    #63
    SinSim
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23 ✭SinSim


    I agree with the last post regarding article 9 but..

    Is there a precedent of other groups protected under article 9 being subject to the same type of treatment by RTÉ? My point is, if there is a precedent we could compare and if there isn't, the question stands: Why hasn't RTÉ treated other groups protected by the same law this way? and, Would RTÉ treat other groups protected by the same law this way? and then, why not? Or how so? And that could lead us to asking if there is a prejudice towards different groups protected by the same law?

    If you're not sure what I'm referring to when I say treatment, read the original complaint and my first post.

    I stand by what I wrote in my first post. Regarding the law I have no idea. But a complaint of some sort is deserved.


  • Options
    #64
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    SinSim wrote: »
    What's veganism?


    I think if you Google that - you will find plenty of definitions from vegans and otherwise...


  • Options
    #65
    fritzelly
    Registered Users Posts: 17,260 ✭✭✭✭fritzelly


    SinSim wrote: »
    If you're not sure what I'm referring to when I say treatment, eat the original complaint and my first post.

    Thats against my belief system I'm afraid


  • Options
    #66
    SinSim
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23 ✭SinSim


    fritzelly wrote: »
    SinSim wrote: »
    If you're not sure what I'm referring to when I say treatment, eat the original complaint and my first post.

    Thats against my belief system I'm afraid

    ja ja


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    tayto lover
    Registered Users Posts: 51,508 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    SinSim wrote: »
    What's veganism?

    I don't know as I didn't use the term.
    #You might ask the good doctor who wrote the letter of complaint.


  • Options
    #68
    SinSim
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23 ✭SinSim


    gozunda wrote: »
    SinSim wrote: »
    What's veganism?


    I think if you Google that - you will find plenty of definitions from vegans and otherwise...

    I was specifically asking for your definition


  • Options
    #69
    banie01
    Registered Users Posts: 16,490 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    SinSim wrote: »
    I agree with the last post regarding article 9 but..

    Is there a precedent of other groups protected under article 9 being subject to the same type of treatment by RTÉ? My point is, if there is a precedent we could compare and if there isn't, the question stands: Why hasn't RTÉ treated other groups protected by the same law this way? and, Would RTÉ treat other groups protected by the same law this way? and then, why not? Or how so? And that could lead us asking if there is a prejudice towards different groups protected by the same law?

    If you're not sure what I'm referring to when I say treatment, eat the original complaint and my first post.

    I stand by what I wrote in my first post. Regarding the law I have no idea. But a complaint of some sort is deserved.

    What protection do you believe Article 9 offers that was impugned by the programme?

    There has been no illegal action undertaken and the original complaints reliance on article 9 would be tenuous if attempted by a lay person but to be the foundation used by a qualified legal professional is frankly absurd.

    Freedom of conscience is protected, however that does not mean alternative views, opinion or belief is at odds with that protection.
    Indeed if it were, those taking the alternate viewpoint would surely be just as entitled to same protections under article 9 as the chairperson is claiming.


  • Options
    #70
    Skedaddle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 777 ✭✭✭Skedaddle


    Surely RTE presenters and anyone else also has freedom of conscience and can disagree with someone else's point of view?

    Neither RTE nor the state nor anyone else is preventing anyone from being a vegan, discussing veganism, presenting their views on veganism, promoting a vegan lifestyle or anything else.

    The documentary doesn't even look unbalanced. It just explored a topic.

    If nobody can discuss anything, we might as well just shut down the media, the internet and ban from people from speaking in public.


  • Options
    #71
    SinSim
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23 ✭SinSim


    I've just had an epiphany... veganism hasn't anything to do with vegetables. I just read in Wikipedia that's it's got nothing to do with food! This is so weird. Veganism is about animals... ya wouldn't think by the name, wud'ya? I thought all the cranks were obsessed with their greens 'n' stuff. But actually it's an ideology.. go figure. The ol' veggies believe animals have a right to their own lives and their against any type of animal explotación. Another thing I read on Wikipedia is that, wait for it... we're animals too! - go figure. But we have rights already or at least most of us have the most important ones. Oh god, I'm beginning to feel really bad :-( why can't other animals have rights? I'd hate to live a life like theirs. Oh no, I wish I never thought of this, it feels horrible inside.. what have we been doing... we eat them. We eat other animals. That's so screwed up. What must it feel like to be animal? Hold on, I am an animal. I already know how it feels to be an animal.. oh my god.. what have I done ...............................


