[HN Gopher] Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners
___________________________________________________________________
Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners
Author : justinmares
Score : 226 points
Date : 2021-11-17 15:47 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (impossiblehq.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (impossiblehq.com)
| decremental wrote:
| Well now I'm definitely not going to eat any of their gross fake
| meat.
| seane wrote:
| That is some bullshit.
| dehrmann wrote:
| If their nutrition products and trademark pre-date Impossible
| Foods, Impossible Foods might be in some trouble. IANAL, but
| trademarks on actual words are first-come, first-served, and for
| a specific context. Apple Computer and Apple Records/Corps.: ok,
| no customer confusion. Apple Computer launches a product called
| iTunes and a service named Apple Music, it gets dicey.
| joeyoungblood wrote:
| Not really that simple. Nissan Motors spent nearly a decade
| dragging a guy with the last name of "Nissan" through trademark
| court battles over his prior existing company "Nissan
| Computers" which did and still does own the domains Nissan.com
| and Nissan.net. Ultimately Nissan Computers won and got a small
| amount back for attorney fees but claims it was less than 2%
| they spent defending their brand and mark (IIRC he did not have
| a federally registered trademark but a service mark from a
| state of something like that).
| gruez wrote:
| docket seems to be this:
| https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59791788/impossible-foo...
|
| I'm interested in seeing Impossible Food's complaint. Anyone with
| PACER access want to download them and share/contribute them to
| courtlistener?
| tslater2006 wrote:
| I just added it. Edit: also added the order to dismiss due to
| lack of personal jurisdiction and the trademark report
| document.
| skmurphy wrote:
| He has to fight back. This happens more than people realize. He
| has a well established trademark that protects an operational
| business. He should be able to win this. I am not an attorney or
| a naming / trademark expert but can recommend some good ones.
| afhjk23bh wrote:
| You will eat the bugs.
|
| You will eat the soy.
|
| You will live in the pod.
|
| You will own nothing.
| nomla wrote:
| Didn't Nissan try something similar to a guy with a the last name
| Nissan and a computer company he named Nissan Computers? I wonder
| if he might have some recommendations to help fight this
| corporate bully.
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| Had a friend named Mike Rowe. We always thought he should start
| Mike Rowe Computers.
| Mordisquitos wrote:
| He wouldn't have been the first to make use of that name:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_v._MikeRoweSoft
| cute_boi wrote:
| From Wikipedia its kinda funny:
|
| The case received international press attention following
| Microsoft's perceived heavy-handed approach to a 12th grade
| student's part-time web design business and the subsequent
| support that Rowe received from the online community. A
| settlement was eventually reached, with Rowe granting
| ownership of the domain to Microsoft in exchange for an
| Xbox and additional compensation.
| [deleted]
| zwieback wrote:
| Reading this: http://casefilingsalert.com/wp-
| content/uploads/2021/05/Impos...
|
| it seems like Impossible X complained first and Impossible food
| is saying that they want it declared that they are not infringing
| on Impossible X's trademarks.
|
| IOW: little guy complained first and big guy is asking for relief
| that they are not doing anything wrong.
|
| Is there more to the story?
| [deleted]
| ramblinrose wrote:
| Thanks for sharing this. It looks like Impossible X (the
| defendant) was the first to sue to have Impossible Foods cease
| using their logo and trademark. And now Impossible Foods isn't
| budging and asserting their weight through counter-suit. It
| still feels very unfair even though the small guy started it;
| he's trying to protect his brand. He has supplied actual cases
| of confusion between the two companies according to this
| filing.
|
| He should have definitely included that information in this
| blog post though. It's more than a little misleading.
| jyxent wrote:
| Were there actually any cases of confusion? Impossible Food's
| filing states: Impossible X also referenced, without
| providing details, "several apparent instances of actual
| confusion."
|
| Unless there are more I'm missed, Impossible X's closest
| trademark covers nutritional supplements. They are arguing
| that allowing Impossible Foods to have a trademark on the
| following would cause confusion: "Providing information about
| recipes, ingredients and cooking information; providing an
| online computer database to consumers eaturing information
| about recipes, ingredients and cooking information". I don't
| really see any overlap.
| jeremyjh wrote:
| Its lying, is what it is.
| jawns wrote:
| And isn't the company that holds the trademark legally
| obligated to defend it? My understanding is that if you
| aren't actively making sure that your trademark is not
| infringed upon, it bolsters the case that the trademark has
| been abandoned.
|
| So it's not like the trademark holder is looking for a fight.
| The law essentially forces their hand.
| jeremyjh wrote:
| And yet that is not the story we were told in the SP. We
| were told a lie.
| Brendinooo wrote:
| Companies can have the same name if they're in different
| industries. Seems like Impossible X/HQ or whatever was
| contending overlap on the nutrition/food side.
|
| I'm not a lawyer and I'm not reading this closely as I'd
| need to in order to be more authoritative, but it seems
| like most of their trademarks are for non-food-related
| sectors. "Pharmaceutical Products" is the only one that
| looks close to "food" in the trademarks I'm seeing on their
| page. Not sure how you get from that to "recipes, food
| ingredients, and cooking information", but would love to
| hear from someone who would know!
| elif wrote:
| at the hazard of siding with bullying megacorps...
|
| isn't the public interest primarily in having a consistent
| definition of "impossible?" One which has been clearly meme'd
| into our culture already?
| joelrunyon wrote:
| Respectfully. You may want to rewrite this.
| ramblinrose wrote:
| Why do you say that? In my comment I'm rooting for you. I
| did say that you should have mentioned this is a counter-
| suit to your own suit, and I stand by that. Why omit that
| information? Or is that a misunderstanding?
| Brendinooo wrote:
| > On November 10, 2020, over five years after Impossible
| Foods commenced use of its IMPOSSIBLE mark, Impossible X,
| through its counsel, sent a demand letter to Impossible
| Foods.
|
| Could you share the letter you sent to them? It might help
| us understand all of this better.
| joelrunyon wrote:
| You left out a pretty big part:
|
| > ...That this Court declare that Impossible X's trademark
| registrations in Registration Nos. 5376208, 5387588, and
| 5620625 be cancelled...
| zwieback wrote:
| got it, so they are saying yours should be cancelled because
| you didn't use it for anything?
| mindslight wrote:
| I'm going to chime in as yet another voice saying it feels
| somewhat cheap for you to have left out the part where
| Impossible X sued Impossible Foods first. Given the
| similarity between the logos and the fact you have to police
| a trademark to protect it, Impossible X's suit appears
| completely justified. But as it stands your current story
| comes across a bit dishonest, as if you're trying to claim
| this attempt to cancel your trademark just came out of
| nowhere. There is a larger situation here, and you do a
| disservice to both your audience and yourself by brushing
| past it.
| TheGigaChad wrote:
| Vegan rats in action.
| solarkraft wrote:
| Wow, this deteriorates my view of impossible foods as the "good
| guys".
|
| I get that they want the brand, but that they apparently haven't
| even attempted to buy it is pretty telling.
| tslater2006 wrote:
| Case number for locating it in PACER: 5:2021cv02419
|
| At a glance of the complaint it seems that Impossible X started
| this with complaints and legal action against mpossible Foods for
| infringing on their trademarks. The complaint additionally shows
| that Impossible X was granted their registration of IMPOSSIBLE on
| Jan 9th, 2018.
| maneesh wrote:
| Here's a list of Impossible trademarks:
| https://impossiblex.com/trademarks/
|
| Note the logo: Class 041 | 025 | 12/18/2012
| https://trademark.trademarkia.com/impossible-85578345.html
|
| The registration date was in 2012, and, apart from the blank
| line in the middle, is identical to impossible food's logo.
