The French government issued a decree Tuesday banning the term “steak” on the label of vegetarian products, saying it was reserved for meat alone.
You go into it. Not me.
You did:
it is for those who want to stop supporting the destruction of the planet and the murdering of billions of sentient beings for their pleasure.
You don’t even notice it, do you. You’re the walking, talking, stereotype of a preachy vegan, leaving out no opportunity to signal how oh superior you are to everyone else because you stick to a certain set of behaviours you call ethical. Tough luck: I’m not going to treat you as a saint for that but just like any other human with dietary preference for any random reason, and that’s for your own good.
It is not only steak, it is milk where the industry lobbied hard to prevent the use even though plant milk is older than the milk of other species.
What. You mean the Indo-European Urpeople ground nuts into paste and diluted them with water? They definitely had millstones but that’s a lot of work for what reason exactly, you can eat nuts and drink water without preparing them while meanwhile, they were nomadic pastoralists. It’s where the lot of Europe and India have our lactose tolerance from. Indians even kept the whole religious status of cows thing.
Might look differently in other parts of the world but generally speaking pastoralism is way older than agriculture and with it millstones, much less electricity to make the whole process worth doing for anyone but kings out to impress people.
You asked for reasons
Why, pray tell, are you insistent on diluting the clarity of that label? Is it so aesthetically pleasing to you that you just cannot help yourself but enjoy it even though you don’t want to have to do anything with meat?
And I gave reasons
it is for those who want to stop supporting the destruction of the planet and the murdering of billions of sentient beings for their pleasure.
Your cognitive dissonance fries your brain.
“It is for certain people” is not a reasoning. How is it for those people? What is the benefit they would gain from that? Is that benefit marginal, or significant? Does it impact other people? How do those things balance out? Should we ignore interests of other people because we judge them morally inferior, even if it’s a seemingly innocuous thing as a word continuing to signify what it has signified since time immemorial? Politically/strategically speaking, is pissing those people off by infringing on their language making it more or less likely that they adopt the set of morals we think they should adopt?
How is it for those people
In the same way people who don’t want to get drunk drink alcohol free beer if they like the taste. And there is no moral assessment in drinking one or the other. I gave you a possible reason. Just like the person which drinks alcohol free beer might have to drive. It is a reason, you get all emotional and I think you should work on that or else you end up like the antivegan meatflakes. Good luck