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    SinSim
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23 ✭SinSim


    Skedaddle wrote: »
    Surely RTE presenters and anyone else also has freedom of conscience and can disagree with someone else's point of view?

    Neither RTE nor the state nor anyone else is preventing anyone from being a vegan, discussing veganism, presenting their views on veganism, promoting a vegan lifestyle or anything else.

    The documentary doesn't even look unbalanced. It just explored a topic.

    If nobody can discuss anything, we might as well just shut down the media, the internet and ban from people from speaking in public.

    What's your own personal understanding of veganism? It's a good base line for chatting about it here.


  • Options
    #73
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    SinSim wrote: »
    I agree with the last post regarding article 9 but..

    Is there a precedent of other groups protected under article 9 being subject to the same type of treatment by RTÉ? My point is, if there is a precedent we could compare and if there isn't, the question stands: Why hasn't RTÉ treated other groups protected by the same law this way? and, Would RTÉ treat other groups protected by the same law this way? and then, why not? Or how so? And that could lead us to asking if there is a prejudice towards different groups protected by the same law?

    If you're not sure what I'm referring to when I say treatment, eat the original complaint and my first post.

    I stand by what I wrote in my first post. Regarding the law I have no idea. But a complaint of some sort is deserved.

    That's a lot of supposition and to many "ifs" to be a serious question imo

    Btw I am an ethical reader and it is against my beliefs to "eat" words. ;) Thanks

    I don't believe there are any grounds for that complaint having seen the program ...


  • Options
    #74
    Skedaddle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 777 ✭✭✭Skedaddle


    SinSim wrote: »
    What's your own personal understanding of veganism? It's a good base line for chatting about it here.

    So basically you want me to justify my existence or exit the forum.

    Fine.

    I won't be back. It's reasons like this I don't bother engaging with political aspects of my diet.


  • Options
    #75
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    SinSim wrote: »
    I was specifically asking for your definition

    I think you were asking a number of posters but not specifically myself.

    Why are you asking? - are you unsure what veganism entails?
    SinSim wrote:
    What's your own personal understanding of veganism? It's a good base line for chatting about it here.

    As you're asking - perhaps you should start by giving your own understanding or definition ..


  • Options
    #76
    SinSim
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23 ✭SinSim


    banie01 wrote: »
    SinSim wrote: »
    I agree with the last post regarding article 9 but..

    Is there a precedent of other groups protected under article 9 being subject to the same type of treatment by RTÉ? My point is, if there is a precedent we could compare and if there isn't, the question stands: Why hasn't RTÉ treated other groups protected by the same law this way? and, Would RTÉ treat other groups protected by the same law this way? and then, why not? Or how so? And that could lead us asking if there is a prejudice towards different groups protected by the same law?

    If you're not sure what I'm referring to when I say treatment, eat the original complaint and my first post.

    I stand by what I wrote in my first post. Regarding the law I have no idea. But a complaint of some sort is deserved.

    What protection do you believe Article 9 offers that was impugned by the programme?

    There has been no illegal action undertaken and the original complaints reliance on article 9 would be tenuous if attempted by a lay person but to be the foundation used by a qualified legal professional is frankly absurd.

    Freedom of conscience is protected, however that does not mean alternative views, opinion or belief is at odds with that protection.
    Indeed if it were, those taking the alternate viewpoint would surely be just as entitled to same protections under article 9 as the chairperson is claiming.

    None and I already said that. And since there was nothing that I could see that violated a protection in article 9, I was trying to look at it in a different way. I wanted to look at it from the point of view of precedents and how that in of and itself could establish at least prejudice. Prejudice in the way that "we" could be more liberal or generous with our protections towards one group than another and vice versa. I was just trying to get the intelligent people thinking, that's all. I haven't a clue about law.


  • Options
    #77
    UsedToWait
    Registered Users Posts: 2,273 ✭✭✭UsedToWait


    SinSim wrote: »
    What's your own personal understanding of veganism? It's a good base line for chatting about it here.