| Both use League Gothic Font.
| Brendinooo wrote:
| Impossible Foods absolutely does not use League Gothic. It's
| using Tungsten Semibold, a font by Hoefler&Co.
| tslater2006 wrote:
| Good info thanks. My comment wasn't intended to be a
| statement of fact by me, but rather what Impossible Foods
| claims. The complaint is now available on courtlistener.
| Symmetry wrote:
| That's for a trademark in the context of "exercise and
| fitness" though. You can have one Impossible doing that and
| another Impossible selling food and there's no consumer
| confusion so they're both fine. It's just when the fitness
| company started applying their existing branding to nutrition
| products in apparently 2018 that suddenly there was a
| conflict.
| Sundog wrote:
| Am I reading this wrong or do they just think they can steal the
| trademark because they're bigger? Now that I think about it,
| looks like they ripped off his logo too...
| tomtheelder wrote:
| I don't think that's what's happening at all. Seems like
| Impossible existed prior, and had trademarks. Impossible Foods
| started later, and used the name (and logo for that matter) for
| years without being questioned.
|
| Now recently, Impossible brought trademark threats against
| Impossible Foods. What is being referenced here is like a
| countersuit from Impossible Foods, and their demand is
| specifically that they be granted the Impossible trademark in
| the context of "recipes, food ingredients, and cooking
| information."
|
| The main source of conflict would be around Impossible's
| "Impossible Nutrition," which is trademarked. However,
| Impossible Foods predates that product and trademark.
|
| So it seems like originally there was no conflict as they were
| in different areas- that's totally normal. However after
| Impossible Foods had been created, Impossible launched a line
| of nutrition products that create a possible conflict.
| Impossible then made some trademark threats against Impossible
| Foods, and Impossible Foods has responded with a suit asking
| for relief and that they be granted the Trademark in the
| context of food.
|
| I'm open to the possibility that I'm reading this wrong, but I
| think Impossible Foods is 100% in the right here.
|
| The logo thing is definitely dicier, but they do seem different
| enough that you probably wouldn't get in trouble for that.
| sct202 wrote:
| Yeah the Impossible Foods logo looks like the same font without
| the strike out in the middle. And according to the filings the
| logo been registered to ImpossibleHQ since 2012 and that's also
| documented on the web archive with that same logo being used in
| 2011
| https://web.archive.org/web/20111031071828/http://impossible...
| anm89 wrote:
| Would be epic if he was able to turn this around and get
| millions out of them.
| danlugo92 wrote:
| Why can't I upvote this?
| mint2 wrote:
| Basically this just goes to show the way trademarks work is
| broken. One shouldn't be able to trademark single words, or at
| the very least common ones.
| Symmetry wrote:
| Just because a word is trademarked doesn't mean that someone
| else can't use, or even trademark, the same word in a different
| line of business. I can't call my new OS "Windows". I probably
| won't be able to start a line of computer monitors called
| "Windows" either. But if I wanted to open a line of restaurants
| under the "Windows" brand I'd probably be fine. Trademarks are
| only enforceable when there's a danger of consumer confusion.
| nathanbarry wrote:
| Yikes. I'm glad you're going public with this. Companies
| shouldn't be able to get away with legal bullying like this.
| joelrunyon wrote:
| Thanks for the support.
| whoknowswhat11 wrote:
| Link to Impossible's trademark (for nutrition - they have 18)
|
| https://trademark.trademarkia.com/impossible-nutrition-87116...
|
| This was from 2018 (important I think).
|
| Another was this:
| https://trademark.trademarkia.com/impossible-85578345.html
|
| But the class is not a super overlap with impossible foods.
|
| Here is impossible foods mark.
|
| https://trademarks.justia.com/861/02/impossible-86102158.htm...
|
| 2013 was the filing date here.
|
| With an english language word, the trademark protection is
| (generally) going to be a bit narrower (ie, specific class etc).
|
| For what it is worth, at a 10 second glance this is not the slam
| dunk little vs big player thing.
| londgine wrote:
| If the "later" impossible food succeeds in canceling the
| trademark, does that mean that any company can market their
| product as "impossible burgers"?
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| I'm sure their goal is to steal the trademark for their own
| exclusive use if they can swing that. Nullifying it so it is a
| generic term available to all would be worse for them than
| simply buying it from the rightful owners as they'd have to
| completely rebrand.
| NobodyNada wrote:
| No, Impossible Food is suing to cancel Impossible HQ's
| trademark, and not their own. They want to be the only company
| allowed to use the "Impossible" branding, even though they
| weren't the first.
| Mordisquitos wrote:
| This very much reinforces my scepticism and distrust towards this
| trend of branded so-called "meat-substitutes" and "plant-based
| cheeses" etc. I am not a vegetarian or a vegan but, if I were, I
| would simply eat vegetables, legumes, pasta, rice, bread, fruits,
| nuts, you name it. It's not so hard, it's just normal food that
| has always existed and has always been a part of my diet anyway.
|
| People have eaten non-meat products since the dawn of history.
| For instance, meat was rare in the diets of the lower class of
| many societies, dairy products were only part of the diet of
| specific populations (e.g. Western Europe, Middle East, Masai,
| etc.), and the diet of some cultures has been vegetarian by
| principle from the start (the Jains of India). There are
| countless non-meat based recipes across all cultures, and
| preparing a meal without using meat, cheese or eggs is hardly
| rocket science -- I often do it by accident without noticing.
|
| So, is there really that much value in these industrial "plant-
| based" meat/cheese substitutes? I don't think so, but they're
| being marketed as if they were a great step forward to "reduce
| our dependence on meat" -- a dependence which does not actually
| exist. All I see is disruptive processed-food businesses, trying
| to gain a market captive into their branded products thanks to
| the cultural Zeitgeist and it's focus on sustainability.
|
| The fact that rice, beans, tomatoes, mushrooms, cabbages and
| onions are mere commodities that people can choose based on each
| item's quality, price, and personal tastes from any supplier, to
| cook with them as they please is not convenient for the
| processed-food business. They need people to get used to
| depending on their own branded products, because how else would
| they "substitute meat" out from their diet? This new industry is
| hoping to get younger environmentally-conscious generations to
| understand that, to be sustainable, the normal thing is to eat
| _Beyond Meat(tm)_ , or _Impossible Foods(tm)_ , or whatever other
| brand competes in the market for their attention. God forbid
| people eat mere stir-fried vegetables, legume stews, rice, or a
| myriad other dishes they could cook themselves!
|
| The greatest value of these companies is not in their technology
| to make "meat-substitutes". Rather, it is in getting customers to
| assume that they depend on their brand.
| TheDong wrote:
| > This very much reinforces my skepticism and distrust towards
| this trend of branded so-called "meat-substitutes" and "plant-
| based cheeses" etc
|
| And Microsoft suing MikeRoweSoft
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_v._MikeRoweSoft)
| reinforced my skepticism in "operating systems" and "word
| processors".
|
| The legal matters of a single company are largely unrelated to
| the industry it operates within, and I don't think this
| particular data-point should have any bearing on how you think
| of imitation meat.
|
| The Microsoft lawsuit made me think "microsoft is dumb, I'm
| glad I use linux". This lawsuit, I think reasonably, makes me
| think "Impossible foods might be a dumb company, might have a
| bad legal team etc... I'm glad I eat boca burgers instead".
|
| > People have eaten non-meat products since the dawn of history
| ... So, is there really that much value in these industrial
| "plant-based" meat/cheese substitutes? ... The greatest value
| of these companies is not in their technology to make "meat-
| substitutes". Rather, it is in getting customers to assume that
| they depend on their brand.
