Vegan Restaurant: The Good & The Bad

  • Thread starter Thread starter G01
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around the menu offerings at a vegan restaurant that include imitation meat dishes, which some participants find contradictory to the essence of veganism. There is a consensus that instead of imitating meat, vegan cuisine should focus on creating flavorful, authentic plant-based dishes. Many express discomfort with the idea of consuming heavily processed meat substitutes, arguing that it undermines the appeal of veganism. Concerns are raised about the health implications of a vegan diet, particularly for children, citing potential nutritional deficiencies. Participants also debate the appropriateness of labeling plant-based foods with meat terminology, advocating for clearer naming conventions that reflect the actual ingredients. Overall, the conversation highlights philosophical disagreements about the nature of veganism and the role of imitation meat in plant-based diets.
  • #61
there is definitely an antireligious bent to this forum. and the statement above seems a way to defame vegans, so could use a reference.

personally, i don't care what adults do with themselves, as long as children (present or future) are not involved. i understand that some people don't want to harm animals, and while i feel that's got a bit of a religious backing to, it's your right to follow your beliefs.

as for my beefs with veganism, I've started by backing it up with studies, and I'm perfectly willing to carry on a pubmed battle here to support my view. and believe me, there's a lot more.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
Look man, she's pretty reasonable. If you've got something to say that's true and you can demonstrate it and present it in an objective way she will let it be. Maybe start off by putting the basics out there, the absolutely and easily proveable stuff.

You can try finding supporting information in textbooks too at http://books.google.com/. (Though obviously, it has to be a reputable source and not just some mass-market book about dieting that isn't cited.)

I find the mods on this site are quite reasonable on the whole. I've had some tiffs over one comment or another, but even if something is borderline they'll discuss it amongst themselves so it's not just one person's judgement, or another practical way they often deal with things is to leave a borderline comment out there but lock the thread it's in. They are serious in their pursuit of fairness and definitely effective in allowing lots of different opinions but preventing the site from degrading into a verbal food fight like so many places are.
⚛​
 
Last edited:
  • #63
Proton Soup said:
there is definitely an antireligious bent to this forum. and the statement above seems a way to defame vegans, so could use a reference.

personally, i don't care what adults do with themselves, as long as children (present or future) are not involved. i understand that some people don't want to harm animals, and while i feel that's got a bit of a religious backing to, it's your right to follow your beliefs.

as for my beefs with veganism, I've started by backing it up with studies, and I'm perfectly willing to carry on a pubmed battle here to support my view. and believe me, there's a lot more.

I admit that veganism is a notable cause , I have supported the antivivisection society when I was in college. However I knew people who were vegans and all of them were just miserable. It is true that we are treating some animals like **** and this needs to be taken into account , however it is my opinion that we are mostly carnivorous in nature , and not eating meat is not going to have any vicarious effect in mobilizing people to treat animals any better.
 
  • #64
GCT said:
I admit that veganism is a notable cause , I have supported the antivivisection society when I was in college. However I knew people who were vegans and all of them were just miserable. It is true that we are treating some animals like **** and this needs to be taken into account , however it is my opinion that we are mostly carnivorous in nature , and not eating meat is not going to have any vicarious effect in mobilizing people to treat animals any better.

i hear you, i am a devout omnivore, myself. it's just the way we're made.

and i am troubled if I'm eating a chicken wing and find a broken bone. it bothers me to think that people have mishandled my food.
 
  • #65
EsoEng said:
I am stating that Evo is biased against vegans and vegan issues.

I posted two responses into this thread. Both were deleted by Evo using the trumped-up excuse that they made claims which were not supported.

Go through this thread and note how many anti-vegan posts have been made, including by Evo herself, which make strong claims but offer nothing to support them.

Why do those posts remain whilst mine are deleted? Evo is not answering my PMed question concerning this issue. The guilty often remain silent when cornered.
Your posts were deleted because they contained dangerous health misinformation and parts were pure crackpot, which is why you were told you had to furnish valid studies to back up your crackpot claims.