    Skedaddle wrote: »
    So basically you want me to justify my existence or exit the forum.

    Fine.

    I won't be back. It's reasons like this I don't bother engaging with political aspects of my diet.


    Ah I think you took offence a little easily there, if you don't mind me saying.
    The poster, for reasons not entirely clear, asked the same question of several people..

    No need to flounce out of the thread slamming the door after you..


  • Options
    #78
    SinSim
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23 ✭SinSim


    gozunda wrote: »
    SinSim wrote: »
    I agree with the last post regarding article 9 but..

    Is there a precedent of other groups protected under article 9 being subject to the same type of treatment by RTÉ? My point is, if there is a precedent we could compare and if there isn't, the question stands: Why hasn't RTÉ treated other groups protected by the same law this way? and, Would RTÉ treat other groups protected by the same law this way? and then, why not? Or how so? And that could lead us to asking if there is a prejudice towards different groups protected by the same law?

    If you're not sure what I'm referring to when I say treatment, eat the original complaint and my first post.

    I stand by what I wrote in my first post. Regarding the law I have no idea. But a complaint of some sort is deserved.

    That's a lot of supposition and to many "ifs" to be a serious question imo

    Btw I am an ethical reader and it is against my beliefs to "eat" words. ;) Thanks

    I don't believe there are any grounds for that complaint having seen the program ...

    Thanks for the advice. I'm going to eat, I mean delete all the ifs and see how it reads. :-D


  • Options
    #79
    SinSim
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23 ✭SinSim


    UsedToWait wrote: »
    SinSim wrote: »
    What's your own personal understanding of veganism? It's a good base line for chatting about it here.

    Skedaddle wrote: »
    So basically you want me to justify my existence or exit the forum.

    Fine.



    I won't be back. It's reasons like this I don't bother engaging with political aspects of my diet.


    Ah I think you took offence a little easily there, if you don't mind me saying.
    The poster, for reasons not entirely clear, asked the same question of several people..

    No need to flounce out of the thread slamming the door after you..


    Did I just miss something?


  • Options
    #80
    banie01
    Registered Users Posts: 16,490 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    SinSim wrote: »
    None and I already said that. And since there was nothing that I could see that violated a protection in article 9, I was trying to look at it in a different way. I wanted to look at it from the point of view of precedents and how that in of and itself could establish at least prejudice. Prejudice in the way that "we" could be more liberal or generous with our protections towards one group than another and vice versa. I was just trying to get the intelligent people thinking, that's all. I haven't a clue about law.

    You asked for a precedent of other"protected groups" being treated the same way.
    That would be for you to research and present as part of an argument, or rebuttal against the manner in which RTE presented the programme, not a question to be thrown out as a fishing expedition.

    With regards your comment regarding prejudice and protections.
    I have no care in the world if people are Vegan, Omni, Pesca...
    It is not a matter of concern precisely because it is a freedom of conscience.
    Comparing that documentary to actions that actually do contravene article 9 is disingenuous to say the least and is a reactionary and hysterical starting point to any discussion on the matter.


  • Options
    #81
    SinSim
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23 ✭SinSim


    Ah, I asked a couple of people about veganism because it was becoming clear that not everyone actually understands what it is. So, I just thought that it would be a better talking point than talking about article 9 and so on.

    Sorry ðŸ˜


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    banie01
    Registered Users Posts: 16,490 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    SinSim wrote: »
    Ah, I asked a couple of people about veganism because it was becoming clear that not everyone actually understands what it is. So, I just thought that it would be a better talking point than talking about article 9 and so on.

    Sorry ðŸ˜

    TBH it seems like you asked people about veganism to bait a trap that noone took.
    Then you launched into your epiphany "animal" soliloquy.
    Noone is doubting or questioning the Moral//Ethical choicw behind Veganism, yet you seem determined to ram it home.

    What is your actual point?


  • Options
    #83
    Water John
    Registered Users Posts: 21,133 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    Yes, Veganism is all about how humans treat other animal species. Not to exploit or injure them. Problem is, it seems to be about animals of a certain size. If I, or a vegan walk across a grass field, we both probably crush and kill hundreds of spiders, under our feet. Doesn't matter whether the shoes are leather or not.