|
| Sure, fine. You can also substitute all of that with "We didn't
| use to have McDonalds. McDonalds has value by raising brand
| recognition. We really don't need it though because people can
| just go home and bake their own bread"
|
| I don't think you're making a point specific to the meat
| substitute industry here, nor is it really an actionable point.
| We do live in a society. Companies and brand names do exist.
| People do have different eating habits and expectations than we
| did 1000 years ago. What's the point?
| [deleted]
| buryat wrote:
| > meat was rare in the diets of the lower class of many
| societies
|
| yeah, and the lower class was unhealthy and malnourished
| pxeboot wrote:
| > So, is there really that much value in these industrial
| "plant-based" meat/cheese substitutes?
|
| Yes. There are many people who strongly believe "if there is no
| meat, it's not a meal". The only thing that is going to change
| their mind is something that looks and tastes like meat for a
| lower price.
| Klonoar wrote:
| Meh, let's not conflate the plant based cheese side of things
| with the meat substitute market.
|
| A decent quality plant based cheese is closer in texture to
| hummus and is literally, mostly, ground up nuts - you can make
| it at home in your blender if you want to.
|
| If you're talking processed American cheese style... that game
| is probably lost the minute you choose to eat processed
| American cheese.
| 29254588 wrote:
| >It's not so hard, it's just normal food that has always
| existed and has always been a part of my diet anyway.
|
| It is quite hard for those of us who cut our teeth on processed
| food, where teams of food scientists have tweaked the formula
| to create the most crave able version of every food. That's why
| these meat substitutes are quite appealing.
| MisterBastahrd wrote:
| Modern meat substitutes exist because texture is a huge part of
| eating and also people tend to go with the cuisine they're
| familiar with. Stocking a kitchen for the first time to cook
| Indian food is also a bit pricy. There are a lot of spices that
| you need to buy if you want to do it right, and they aren't
| cheap.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| They aren't cheap because you're not buying them at an ethnic
| store.
| armoredkitten wrote:
| I agree with you to some degree, but I don't feel like you're
| winning anyone over with the "I'm not X but if I were, I would
| just..."
|
| I've been vegan for 6 years now, and vegetarian many years
| before that, and sure, usually I just cook foods that pull from
| cuisines that aren't heavy on meat, eggs, and dairy. Lots of
| great curries and stir fries and so forth to choose from.
|
| But sometimes you just need a stupid thing that looks vaguely
| burger-shaped because your family/friends/coworkers are having
| a BBQ event and you need to bring something they can throw on
| the grill because you know they're not going to think about it
| and you don't want to have everyone poking fun with their lame
| jokes when you ask them to put the stuffed pepper with rice and
| beans on the grill for a few minutes. Sometimes you just want
| to blend in because Todd from accounting is fucking annoying
| any time he sees you eating something in the break room that's
| not a ribeye steak or whatever the hell he thinks his cavemen
| ancestors ate. And sometimes you just want sloppy, greasy
| comfort food that is absolutely shitty in terms of health but
| tastes delicious. And sometimes you're just sick of cooking for
| yourself AGAIN because why the hell aren't there any vegan
| options at the restaurants near me and goddammit I'm just going
| to pull those burgers out of the freezer.
|
| I don't think you'll find too many vegetarians and vegans for
| whom faux meat options are an everyday thing. It depends on
| what options are available around you, and maybe if you have
| kids who won't eat anything other than chicken nuggets and hot
| dogs. But for the most part...it's just nice to have them there
| when we want them. And to the extent we can also show people
| "hey, there are foods that look a lot like foods you're already
| used to, so Todd will also leave YOU alone!" that's great too.
| So there's value to these products. Sure, not as much as these
| "disruptive" businesses are trying to imply, but....there's
| still value.
| technobabbler wrote:
| Just ignore all their change-the-world marketing hogwash. The
| fake meats and cheeses are still occasionally useful, just
| because they're convenient and somewhat tasty, even if they
| don't taste like the real deal.
|
| "Edible food-like substances" (to steal a term from Michael
| Pollan) have their place in a society all too obsessed with
| convenience and time efficiency. I don't think they should ever
| be a replacement for whole foods and basic staples, but they
| are a nice and easy way to add flavor to an otherwise bland
| vegan meal.
|
| Yes, whole foods are healthier, and you can make a
| nutritionally balanced, delicious vegan meal out of basic
| grains and legumes and greens and whatnot... but it's a hell
| lot of work, especially because most of that stuff tastes like
| nothing.
|
| For omnivores, adding meat to just about anything helps a lot
| with flavor, between the meat itself and the juices/fats
| flowing from it. But adding tofu or beans doesn't really add
| much flavor beyond a little bit of umami. You really have to
| season or sauce the hell out of every meal to make it taste
| good. And after a while, everything tastes kinda same-y... more
| nutritional yeast, more soy sauce, more curry, some generic
| beige protein, blah blah.
|
| As someone who went vegan starting with whole foods yet never
| becoming a good enough cook, the fake stuff is in fact a really
| nice way to change up otherwise boring meals after a few years.
|
| They're still made of grains and legumes and such, but the
| seasoning is done by Someone Else(tm) who's much better at it.
| Yeah, it's less healthy, but...
| iratewizard wrote:
| I see fake meat companies as filling a need among people trying
| a meatless fad diet. The primary market being young women who
| want to fit in with a group that has a number of obnoxiously
| vocal vegans.
| gruez wrote:
| >So, is there really that much value in these industrial
| "plant-based" meat/cheese substitutes? I don't think so, but
| they're being marketed as if they were a great step forward to
| "reduce our dependence on meat" -- a dependence which does not
| actually exist.
|
| you're vastly underestimating how much people like the taste of
| meat. there's a reason why countries up their meat consumption
| as they industrialize and get wealthier.
| MisterBastahrd wrote:
| No. They are highly processed and they generally taste like
| garbage. For months I was told about how great Miyoko's
| products were. Then I tasted some of the cheese offerings and
| they tasted like gritty mold. There was a Kite Hill Farms
| vegan blueberry yogurt that was delicious, but the peach
| version nearly made me lose my lunch.
| njgingrich wrote:
| Cheese and yogurt are not meat, though? I agree vegan
| cheese is terrible, and the faux-meat products aren't an
| exact replica, but they aren't bad.
|
| There's definitely less of a push for a general adoption of
| vegan cheese than there is for meat alternatives.
| emilfihlman wrote:
| This is absolutely awful. Isn't this a textbook case of malicious
| suing, SLAPP?
| skmurphy wrote:
| No this is an ongoing attempt at theft. They don't want to be
| paid off they want his trademark even thought it's been granted
| for a decade and he is using it for an active business.
| maneesh wrote:
| When you look at the ImpossibleHQ vs Impossible Foods logo, it's
| obviously, without a doubt, a complete rip off.
|
| It's the sort of lawsuit that I would expect ImpossibleHQ to put
| against Impossible Foods, obviously not vice versa.
|
| It seems so clearly a rip off of the logo, that it's the kind of
| lawsuit that I want to invest in. Like -- I want to help fund a
| lawsuit against Impossible foods for millions that they ripped
| off the logo/trademark illegally.
|
| Is there any past examples of investment/crowdfunding for a
| lawsuit, where the investors earn returns if a lawsuit succeeds?
|
| This feels like an interesting opportunity for grassroots
| crowdfunding/investment for a David vs Goliath situation.
| jjeaff wrote:
| Not sure if I am seeing the same logos, but is the ripoff just
| that they are both the word "impossible" using a bold, non-
| serif font?
|
| While I agree it is far too similar, it is also not at all
| unlikely that Impossible Foods designed their logo in a vacuum.
