Zombienosh wrote: » Yeah I deleted facebook for a while but went back for the groups/events and interacting with business pages.
Thank you for your most recent email regarding Guinness. It is always good to hear from our loyal Guinness consumers. We are delighted to receive any feedback on our products and communications, as it keeps us in touch with the people that matter. Innovation is at the heart of our brewing credentials. As one of the most progressive breweries in the world, our talented brewers have introduced a new filtration process which has removed the use of isinglass as a means of filtration. All Guinness Draught produced in keg format at St. James’s Gate Brewery and served in pubs, bars and restaurants around the world, is brewed without using isinglass to filter the beer and vegans can now enjoy a pint of Guinness. We want to reassure you that the recipe for Guinness and taste has not changed. Isinglass is not an ingredient and had no impact on the taste of Guinness. It was purely used a means of clarifying the beer. It’s the same great pint of Guinness it’s always been, loved by millions of people around the world. Production and distribution has also commenced on the bottle and can formats of Guinness Draught. It will take some time to reach the full scale distribution of these formats, but this is expected by the end of 2017. Our advice is to check https://www.guinness.com/en-gb/frequently-asked-questions/ for information about Guinness produced with our new filtration system. We thank you for your interest in our brand and we look forward to hearing from you again in the future.
Mr.Saturn wrote: » Draught Guinness is finally vegan-friendly, lads. From what I've read, it's been 2 years since they first announced the move, but they've now got the new system in place, so it's all good.
loveisdivine wrote: » I just made the mistake of reading that thread in the farming forum about us extremist vegans. It was a really depressing read. Every single 'bingo' you could imagine. I know out of everyone on the planet, farmers are gonna be the last ones to change their views but it's still sad to read.
Dakota Dan wrote: » Sure what would us farmers know about farming?
loveisdivine wrote: » The gleeful posts about plants having feelings tells me some of you might not know that much. We also had classics such as - " but worms/mice die to grow your vegetables" It's about REDUCING suffering, not pretending we can eliminate it entirely from the planet. " the cow stands for the bull" so that definitely means she's consented to being a milk machine for humans. "Vegans aren't living in the real world" - Erm, hello, I'm here living in the real world just like you, only I've reduced my contribution to animal suffering immensely. "African families have a few chickens and a cow" - So that means it's ok for the rest of the world to continue with unsustainable and cruel factory farming? " How do you know someone's a vegan? Don't worry they'll tell you" From the non vegans that started a thread about vegans ??? All this nonsense being spouted is nothing new, we've heard it all before and we've got answers for all of it too.http://yourveganfallacyis.com/en
gozunda wrote: » And for each of the 'nonsense' examples listed above I have heard similar classic nonsense 'answers' from vegan sources - so no no-one wins there. It is unfortunate that the like of Carbstrong is using mindgames and hysterics to promote veganism which is doing more harm than good imo. For example most farming in Ireland is not 'factory type farming'. The examples and data to promote the more extreme forms of veganism are frequently those seen in the US etc. Applying words such as 'rape to AI is illogical at best. The reasoning given is that as cows can't consent- it is 'rape'. Can any animal wild, domestic or otherwise consent to medical help or intervention? If a cow has other gynecological problems not involving AI and intervention is required to 'reduce suffering' - is that 'rape' Do we leave animals die just because they cant consent to any medical intervention? How would that reduce suffering? The no matter what form of agriculture we adopt - animals are going to die in their hundreds of thousands- whether they are wild animals or birds displaced and killed through deforestation for or by arable farming or the farming of livestock directly. The method chosen doesn't help to reduce suffering - it simply shifts the goalposts. Animals die on our roads, animals die by our industrial processes. Animals die because of our waste and our need for houses and development. We can argue till the end if time about which one causes most 'suffering' but that does not change the basic fact that the pure weight of humans on this planet by itself is Armageddon to all the other animals. That does not mean we should not try and adopt change. But even a small number of extremists attacking farmers and issuing death threats is going to produce a backlash. Gleeful comments such as one above "thankfully regardless of what you know there’ll be less of you in the not too distant future." are everybit as bad as those you exemplified. And where does all that get us? Therin lies the real issue of the present discussion
Crop fields do indeed disrupt the habitats of wild animals, and wild animals are also killed when harvesting plants. However, this point makes the case for a plant-based diet and not against it, since many more plants are required to produce a measure of animal flesh for food (often as high as 12:1) than are required to produce an equal measure of plants for food (which is obviously 1:1). Because of this, a plant-based diet causes less suffering and death than one that includes animals. It is pertinent to note that the idea of perfect veganism is a non-vegan one. Such demands for perfection are imposed by critics of veganism, often as a precursor to lambasting vegans for not measuring up to an externally-imposed standard. That said, the actual and applied ethics of veganism are focused on causing the least possible harm to the fewest number of others. It is also noteworthy that the accidental deaths caused by growing and harvesting plants for food are ethically distinct from the intentional deaths caused by breeding and slaughtering animals for food. This is not to say that vegans are not responsible for the deaths they cause, but rather to point out that these deaths do not violate the vegan ethics stated above.