  • Options
    #84
    SinSim
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23 ✭SinSim


    banie01 wrote: »
    SinSim wrote: »
    None and I already said that. And since there was nothing that I could see that violated a protection in article 9, I was trying to look at it in a different way. I wanted to look at it from the point of view of precedents and how that in of and itself could establish at least prejudice. Prejudice in the way that "we" could be more liberal or generous with our protections towards one group than another and vice versa. I was just trying to get the intelligent people thinking, that's all. I haven't a clue about law.

    You asked for a precedent of other"protected groups" being treated the same way.
    That would be for you to research and present as part of an argument, or rebuttal against the manner in which RTE presented the programme, not a question to be thrown out as a fishing expedition.

    With regards your comment regarding prejudice and protections.
    I have no care in the world if people are Vegan, Omni, Pesca...
    It is not a matter of concern precisely because it is a freedom of conscience.
    Comparing that documentary to actions that actually do contravene article 9 is disingenuous to say the least and is a reactionary and hysterical starting point to any discussion on the matter.

    😭


  • Options
    #85
    SinSim
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23 ✭SinSim


    I think I've had enough of this. When it stops feeling good, it's time to leave.


    So happy I don't live in Ireland.


  • Options
    #86
    SinSim
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23 ✭SinSim


    Water John wrote: »
    Yes, Veganism is all about how humans treat other animal species. Not to exploit or injure them. Problem is, it seems to be about animals of a certain size. If I, or a vegan walk across a grass field, we both probably crush and kill hundreds of spiders, under our feet. Doesn't matter whether the shoes are leather or not.

    Well said. After all it's all about disproving the vegans. Forget about the animals.


  • Options
    #87
    Skedaddle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 777 ✭✭✭Skedaddle


    SinSim wrote: »
    I think I've had enough of this. When it stops feeling good, it's time to leave.


    So happy I don't live in Ireland.

    Why?

    People actually discuss things that they're uncomfortable with and we have television documentaries that we don't all agree with?

    Good journalism is supposed to challenge and probe. It's not there to make anyone feel comfortable or re-enforce any belief. It's there to ask questions and explore.


  • Options
    #88
    Water John
    Registered Users Posts: 21,133 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    Sim, I don't forget the animals, but a position must be logical. That is why vegans go beyond, just not eating meat, to wearing anything, derived from an animal.Don't bother with the distraction. Very used to debating points.


  • Options
    #89
    Escapees
    Registered Users Posts: 590 ✭✭✭Escapees


    SinSim wrote: »
    I think I've had enough of this. When it stops feeling good, it's time to leave.

    But sure didn't you only join boards.ie today?!!! I have to wonder at this point, what was your agenda?

    Personally, for what it's worth, I did take issue with some aspects of the documentary. Especially PBH ignoring the advice on taking supplements etc. Mind you, I know of strict vegans who don't look at all healthy and so maybe there's a lesson after all to be taken from the program by such vegans... But it's the manner in which the original letter of complaint was written and the associating of the Dept of Law in NUIG etc. etc. that has wound me and many others up. That's the pity in all of this really...


  • Options
    #90
    Mancomb Seepgood
    Closed Accounts Posts: 417 ✭✭Mancomb Seepgood


    Water John wrote: »
    Yes, Veganism is all about how humans treat other animal species. Not to exploit or injure them. Problem is, it seems to be about animals of a certain size. If I, or a vegan walk across a grass field, we both probably crush and kill hundreds of spiders, under our feet. Doesn't matter whether the shoes are leather or not.

    I don't see where the problem is.If someone is a vegan for reasons of animal welfare,they are taking a conscious choice about their diet/apparel with the end of reducing harm and suffering of animals.All of our choices in life have impacts,some harmful,but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't reduce the harm we cause to others.

    That assumes that someone has a vegan diet purely because of the animal welfare implications,there are other reasons (environmental impact,for one).


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Water John
    Registered Users Posts: 21,133 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    Well environmental aspect, of a vegetarian diet would be mainly concerned about, food miles. Better not eat the sugar snaps from Kenya or the grapes from South Africa.
    I am simply pointing out, the logical extension of any such position.


Advertisement