| Bold, non-serif logo fonts are certainly extremely popular as
| of the last 10+ years.
| hervature wrote:
| I disagree. It looks like both companies went to
| https://en.bestfonts.pro/font/tungsten and just wrote
| IMPOSSIBLE and chose semi bold. Anyway, the fonts are clearly
| different, the M being the giveaway and HQ has (for probably
| trademark reasons) whiteout the middle which synergizes with
| their product of crossing out the impossible which Foods has
| not done because they want to emphasize their food is
| impossible.
| chmod775 wrote:
| > When you look at the ImpossibleHQ vs Impossible Foods logo,
| it's obviously, without a doubt, a complete rip off.
|
| I have doubts.
|
| Their logos aren't very similar, given the design space of
| today's black on white/white on black uppercase sans-serif[1]
| logos.
|
| In fact only the strike through IMPOSSIBLE logo (https://tradem
| arks.justia.com/871/16/impossible-87116503.htm...) appears to
| have any features that could be called creative or distinctive.
| That is owned by Impossible LLC, as opposed to Impossible Foods
| Inc.
|
| If Impossible Foods used such a logo anywhere, I couldn't find
| it.
|
| [1]: The Impossible Foods' logos in question actually have some
| _subtle_ serifs, while Impossible 's font is sans-serif.
| g_p wrote:
| > Is there any past examples of investment/crowdfunding for a
| lawsuit, where the investors earn returns if a lawsuit
| succeeds?
|
| Sounds like you're describing litigation funding (a fairly
| established market). You'd probably want to back it by
| insurance to cover the investors and party bringing the action
| against adverse costs exposure.
|
| Litigation funding is often provided by insurers anyway as a
| result, as they can put up the cash, and cover the risk of
| costs via their insurance.
| nefitty wrote:
| I wonder if there's a litigation betting market. I know
| there's prediction markets, but I'm wondering about a
| community dedicated to market making on any/all lawsuits.
| dhosek wrote:
| I can see that becoming a serious moral hazard. If a judge
| or juror can make money on a lawsuit that they're deciding
| reaching a particular verdict, then there's a very real
| danger that they will do so. I'm pretty sure that in the
| grand scheme of things we want less opportunity for this
| sort of corruption of the judicial process, not more.
| nefitty wrote:
| I'm honestly surprised I've never heard of litigation
| gambling. Considering your comment, it definitely seems
| like a horrible idea, so I'm not a proponent. My surprise
| is due to the fact that the degeneracy of the internet
| knows no bounds.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > If a judge or juror can make money on a lawsuit that
| they're deciding reaching a particular verdict, then
| there's a very real danger that they will do so.
|
| If a witness or person in custody of physical evidence
| can do so, you have a similar problem.
| joelrunyon wrote:
| "Earlier trademark owner" and longtime HN member here. Happy to
| answer whatever questions I can.
| ilamont wrote:
| In your opinion, is this coming from an overly aggressive IP-
| focused legal team more used to the way biotechs operate? Do
| you think the board is aware?
|
| Speaking of investors: Have you thought about making some of
| the celebrity voices who own a piece of the pie aware of what
| Impossible Foods is doing?
|
| _In addition to blue-chip institutional investors, Impossible
| Foods' existing individual investors include Jay Brown, Common,
| Kirk Cousins, Paul George, Peter Jackson, Jay-Z, Mindy Kaling,
| Trevor Noah, Alexis Ohanian, Kal Penn, Katy Perry, Questlove,
| Ruby Rose, Phil Rosenthal, Jaden Smith, Serena Williams,
| will.i.am and Zedd._
|
| https://impossiblefoods.com/media/news-releases/2020-08/impo...
| danlugo92 wrote:
| Any plans to accept donations?
|
| You should spread this over more outlets, I think it's already
| being flagged here...
| dec0dedab0de wrote:
| How do you think dealing with this will compare to running 100k
| in Antarctica?
| kstenerud wrote:
| OK, I see what's going on here.
|
| Impossible Foods primary arguments are:
|
| - They use the mark IMPOSSIBLE with services relating to recipes,
| food ingredients, and cooking information, and Impossible X does
| not.
|
| - Impossible X has challenged their right to use the trademark in
| that manner, and so they want the courts to decide with finality
| who has what rights.
|
| - Since Impossible X has not asserted their rights to the mark in
| this manner in many years, and have not pursued any business in
| that area, Impossible Foods wants any trade marks in relation to
| food to be considered abandoned (incidentally, this is why big
| companies pursue trademark claims so aggressively).
|
| - They also want to be awarded costs (not a likely outcome, but
| always good to throw in).
|
| My dry reading of this gives the impression that they're likely
| to prevail. If you don't protect your trademark, especially
| against such a high profile company and let it run for years
| unchallenged, you risk losing it. This is to prevent people from
| submarining a lawsuit by allowing a company to build massive
| value in a mark you own rights to, only to snatch it away from
| them and hold it for ransom.
| moat wrote:
| Stay classy Impossible Foods
| kaycebasques wrote:
| As a vegan myself this is very unfortunate because we are already
| easy targets and subject to a lot of prejudice. Impossible Meat
| bullying a small company might unleash a backlash of anti-vegan
| sentiment that can take on a life of its own. Make no mistake it
| has been there all along. Go back to other discussions about
| veganism here on HN and you will see the common anti-vegan memes.
| But when you're one of the leading brands of a minority movement
| like veganism you really need to make sure your PR is impeccable
| because your actions have broad-reaching effects beyond your
| business.
|
| And to be 100% clear I am not being an apologist for Impossible.
| If they are indeed bullying and the case is as clear cut as this
| article describes then that is ugly behavior.
| speeder wrote:
| First, lets separate 2 groups of people: 1. People that have a
| vegan diet. 2. People that actively defend veganism.
|
| I have nothing against the group 1, but the prejudice you see,
| is because of group 2, I can say to you using rough napkin
| calculations that something like 95% of people I met in group
| two were total toxic assholes. Some examples of people I
| personally met:
|
| 1. Guy in school, kept telling me, CONSTANTLY, that I was
| eating corpses and whatnot, it was very annoying.
|
| 2. Another guy in school, told me I was evil because I ate
| meat, proceeded to rummage through my backpack and kick my
| belongings like if they were soccer balls (even screaming
| "goal" after he made my bible go between two chairs).
|
| 3. Chick I met in college, she asked me to become vegan, I told
| her I wouldn't and that I would keep eating bacon, her reaction
| was literally hit my head with her purse.
|
| 4. Various activist groups that did some insanely dumb shit
| where I live, one for example went to a research laboratory and
| freed all the animals, they took the cute animals (like
| beagles) home, and released the rest, without any notion if it
| was good idea or not to do so (several animals weren't native,
| and some were in the lab because they were being treated with
| experimental treatments for infectious diseases).
|
| 5. Random vegan I met online, dunno who that person is, I
| explained I have to eat meat due to a health condition, person
| then proceeded to tell me I should just die instead, that it
| was better for the planet for all people that need to eat meat
| to just die.
| jjcon wrote:
| As someone who eats a primarily vegan diet I find the vegan
| community to be insufferably toxic. I'm not talking about
| individuals but the community itself is just one big dick
| measuring contest about who is 'more vegan' and suffers more
| due to their devotion. I don't fault others for seeing how
| gross the community can be.
| technobabbler wrote:
| As another vegan, diet should have no bearing on this. It's a
| big company bullying a smaller one just because they can. The
| immorality of that doesn't depend on what you eat.
|
| If it bothers you, let Impossible Meat know:
| https://faq.impossiblefoods.com/hc/en-us/requests/new
| Ensorceled wrote:
| > Go back to other discussions about veganism here on HN and
| you will see the common anti-vegan memes.