Your pm's were nonsensical rants.
 
  • #66
GCT said:
I admit that veganism is a notable cause , I have supported the antivivisection society when I was in college.

Whoa - vivisection is still performed? I was reading magazine articles from a hundred years ago that mentioned it, I thought it wasn't practiced any more.
⚛​
 
  • #67
Evo said:
Your posts were deleted because they contained dangerous health misinformation and parts were pure crackpot, which is why you were told you had to furnish valid studies to back up your crackpot claims.

Your pm's were nonsensical rants.

There you go again with your favourite word ‘crackpot’! How you love to use that word, and how so ironic it is that you do.

What qualifies you to decide what is ‘crackpot’ or not? Is that not the whole point of citing valid sources when we make claims? As I have written before, where is the evidence to support your claims, and the claims of the other posters here? How are your claims and their claims safe and mine dangerous? Let’s see some evidence.

This is a simple case of you having power here over what people see and what they do not see. This is nothing to do with rules; you only use rules when you feel like it, when it suits your agenda and your belief system.

It is easy to claim that something is dangerous, but harder to prove it. I claim that your actions here, your posts, and some of the other outlandish posts in this thread (all of which do not support their wild claims) are in fact dangerous and invalid.

I could find solid evidence to support all that I wrote, even some of the info I heard from academics talking, and who do not refer the listener to particular journals every third word. But should I devote the time to do so? Would that be efficient?

What is this, a general chat section in an informal section of an internet forum or a meeting of policy making academics at the Royal Society? Whatever it is, the double standards are undeniable; the proof is in this thread: You allow what you want and disallow what you do not want. It has nothing to do with citing journals. That is just an excuse you use. It is one rule for some and another rule for others.

How about I repost my two comments stating that they are my opinion? We could then let others decide whether or not it is just and fair to delete my posts, whilst others, which also provide no references, remain.
 
  • #68
CaptainQuasar said:
Whoa - vivisection is still performed? I was reading magazine articles from a hundred years ago that mentioned it, I thought it wasn't practiced any more.
⚛​


Yep , some people believe it's the best way to elucidate what is going on under the influence of certain immediate effects of drugs for example. Some scientists within organizations may dispute this claim e.g. some members of the MAYO clinic. Yeah Descartes wasn't the only one who believed in this principle. It happens.
 
  • #69
EsoEng said:
I could find solid evidence to support all that I wrote, even some of the info I heard from academics talking, and who do not refer the listener to particular journals every third word. But should I devote the time to do so? Would that be efficient?

The mods are the ones donating their time to keep the wagon train moving on a site that people rely on for accurate information. So yes, it is far more appropriate for you to devote the time to proving what you say than it is for Evo or any of the others to slacken the standards of an effective approach to moderating.

It certainly would be a more efficient use of your time than cranking out reams of "you fail to see the violence inherent in the system!"

There are just some practical policies that have to be in place to effectively run a forum site like this. One of them is putting the squeeze on newbies who come in swinging improbable-looking claims around without proven support. Deal with it.
⚛​
 
  • #70
EsoEng has a 3 day 'time out" due to further issues. He's welcome to post scientifically sound health information when he returns.
 
  • #71
Will there be a vegetarian option for the fish slapping?
 
  • #72
mgb_phys said:
Will there be a vegetarian option for the fish slapping?
We had cereal and low carb options, but they never caught on. I think someone got hit with tofu once.
 
  • #74
Evo said:
We had cereal and low carb options, but they never caught on. I think someone got hit with tofu once.

wet noodle lashings can be vicious.
 
  • #75
Proton Soup said:
wet noodle lashings can be vicious.
Was she wearing a tight patent-leather leather Nazi costume and high-heeled boots?


(Just checking up on an old friend...)
 

Similar threads

Can You Stomach These Extreme Global Delicacies?
  • · Replies 78 ·
3
Replies
78
Views
13K