loveisdivine wrote: » When talking about consent, I think it's important to differentiate between taking action for your own benefit (like impregnating so you can take her milk) and taking action solely for the purpose of reducing the animals suffering (pain relief, treatment of disease, euthanasia etc)
loveisdivine wrote: » You really can't equate providing medical treatment so an animal can live (in peace, free from human exploitation I might add) to planned insemination via bull or AI so you can profit from her. It's not remotely the same thing.
loveisdivine wrote: » Yes, animals die to produce vegan food, like vegetables etc. But, as the link I posted explains
This is not to say that vegans are not responsible for the deaths they cause, but rather to point out that these deaths do not violate the vegan ethics stated above.
loveisdivine wrote: » I didn't make the comment you quoted about there being less farmers in the future, so I can't respond to it.
loveisdivine wrote: » Yes there are some vegan extremists, death threats are "extreme". But the actual death/killing that farmers/meat eaters partake in is not?
loveisdivine wrote: » I'd also like to see some hard evidence of these death threats. I know that young woman that did the video interview with the BBC lambasting us terrible vegans actually backtracked about a week later, saying that she herself hadn't actually received any death threats, but of course nobody was as quick to splash that over the front pages.
loveisdivine wrote: » I don't believe I've ever seen Joey Carbstrong being "hysterical" but maybe I've just missed that interview. Either way, it's awfully easy for people to say "Look, those couple of vegans are putting themselves under the spotlight and their views are "extreme" so I can discredit the whole movement and keep using and killing animals for my own benefit"
loveisdivine wrote: » I see it as an 'easy out'. You want all vegans to be perfect and not saying anything you find offensive and then you'll consider veganism. But of course, conveniently, that will never happen. Everybody shouts extremism, the farmers supposedly getting death threats become the poor victims and the focus is pushed away from the actual victims, the sentient beings that are being used and killed every single day.
gozunda wrote: » No that has not been the case. One of the principle promoters of the 'rape' argument has been Mr Carbstrong et al. He repeatedly states because there is no 'consent' with what we do with animals then AI is 'rape'. By definition there can be no consent for any interaction we have with animals wild or otherwise - therefore saying that is 'rape' but something similar such as gynecological treatment which may also involve an individual putting their hand up an animals anus or any other treatment without consent is not - is at best disingenuous and a very poor argument imo.
No again the reasoning given fails animals in that it gives vegans a get out of jail free card to ignore the damage that all human activities do to other animals.
Tar.Aldarion wrote: » Ignoring the use of "rape", it's pretty basic social philosophy that it is ok to do things to others for their benefit (such as doctors helping unconscious or mentally ill people) and not for something against their interest/for your own interest.
The whole point of veganism is to accept blame for what humans do and to lessen the impact. People (loud minority aside) are fully away their hurt others by living.
[Deleted User] wrote: » I don’t understand why people are bothering. It’s clear gozunda doesn’t grasp the point of view of a vegan and some of the comments are quite absurd. It also seems gozunda could be carrying a battle in here from a different thread. I’m not having a go at you gozunda but the whole debate seems fairly pointless when coming from your starting position. Cognitive dissonance could be at play but it’s plain to see you are not very close to understanding what animal lovers understand.