|
| You will also see a lot of outlandish claims about veganism,
| human diet and health and, food in general which is generally
| where the backlash starts.
|
| I've seen claims like "humans have evolved to be vegan", "beef
| only has vitamin b12 because of b12 supplements", "if you eat
| properly, your body will generate it's own vitamin b12".
|
| You'll also see dismissive, no true Scotsman, responses to
| issues with vegan diets like struggles to get enough b12,
| calcium and iodine.
|
| I try to eat vegan, or at least vegetarian, a few days a week,
| mostly by eating traditionally vegetarian meals. Impossible
| meat is highly processed and is neither healthy nor a climate
| change solution.
| kaycebasques wrote:
| I agree that some vegans also make outlandish claims but I
| think it's taking it too far to say that this is "generally
| where the backlash starts", because that implies that it's
| our fault / we caused it. There are a lot of vested interests
| that have purely selfish motives for attacking veganism and
| would do it regardless of any outlandish claims on the part
| of vegans.
| Ensorceled wrote:
| > I agree that some vegans also make outlandish claims but
| I think it's taking it too far to say that this is
| "generally where the backlash starts", because that implies
| that it's our fault / we caused it.
|
| Sorry, if someone makes dangerous claims like "you'll
| generate your own b12 after switching to a whole food
| diet", it is their fault if they get dog piled and memed.
|
| There is anti-vegan prejudice on HN, I've seen it, but the
| real backlash is usually when the defence of the vegan
| philosophy gets outlandish.
| Alupis wrote:
| > I agree that some vegans also make outlandish claims but
| I think it's taking it too far to say that this is
| "generally where the backlash starts", because that implies
| that it's our fault / we caused it.
|
| There's the old vegan joke for a reason:
| How do you know someone is a vegan? They'll tell you all
| about it...
|
| I think vegans get a bad rep because too often they feel
| the need to convert others to veganism too. Vegans aren't
| alone here, super devote religious people do this too, the
| guy in your office that just got into standing desks does
| it too, etc...
|
| When people make a choice they believe is the one true way
| to do something, it's difficult to see others not join in -
| after all, you feel you've made the choice because it's
| healthy/will save your life/save the planet/whatever, how
| could you just watch others harm themselves?
|
| Just live and let live... other people don't and shouldn't
| care if you choose to be a vegan or not.
|
| Not targeting you in particular... just general
| observations. The "as a vegan..." line is about as tired as
| the "as a libertarian I believe X..." line. Nobody cares
| what you are or believe.
| kevinh wrote:
| If you're hanging out with someone, it's almost
| impossible for it not to come up that you're vegan, since
| a large amount of places to eat have no vegan-friendly
| foods. You either have to bring up that you can't eat
| somewhere (since it has nothing you can eat) or not eat
| at all (prompting questions about that).
| Alupis wrote:
| Good point. I guess the only time someone should care
| about your dietary preference is if you're having a
| dinner party or going out to eat.
|
| That's appropriate use of the "I'm a vegan" line...
|
| Just don't go over the top and tell people they're bad
| for eating a hamburger or inject your veganism into
| otherwise irrelevant conversation.
| boston_clone wrote:
| > Just live and let live.
|
| ...except for animals, right?
|
| This is a prime example of the dissonance that comes from
| having carnism as a dominant ideology for dietary
| preference.
| Alupis wrote:
| Eating what biology intended you to eat is not an
| ideology.
|
| Making a conscious decision to go against biology and
| select a different dietary preference is indeed an
| ideology (unless there is a real medical reason you
| cannot eat something, such as allergies).
| elif wrote:
| Your only argument about nutrition was regarding B12, for
| which the questionably trademarked product has 130% DV. Then
| you broaden your conclusion to somehow not addressing climate
| change?
|
| So i'll address that one. The product is 98% soy with
| coconut, and sunflower oil to help it cook. Not particularly
| climate-intensive, soy is a valuable crop to rotate for the
| soil ecology in a country that produces so much corn to feed
| your dinner cows.
| Spivak wrote:
| Judging any group by its worst members isn't the most
| charitable regardless of the group. You end up not really
| making an argument outside of "I found a ridiculous person in
| this group" which like, yeah, true. But when you imply that
| they're somehow representative or to be taken seriously you
| end up just exposing your prejudices and/or ignorance.
| Dogpiling a person who thinks you can photosynthesize b12 is
| fine -- they're nuts. But if that person sours your opinion
| of V's then you clearly already had issues with them.
|
| Veganism and vegetarianism aren't synonymous with healthy,
| they don't even try to be. It's actually a point of annoyance
| among V's that "vegetarian" options at restaurants try to be
| "light" and healthy when you really just want a basket of
| fries dipped in vegan mayo. Same with the aversion to
| processed foods, it's nothing to do with V's at all -- that's
| the "whole foods" movement thing. Some V's care about the
| environment, some V's care about whole foods, some V's care
| about animal suffering. The former two probably wouldn't eat
| an Impossible Burger, the latter might.
| jrm4 wrote:
| Black person here. I don't think (though I'm not going to say
| I'm 100% certain) that the word "prejudice" is best here?
|
| You (very probably) made a _choice_ to be a certain way, here.
| So, the "judice" part is correct, and people should perhaps be
| nicer, but this doesn't feel like the right word.
| sprite wrote:
| The word has nothing to do with whether you chose to be that
| way or not.
|
| https://www.dictionary.com/browse/prejudice
| jrm4 wrote:
| According to the dictionary, sure. What makes you think the
| "dictionary" is the end-all-be-all for how words work?
| JCharante wrote:
| Isn't religion a choice? I know plenty of people who have
| converted and they weren't forced to convert. You can be
| prejudiced against someone else of a differnet religion.
| jrm4 wrote:
| Not purely. The meaning of "religion" varies greatly across
| both time and space, and it would be difficult to argue
| that it is always (or even often) something like "pure
| choice."
|
| It frequently carries a cultural component such that the
| law sees fit to treat it like other arguably immutable
| identity type things, which seems correct to me. Though, it
| is complicated.
| MisterTea wrote:
| > Black person here.
|
| No disrespect but what does being black have to do with the
| usage of the word prejudice? Because the parent you responded
| to used it correctly.
| jrm4 wrote:
| "Correctly" is weird, which is precisely why I tried state
| my point in a very non-conclusive way. Which went over like
| a lead balloon. :)
| kaycebasques wrote:
| There's a lot of connotations to that word related to
| racism. I have no problem with the original commenter
| calling out that it may not be the best word to use.
| MisterTea wrote:
| > There's a lot of connotations to that word related to
| racism.
|
| It's use is not exclusive to racism. To exclude other
| uses is ironically prejudiced.
| Causality1 wrote:
| A victim complex is a common response when privileged people
| realize others find them insufferable.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| A victim complex is a common response when _anyone_
| realizes others find them insufferable.
| havkd wrote:
| That's an interesting argument when we are talking about
| blacks.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| "prejudice" has nothing to do with whether the prejudgement
| is based on an innate feature or a choice.
| kaycebasques wrote:
| Thank you for the feedback. I understand your point.
|
| I was going off a dictionary definition along these lines:
|
| > preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual
| experience
|
| But I totally get that prejudice has connotations here that
| make it inappropriate for me as a white man to use
| [deleted]
| ghostbrainalpha wrote:
| Absurd. Have you heard of "religious prejudice"? That's
| prejudice and based off of a choice.
|
| Racial discrimination does not own the term prejudice.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I cannot believe I am reading someone claim prejudice is a
| word that should not be used if you have a certain skin
| color.
