Hacker News Reader

Comment by comrade1 | Hacker News Reader

I'm surprised a Swedish prison doesn't provide a vegan diet. Prisons in California provide a number of different diets, although I'm not sure about vegan. It's a large expense for them.

But that said, I think there are times to give up on your vegan diet having to do with the culture that you find yourself immersed in. This has nothing to do with prisons, but if you're traveling in a culture where veganism is unheard of you should be a good guest and not push your beliefs on them, making your hosts uncomfortable. Just eat the meat.

In the West veganism is a luxury. A fetish for the rich and it is classist. Even outside of the West eggs and animal fat (not meat) are an important diet of many poor people.

View on HN

People in the third world don't eat that much meat because meat is expensive.

Now in the west, eating only plants is an expensive luxury.

The comment you're replying to did specify eggs as being more important in poor diets than other animal meat, which would square with my mother-in-law's experience growing up in the Philippines.

The idea that morals are a fetish or a luxury strikes me as a dangerous point of view. If I went to a country where businessmen frequent 12-year-old prostitutes, would you expect me to do that as well so as to be a good guest? I kind of suspect that in reality, there are things some people do that you simply wouldn't, and you are specifically dismissing veganism because you do not agree with their morals.

I wonder if you feel the same way about Orthodox Jews or Muslims eating pork.

Are you equating eating eggs and animal fat with having sex with twelve year olds? Are you going to Godwin the conversation next?

So you do simply disagree with their moral values, rather than believing morals should be cast aside when people around you hold different ones. That is what I figured.

But surely you can see why vegans, who do believe animals' rights are very important, would not see any more merit to your advice than you would to advice that encouraged you to abandon your deeply held values because they're inconvenient.

We're having multiple conversations here...

I think western wealthy vegans don't have particularly strong morals or ethical values and are vegan for other elitist and classist reasons. I think if they were exposed to the real world they would have a more practical (and Buddhist) outlook on diet.

I don't think they particularly care about animal rights either. You can have a moral and ethical existence and still eat eggs and animal fat.

You still just seem to be asserting "My morals are right and theirs are wrong."

I don't usually like to bring myself into things, but since we're getting into people's thoughts, I'll just be explicit here: I do not believe one can lead a fully moral existence while having animals killed or abused for your convenience. I'm not trying to force this on anyone, but I'm not going to have anyone force it out of me either. You disagree with this belief, and that is your right, but to assume that I secretly know your system of morality is right and mine is wrong seems incredibly pompous to me. I believe what I believe just as strongly as you believe what you do.

Who's talking about killing or abusing animals? Only you are. I'm talking about eating eggs, butter, and for the few cultures that eat it, cheese.

Even in the u.s. you can eat animal products where the animals lead healthy lives.

Female cows only produce milk to feed their young.

Thus, cows are constantly bred. Any male calves are sold off for meat (usually veal which in some countries consists of considerably cruel rearing practices -- if not used for veal they're just shot) and the female calves are used to continue the milk herd.

And that's just considering the dairy products from good farms.

Let's bear in mind that someone is being locked inside a building for a while, just because he once ran a website that became unpopular with the authorities. Debating whether or not he should be fed a vegan diet on the inside is prematurely surrendering the debate that questions whether he should be losing the freedom to control his own diet for that supposed offense.

It is not a binary choice between just loss of freedom and loss of freedom plus compromise of one's dietary practices.

It seems odd that we would be assigning the same punishment regimes to people so pacifist that they won't even eat plankton as we assign to people who destroy human lives with nary an inkling of remorse.

Veganism is something I can understand and respect. The morality of state justice, on the other hand, is far less defensible when you look past its well-groomed public image. Depending on your locale, the prisoners in your nearest prison may be treated with less respect than the animals in your closest slaughterhouse. In that light, making morality-based appeals to the prison kitchen seems almost pointless.

You seriously believe people are vegan for 'elitist and classist reasons'? Maybe some people are vegan because they think it's cool, but 90% of vegans and vegetarians I've met are vegan for either health, environmental, or moral reasons, the latter of which is related to their views on animal rights.

I'm Muslim, and no Islam doesn't advocate having sex with twelve year olds.

Pork can be easily avoided, whilst other meat and animal products are widely used by the food industry (Food additives) that avoiding such products isn't as easy for Vegans.

Morals and ethics, staying true to one's values, that's worth making sacrifices for. I take it from your comment you don't understand that.

Traditional Buddhism actually says you should eat meat if it is given to you as well, and they have been vegetarians centuries longer than the hipsters. They consider wasting food worse than eating meat. You shouldn't allow something to be killed for you, but it is a waste if it has already been killed.

"they have been vegetarians centuries longer than the hipsters"

The implication here seems to be that tradition is a valid justification for beliefs and practices, whereas personal ethics are not; and indeed, anyone pursuing the latter is worthy of stereotyping and derision.

To put this thought in other terms: In the context of contemporary culture, wouldn't you call the Buddha a "hipster"?

Logically, that requires the assumption that your decision to eat meat will not influence how much meat will be farmed in the future.

"Wasting" food when you're trying to send a signal not to produce so much of one type of food is not really waste.

On the contrary. And your comment supports my premise. You have the luxury of being vegan.

I know I'm assuming, but like many wealthy westerners you probably travel to poorer parts of the world. Believe me, you were consuming animal protein or fat even if you were told otherwise. So what did you accomplish other than to show your elitism?

I don't think veganism is a particularly moral or ethical value. It reminds me of a conversation I was a third-party to where an American kept expressing how happy she was that a South American tribal chief was keeping to their "natural" lifestyle, while the chief kept expressing that they want schools and opportunities for his people. They were talking through each other.

You seem to be rather ignorant. Buddhist cuisine for example is generally vegan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_cuisine Granted, there is a fair amount of variation among sects. But it's also around 1/5th the size of Christianity so that's to be expected.

Some paths of Hinduism also hold vegetarianism as an ideal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_and_religion

PS: World wide there are ~250million to 1 billion vegans depending on definitions. AKA is eating insects ok?

We're talking about veganism, not vegetarianism. You obviously didn't read the link you posted.

Edit: I'm responding to your recent edit. No, eating insects is not vegan. Why would you think that? Crickets and cockroaches are quite tasty with soy and sesame oil but not vegan.

The subject of the article would save his health and mind if he consumed eggs and milk.

Veganism when used by it's self is not clearly defined as seperate from vegetarianism.

"Dietary vegans (or strict vegetarians) refrain from consuming animal products, not only meat but, in contrast to ovo-lacto vegetarians, also eggs, dairy products and other animal-derived substances. The term ethical vegan is often applied to those who not only follow a vegan diet, but extend the vegan philosophy into other areas of their lives, and oppose the use of animals and animal products for any purpose.[4] Another term used is environmental veganism, which refers to the avoidance of animal products on the premise that the harvesting or industrial farming of animals is environmentally damaging and unsustainable.[5]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veganism

PS: Also if you actaully read the link: "Jains are either lacto-vegetarians or vegans."

How is veganism a luxury ?, Veganism doesn't imply that the diet only consist of organic produce and Vegetables are far far cheaper than meat.

Probably partially because there's stuff (think vitamin B12 for the most extreme example) you can't get or can't get easily from a vegan diet, needing (oftentimes expensive) supplementation.

I'm guessing that it's a luxury of choice. Poor people can't chose what to eat.

Except that's obviously wrong because plenty of poor people have strict dietary requirements.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com