[Deleted User] wrote: » As I advised others not to get involved I won’t either. It would be hard for me to converse with someone that doesn’t see any difference between trying to help a wild animal, like a duck with a broken wing or injured foot, to imprisoning an animal, raping it, torturing it and then killing it. If someone in ‘real life’ were to convey that to me I would most definitely laugh or back away slowly depending on their size. Over and out.
Deleted User wrote: » I don’t understand why people are bothering. It’s clear gozunda doesn’t grasp the point of view of a vegan and some of the comments are quite absurd. It also seems gozunda could be carrying a battle in here from a different thread. I’m not having a go at you gozunda but the whole debate seems fairly pointless when coming from your starting position. Cognitive dissonance could be at play but it’s plain to see you are not very close to understanding what animal lovers understand.
gozunda wrote: » Yet it remains that the issue was the use of hyper emotive language ie 'rape' purely to achieve an end regardless of how realistic or logical that language is. I would disagree that this issue necessarily relates to social philosophy* (defined as the study of questions about (human) social behavior and interpretations of society and social institutions in terms of ethical values rather than empirical relations) I think it might be more appropriate to consider it with regard to the philosophy of human rights* (which attempts to examine the underlying basis of the concept of human rights and critically looks at its content and justification) - in this case with regard to animals Ok - however what many see / hear is the loud minority claiming moral authority over others and then beating them with it. I would also argue that it is environmentalism (as a movement) which seeks to primarily mitigate the impacts of all humans and human activities on animals, plants and non-living matter. The issue with some extreme vegan thought is that all the blame is squarely laid at the feet of others with the promise of utopia and a cruelty free world if only the whole world goes vegan. * Wiki definition
[Deleted User] wrote: » I don’t know but a few invested posters will be along soon to tell you how it’s having no impact and it’s only a fad. Non dairy ‘milk’ is probably bad for you. They’ll be telling you that too.
Tar.Aldarion wrote: » Have no idea how it is affecting their sales but you can see from just being in the supermarket that everybody from teenagers to the elderly have it in their baskets now and the Tesco ones are always sold out. My office now uses a load of almond milk when before there was none, here is one of the fridges: One of the biggest milk producers in the US shut down and reopened selling plant based milk. Over there milk sales have been reducing for decades anyway as new drinks in general replaced people drinking milk. I'm sure the figures for here are online, no matter what, even if they are stable or increasing it's beginning to take a lot of sales away from the industry and the trend is worrying for them. There have been a lot of campaign posters by the goveganworld crowd around too.
gozunda wrote: » During the recent shortages - Tesco and the other major supermarkets I visited all ran out of ordinary milk and other dairy products . The plant based alternatives were still on the shelves.... I dont believe that any comparison with the US dairy industry is practically comparable to Ireland or even most parts of the rest of the world tbh. The govegan stuff is just pure hype imo and very poorly done.
Tar.Aldarion wrote: » That's not really got anything to do with any of the points being made, nobody is saying that people don't buy milk. The only brands that are generally sold out are the Tesco ones as I said, as they cost so little which you may have misunderstood as it's not so clearly written. I've barely been able to buy their unsweetened soy milk for months and it's rather annoying but in a good way I guess. The reason many we won't rush to buy them is also that it is longlife, I had no need to go buy more, I have some sitting on top of the fridge. Yeah they are there own country so it's irrelevant to a local topic, have no idea how the milk producers are doing here but I'm guessing the reasons for backlash are primarily due to campaigns like the above and the increasing plantmilk sales in general.
Tar.Aldarion wrote: » I edited that first bit as it seems a bit aggressive. Demand can go down with demand still being high. Demand can even go up but the industry know that it should have gone up much more and not be happy with the limited increase (eg population increase). Demand has reduced in the US for 60 years and is around 7 times less per capita now but demand is still very high. Even if milk consumption is going down in Ireland it would still be in the order of magnitude of millions of litres per week. This can still affect the milik industry badly for individual farmers however. A litre of plantbased milk sold is pretty much one litre of dairy milk not sold which may affect some people who complain to the council to do something...
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wf.vanillicon.com/v2/f0f9dcd3c171b8509db497e3a438e4fb.svg)