|
| Did the judicial system stop dismissing cases with
| prejudice?
| ianmcgowan wrote:
| Did the CIA stop terminating people "with extreme
| prejudice"?
| KSteffensen wrote:
| Why is it inappropriate for a white man to use the word
| prejudice?
|
| Isn't any sort of negatively biased opinion prejudice,
| regardless of what it's against be it gender, race, dietary
| choices, religion or anything else?
| jrm4 wrote:
| I was _definitely_ not saying "white people shouldn't use
| it."
|
| What I was saying is a little bit closer to - "Prejudice"
| connotes "identity" type issues, and I don't think
| 'veganism' is like that.
|
| (Once again -- CONNOTES -- for all the dictionary lovers
| out there)
| [deleted]
| MisterTea wrote:
| > But when you're one of the leading brands of a minority
| movement like veganism
|
| Neither you nor impossible foods speak for the vegan movement.
| Most of my vegan friends do not eat this fake garbage nor would
| they ever make foolish claims like this.
| kaycebasques wrote:
| Point taken that I and Impossible do not speak for the vegan
| movement. I think I could prove my point with a theoretical
| bet, however. Ask X amount of people from the overall general
| population to name the top 3 vegan brands, and I would take
| the wager that Impossible is in that top 3. Therefore they
| would be significantly identified with veganism at large.
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| Will you concede that many, but certainly not all, vegans bring
| it upon themselves with their moralistic pontificating about
| those who are not vegan?
| thomascgalvin wrote:
| > moralistic pontificating
|
| Jesus Christ.
| delecti wrote:
| Everything I've seen suggests to me that most people's
| annoyance with perceived "preachy" vegans comes from
| cognitive dissonance around being forced to confront that
| vegans have a good point. Why confront real issues when you
| can make a bacon joke and say "oh, I could never give up
| cheese"?
|
| It's like when talking with someone who is very disciplined
| about exercise. Many will say something like "wow you're so
| lucky to have such good genes" to deflect from the fact that
| they're just not willing to put in that level of work.
|
| And I say that as someone who is not vegan, and is pretty lax
| with exercise.
| SllX wrote:
| The end goal of the radical vegan moralists is to legally
| reshape my cuisine and the cuisine of the majority of
| people to match their preferences. Not all vegans share
| that view but often independently come very close to it or
| could still be swayed into a more radical world view.
|
| Deflecting is a polite way of terminating a conversation
| that can otherwise get very ugly and end friendships and/or
| further entrench and radicalize the counter-party in the
| conversation; not a concession to the quality or lack
| thereof of their points. Or to put it another way, when
| someone suggests I try a vegan diet, my first instinct is
| respond in a respectful way with an understandable and
| relatable reason why I will not, not to hammer them in the
| face with the truth that I will continue to guiltlessly eat
| God's creatures until the day I die and I will raise my
| kids the same way.
| kaycebasques wrote:
| It seems like you're strawmanning and radicalizing our
| conversation here a bit by focusing on radical vegan
| moralists. As a vegan of 2 years I can tell you that a
| supermajority of the vegans I know would not endorse
| *legally* reshaping anyone's cuisine. The radical segment
| of any social movement is usually the minority. Your
| argumentation here seems similar to completely denouncing
| Christianity, Political Party XYZ, or even Silicon Valley
| because of its most radical segment.
| SllX wrote:
| Note that I gave no indication that they were more than a
| fringe and pointed out that they were not well
| representative of vegans as a whole. Radicals are by
| definition the fringe and don't need additional
| qualifiers, particularly in a sentence that was loaded
| with them (vegan moralists are also not representative of
| vegans; many vegans are vegan for pure dietary reasons or
| personal preference).
|
| My real point was this if you read past the first
| paragraph: if you care about politeness, keeping
| friendships and not hammering people in the face with
| what you actually think, you know, all the things that
| can further radicalize people, then deflection is the
| best course of action. This deflection should not be
| viewed as an implicit concession that somebody has a good
| point.
| kaycebasques wrote:
| > Note that I gave no indication that they were more than
| a fringe
|
| Perhaps I am misunderstanding you but your phrasing in
| the quote below seems to imply that most vegans are
| secretly aligned with or could be persuaded into become
| the radical moralists you mention earlier:
|
| > Not all vegans share that view but often independently
| come very close to it or could still be swayed into a
| more radical world view
|
| It's just strange to me that you're talking about
| radicalizing while seemingly using radicalizing debating
| tactics yourself. I'm sorry if that comes off as
| disrespectful or rude but that's the crux of my issue
| with your comment.
|
| Edit: But I should also mention and acknowledge that I
| did read past the first paragraph in your original
| comment
| nitrogen wrote:
| _most people 's annoyance with perceived "preachy" vegans
| comes from cognitive dissonance_
|
| Let's consider other "preachy" sources to see if this
| argument holds weight.
|
| Consider replacing "vegans" in this sentence with morally
| motivated religious evangelists of any kind, or morally
| motivated pro-/anti-abortion activists, or morally
| motivated homophobes, or MS/Apple/GNU fanboys/girls.
|
| So no, it's not that people think the preachy group might
| have some kind of point, it's the preachiness, smugness,
| and righteous superiority itself that is the problem. The
| idea that this one group with such a narrow focus has
| discovered the one true superior way is what's the problem.
| It's counterproductive to whatever goals the group claims
| to represent. Moral guilt tripping is a lazy way to
| shortcut arguments.
| datavirtue wrote:
| What if no one is guilt tripping but the other side is
| just uncomfortable as hell with their own easy acceptance
| of the status quo?
| nitrogen wrote:
| That right there is the textbook definition of guilt
| tripping. This line can be applied to literally every
| side of every argument. It has no content, no explanatory
| power, it's just another excuse for attempted
| manipulation.
| jrm4 wrote:
| I do think it cuts both ways; veganism is _extremely
| strange._ The strangeness does not prove that it is good or
| bad -- but absolute veganism (as perhaps distinguishable
| from other historically popular, frequently religious diet
| practices) is _wildly_ out of line with nearly all humans
| in all of human history -- and could reasonably appear to
| be overly simplistic.
|
| So, I think the "vegans that are complained about" are
| nearly always the folks who don't much take this into
| account.
| boston_clone wrote:
| Conversely, it can easily be argued that it is
| paradoxical to normalize the slaughter and consumption of
| animals while simultaneously holding the belief that they
| should be protected (e.g. animal abuse laws).
|
| Approaching how we life our lives primarily from an
| ethical lens can lead to all sorts of uncomfortable or
| strange conclusions, however.
| datavirtue wrote:
| Exactly, one day no human will consume meat. There are
| many reasons why but the popularity of it now stems from
| humans dealing with starvation--which we are still
| dealing with. If I have a variety of vegetables and
| grains I don't even think about meat. We are privileged
| to be able to not eat meat. It is something I give thanks
| for. We glorify it but the act of eating meat is not
| dignified. The time we can salvage any sort of dignity is
| by not killing the animal, not processing it, and eating
| only the parts that deemed worthy by our culture (the
| tender parts that chew easily).
| jrm4 wrote:
| "One day no human will consume meat."
|
| If I had some time-travel-y way to bet my entire life
| savings against this prediction, I would.*
|
| (*yeah, someone's going to get persnickety here. As long
| as humans are around, I believe some are going to eat
| meat.)
| logfromblammo wrote:
| That statement is only supportable if vegans had a policy
| of annihilating meat-eating humans, which seems anathema
| to the vegan philosophy.
|
| So maybe we can qualify that by saying "one day, no human
| will eat meat harvested from unethical or otherwise
| ecologically destructive livestock-farming practices."
