Hacker News Reader

Comment by munk-a | Hacker News Reader

Eh, even with the lengths this comment went to present a working framing I still don't accept it.

Either cannibalism is so objectionable that I'd refuse to patronize a restaurant that served human flesh, or I'd probably not mind them being cooked side-by-side.

That might be a bigger things for vegans, by buying even vegetarian stuff from burger king you're supporting a company that financially motivates a lot of actions you find unethical - that is logically consistent at least.

Interestingly I don't think it'd be the only logical stance for an ethical vegan - purchasing beyond meat products would signal the company of the increased relative demand of vegetarian substitutes potentially leading to that company investing more in beyond meat products and lowering their meat purchases, decreasing the market stability and liquidity for real meat products.

View on HN

This isn't complicated. Many vegans would prefer to never eat where meat is being served, but recognize the practical reality that if you want business to start providing more ethical alternatives, you need to actually patronize those businesses. So they compromise by providing that revenue, while still trying to avoiding cross-contaminating what they're eating with what they see as murder-byproducts.

So I don't disagree with anything in this statement, but what is it about cross-contaminating that's an issue here specifically? Is there a health reason to avoid any intake of meat products or an ethical/moral one?

For the later case... I'm on board with sane things (don't fry veggie burgers in animal fat) but less with (don't prepare this food where meat products were prepared) simply because... I feel like the same amount of effort should be taken with each meal and vegetarians shouldn't require separate processing things.

To draw a parallel, I'm lactose intolerant myself, but I've always felt it's a bit silly that <GENERIC COFFEE PLACE> has separate blenders for milk/soy/other (except almond, due to the factor of nut allergies).

I'm struggling to think of suitable analogue that would work for someone who eats meat. If you have a better suggestion ill go with that.

You're trying to bring logic into a moral decision. While I agree that that's the way I would approach it, it isn't the only way to approach it. As I said I'm a meat eater so I don't follow all the logical steps to being vegan, but that logical step I do understand.

I think the closest analogue you can find is peanut allergies, but (as far as I've ever seen) no body has that sort of anaphylaxis reaction to meat or the taste of it.

Cooking the burger in beef/pork fat would likely be noticeable, but that is pretty trivial to avoid and _usually_ grills are crudely scraped down between different grillings, that will remove everything but trace amounts.

An allergy isn't a moral choice. Not eating meat is, for many people at least.

>... by buying even vegetarian stuff from burger king you're supporting a company that financially motivates a lot of actions you find unethical...

Vegans say this all the time. You can choose to be 100% consistent with ethics but how far do you take it? Do you shut out your family and close yourself off from most of society?

For the particular extreme religious community (almost cult) I grew up in, meat eating was a sin (more or less). Financial support for a company wasn't really a big deal, it was more about keeping their bodies "pure" for God. I even knew a rancher who raised cattle to sell, but wouldn't eat any kind of animal products himself.

which religion is this ? I know many Hindus & Jains are strictly vegetarian.

My parents are Christians. There are a few Christian denominations/groups/cults with strict food rules, but definitely fringe.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com