| unanswered wrote:
| > being forced to confront that vegans have a good point
|
| That you/they take it as a moral right to _force_ people to
| do anything, even to consider some point, demonstrates the
| very moral corruptness that people hate about vegans.
| JadeNB wrote:
| > That you/they take it as a moral right to _force_
| people to do anything, even to consider some point,
| demonstrates the very moral corruptness that people hate
| about vegans.
|
| I think in no other context on Hacker News, which is a
| hive of far-reaching intellectual curiosity, would it be
| taken as a negative to claim that confronting someone
| with a possibly uncomfortable point would be taken as
| moral corruption.
|
| (Note that 'forcing' here is not in the sense of, say,
| using physical force to compel someone; it is just in the
| sense of presenting information, so that people's only
| possible responses are to consider that information or
| somehow to ignore or discount it without acknowledging
| it.)
| delecti wrote:
| The power of an argument is plainly not "force" in its
| own right. Nit picking a figure of speech like "forced to
| confront" is not a persuasive point.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| I think this could be part of their reaction, but a bigger
| part is a natural inclination to belittle people who claim
| to have a moral High Ground or superiority.
|
| In my experience, begin to frame things as a personal
| choice that they made without implying judgment on others
| simply don't get the same response
| 4eleven7 wrote:
| Vegans do have a good point, however, for the majority of
| the population food is just something that they crave, eat
| for taste, or because it is thrust in their face daily by
| corporations. They aren't doing it for the sake of killing,
| and therefore the point that vegans make isn't something
| people consider nor care for.
|
| I personally think your diet should be based on nutrition,
| with morals and the environment following a close second.
| boston_clone wrote:
| That's the rub, though - we know that vegetarian
| (including vegan) diets are nutritionally complete and
| applicable at virtually all stages of life [0], yet
| people make choices that result in hundreds of billions
| of animals being slaughtered each year. The cognitive
| dissonance that accompanies eating meat is
| extraordinarily pervasive [1].
|
| 0. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19562864/
|
| 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology_of_eating_mea
| t#Meat...
| KSteffensen wrote:
| Why is there an ethical problem in slaughtering an animal
| for meat if that animal has been raised in good
| conditions and the actual killing happens with a minimum
| of pain and fear for the animal?
|
| I get why foie gras is problematic, but I don't see the
| problem in a leg of lamb.
| datavirtue wrote:
| Because you are robbing a living creature of the only
| thing that matters...its life...the now.
|
| The next mental step is being able to debase the life of
| another human and classify them into castes. Aren't we
| trying to stop doing that? Animal husbandry keeps us
| ethically within the realm of easily devaluing other
| humans. You do it without even thinking.
| JCharante wrote:
| Have you seen the movie "The Island"? A organ supplier
| fakes a post apocalypse for the humans living in the
| bunkers. They still live a nice life and when they need
| organs they hold a lottery to see who gets to go to the
| surface where they've built a resort on an island as they
| supposedly repopulate.
|
| These humans live fairly happy lives and were bred
| (cloned) to be harvested for the organs. Would you oppose
| the real world implementation of this system? The people
| could even not find out what happens to them, they could
| be gassed during the transit.
|
| It really stems down to whether you think it's okay to
| kill living beings. I don't care too much for life forms
| smaller than 1cm and that's one of my biases, but I don't
| think it's okay to kill living beings larger than 1cm.
|
| You could say that we are humans and those are non-human
| animals, therefore it's okay. I'm not a fan of this line
| of thinking because that is how caste systems work in
| societies that exploit different groups of people.
| They're of a lower caste so it's okay to treat them like
| dirt. They're of a different skin color so it's okay to
| treat them bad. It's okay to kill them.
|
| If we discovered aliens, what would have to be different
| about them to make it not okay to raise them to be killed
| for our tastebud enjoyment? The ability to do calculus?
| Plenty of people can't do calculus. The ability to speak?
| We're still trying to learn how certain whales
| communicate or how crows seem to have a memory for
| previous bad actors /abusers in studies. We don't eat
| handicapped people nor people with severe mental
| problems. If it's not okay to farm humans, what about our
| predecessors? We have a common ancestor with other life
| forms on earth, so where do we draw the line? Bipedalism?
| KSteffensen wrote:
| I would not be ok with such a dystopia.
|
| However I don't think there's a clear line to be drawn.
| Why do most people object to eating dog or cat while they
| have no problem with pork? Pigs are about as intelligent
| as dogs (and can also learn to recognize individual
| humans).
|
| Extrapolating that line of thought there is also no
| fundamental difference between eating plants and animals,
| but most people argue that it's morally wrong to kill
| animals for meat but ok to eat plants.
| boston_clone wrote:
| > Why do most people object to eating dog or cat while
| they have no problem with pork?
|
| Cognitive dissonance, plain and simple. This was
| explained in the Wikipedia article I linked above.
| boston_clone wrote:
| > Why is there an ethical problem in slaughtering
|
| In short, I think killing another living being that
| experiences suffering is wrong.
|
| There needs to be at least a base agreement on some
| ethics before diving into an ethical debate, and if you
| don't see a problem with needlessly killing animals, then
| this exchange will be worthless.
|
| Extend the reasoning of how we know it's wrong to raise
| and kill a human for our own consumption to animals, and
| we arrive at veganism. Please see my second citation in
| the parent comment for a better overview.
| will4274 wrote:
| > In short, I think killing another living being that
| experiences suffering is wrong.
|
| It fails Kant's categorical imperative. Animals aren't
| going to believe that eating meat is wrong - and if we
| tried to prevent animals from eating meat, we'd kill a
| lot of them - not to mention it'd just be ridiculous.
| There's simply no way to include animals in universal law
| and maintain reciprocity. It's an internally inconsistent
| ethical philosophy, and obviously so.
|
| That's to say - people make fun of ethical vegans for the
| same reason they make fun of libertarians - clear gaps in
| the philosophy they refuse to acknowledge.
| delecti wrote:
| I don't agree that morals need to be reciprocated to be
| valid. It's not internally inconsistent to say I think
| it's immoral to kill things beings even if they wouldn't
| grant me or others the same.
| will4274 wrote:
| Libertarians don't agree that the inability to protect
| the environment makes their philosophy invalid either.
| The fact is though, most people look for reciprocatity in
| their moral philosophy.
|
| It's not that every individual has to agree not to kill
| you. It's that we have to agree that punishment is
| appropriate for killers. Getting specific - it's
| incoherent to say it's immoral for humans to kill rabbits
| but moral for foxes to kill rabbits. To have a consistent
| moral philosophy, you have to either punish the foxes and
| try to prevent them from killing the rabbits, or you have
| to admit that killing rabbits isn't _really_ a problem.
| delecti wrote:
| I'm not arguing that it's moral for foxes to kill
| rabbits. I'm arguing that the presence of immoral actors
| does not negate the arguments in favor of morality. Foxes
| aren't immoral, they're amoral. It's wrong for me to kill
| people even if natural disasters do. I can't have a moral
| discussion with a fox.
| boston_clone wrote:
| I don't think that's an accurate representation of Kant's
| viewpoints; please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cate
| gorical_imperative#Cruelty...
|
| It's been many years since my collegiate philosophy
| course that focused on ethics in society - largely using
| Peter Singer's works as focal points of discussion - but
| could you try and reframe your idea? It doesn't seem like
| reciprocity has much bearing on this topic.
| KSteffensen wrote:
| The Wikipedia article describes the various psychological
| mechanisms people use to avoid thinking about the fact
| that something they are doing involves something else
| getting killed. It does not provide arguments for why
| killing an animal for it's meat (or hide or other
| resource) is wrong.
|
| A counterpoint to your 'raising humans for consumption'
| point which is equally extreme but in the opposite
| direction. How do you know plants do not feel suffering?
| After all studies show plants can sense surroundings and
| communicate with other plants even of other species.
| delecti wrote:
| Even if plants feel suffering, fewer plants die from
| eating them directly than would if we had to pass their
| calories through an intermediary animal. It's closer to
| equivalent for chickens, but it's about an order of
| magnitude for cows.
| KSteffensen wrote:
| If you grant that eating a plant causes suffering to that
| plant I don't see why the order of magnitude of the
| suffering or number of entities made to suffer matters.
|
| Is it acceptable to inflict suffering on other beings to
| alleviate your own suffering or hunger?
| delecti wrote:
| > I don't see why the order of magnitude of the suffering
| or number of entities made to suffer matters
|
| I absolutely disagree. Minimizing suffering is good. Less
| suffering is better than more suffering. The specifics of
| implementing it are obviously complicated, but if you
| don't agree that minimizing suffering is a good thing, at
| least in theory, then I don't know if we have any moral
| common ground.
|
| > Is it acceptable to inflict suffering on other beings
| to alleviate your own suffering or hunger?
|
| I assert that I have a right to attempt to continue my
| existence. Given that, and the above, I think it follows
| necessarily that it's better to cause less suffering in
| that pursuit, if possible (and it is).
|
| Also, all of this is only entertaining the possibility
| that plants can suffer for the purpose of discussion. I
| think it's entirely obvious that they cannot experience
| suffering.
| boston_clone wrote:
| It is commonly understood that plants do not have the
| same mechanisms to experience a range of emotions (pain,
| happiness, sadness, etc.) as fish, birds, and other
| animals do.
|
| Further, if we want to abstract away from a mechanistic
| understanding and focus purely on a reduction of
| suffering, then veganism should be your goal. Most crop
| production is simply for animal feed. Eliminating animals
| from our diets would dramatically decrease the amount of
| plants we destroy.
| jfengel wrote:
| A nutritious vegan diet is not difficult. The hardest
| thing about it is that you mostly have to cook it
| yourself, since so many restaurants offer few (or no)
| vegan choices.
|
| Fortunately, that's gradually improving. And it's a good
| idea for people to eat less restaurant meals if they're
| really interested in nutrition. It's hard to claim that
| nutrition is one's #1 priority when one is eating 1,500
| or more calories per meal and few vegetables or whole
| grains.
|
| Veganism isn't automatically nutritious. It can be, just
| as meat diets can be -- but most meat eaters don't.
| Either can be nutritious with planning and education.
|
| As you say, your diet should absolutely start with
| nutrition. But given that you could eat nutritiously
| either way, you should indeed let your ethics guide you
| -- which includes both animal welfare and the environment
| as a whole.
|
| But in particular, it'll be very hard to claim that
| nutrition is top priority if you're frequently eating Big
| Macs and never eating vegetables or grains.
| zamadatix wrote:
| > comes from cognitive dissonance around being forced to
| confront that vegans have a good point.
|
| The problem on polarized issues is rarely "one side knows
| they have no good points and are just trying to avoid that
| the other side does". Really this mindset would be part of
| the preachyness problem in the first place, the idea that
| the only reason people don't like this side is they know
| this side is right so why aren't they just admitting it!
|
| > Why confront real issues when you can make a bacon joke
| and say "oh, I could never give up cheese"?
|
| I agree with this but probably in a different meaning than
| you meant. It's not by default "I don't want to deal with
| the consequences of their valid stance so I'll deflect
| until it goes away" it's a "I really don't want to deal
| with the religious guy handing out bibles when I'm just
| going to the cafe for a coffee, I'll just joke with him I
| couldn't live without <choice of sin here> every night
| instead of risking dealing with a surprise preachy
| interaction again". The interaction gave no hint of who
| actually had or knew they didn't have the right stance
| about religion.
|
| > It's like when talking with someone who is very
| disciplined about exercise. Many will say something like
| "wow you're so lucky to have such good genes" to deflect
| from the fact that they're just not willing to put in that
| level of work.
|
| In some situations like this example they probably know
| they aren't doing the right thing, in others (as given in
| the example above) that's not the case. That some topics
| are so is not evidence one way or another about another
| topic being so. The only common theme is that it was
| uncomfortable for the person deflecting, not the reason it
| was uncomfortable.
| JadeNB wrote:
| > Will you concede that many, but certainly not all, vegans
| bring it upon themselves with their moralistic pontificating
| about those who are not vegan?
|
| "They deserved it" is rarely a good look. I imagine that just
| about any position one can imagine has its vocal and
| irritating proponents, so this response seems easy to
| generalise in ways that you probably wouldn't want.
|
| (Because I recognise how this post looks, it's probably worth
| saying that I am not a vegan. Here in Texas, I actually had
| someone claim to me that he was a vegan because he ate only
| fish ... but I still think that people expend far more energy
| on mocking vegans than they would just ignoring the
| occasional over-voluble vegan.)
| echelon wrote:
| > Will you concede that many, but certainly not all,
|
| This comes across as harsh. Replace "many" with "some" and
| you'll get more people to agree with you.
|
| There are instances of pontificating on both sides of the
| aisle.
|
| TikTok blew up with "vegan teacher lady",
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoSPn_MEz-E
|
| That caused a whole host of drama.
|
| Anti-vegans (is that a thing?) are just as culpable though,
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRd13bMWhsU
|
| I wish we'd all just get along.
| op00to wrote:
| No, this hasn't been my experience for at least 10 years.
| kaycebasques wrote:
| For sure. Morality is an important factor for many people
| turning vegan. Therefore a vegan company needs to have very
| admirable culture. I would request that you don't give us
| impossible [1] standards but in this case Impossible is
| acting indefensibly (if the situation is as clearcut as it
| currently seems).
|
| I will also suggest however to watch out for confirmation
| bias regarding your idea of a typical vegan. 4 of my close
| friends are vegan and we all only share that information when
| it's necessary (e.g. about to eat with strangers) and none of
| us frequently pontificate about the morals with non-vegans
| either online or in-person. For every vocal vegan that you
| see, there may be many more quiet ones.
|
| [1] No pun originally intended but now that I see it I
| totally intend my pun...
| https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/1409156-fire-emblem
| datavirtue wrote:
| Why would a vegan ever eat impossible meat? They generally
| abstain from processed foods.
| cute_boi wrote:
| Why do people smoke cigarettes? Why do people drink soft
| drinks like coca cola which is full of sugars?
|
| I mean whats the point of asking these? Being vegan doesn't
| mean you have to eat healthy food 24x7. They are normal human
| being following ethics. And there is no rule that tells vegan
| should abstain processed foods.
| RandallBrown wrote:
| I've seen lots of vegans eat highly processed foods like nut
| milks and cheeses, tofu, and even impossible and beyond
| meats.
| duffpkg wrote:
| Walgreens tried to pull this against one of ClearHealth's (Open
| source EMR system) trademarks. We prevailed but expect to spend
| $20k in legal fees and in TTAB court you could not recover fees
| (at that point in in time anyway).
|
| https://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92058521&pty=CAN
| gnicholas wrote:
| Is there a summary of Impossible Foods' position? Would be
| interesting to know why they think this is appropriate/lawful.
| nateliason wrote:
| Looks like they pretty blatantly copied the logo too, not a good
| look.
| makstaks wrote:
| Be curious to know if anyone who has trademark legal knowledge
| can answer this question. Since the word Impossible is common, as
| far as I can gather, if it is for a different industry you indeed
| could use it?
|
| edit: typo
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-11-17 23:02 UTC)