| (Pages: 1, 2, 3) | |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 3626 Joined: 25 Jan 2008     | |
Pulitzer Laureate  Posts: 852 Joined: 22 Aug 2006     | To start off: having read the linked article, I think this case in particular is a little silly. Unless the level of ethyl alcohol is higher than the norm, or the alcohol was added as an ingredient, instead of being a byproduct of the process, then I don't think anyone has anything to be upset about. Now, on to your post... I don't think anyone is being "pissy" because someone else isn't adhering to their beliefs (sure, there are plenty of people that get angry because other people don't believe in their god, but that isn't really what we're talking about here, is it?). People get "pissy" when other people don't respect their beliefs. There is a large difference between those two scenarios. If you believe that a particular act is a sin, and a company doesn't tell you that using their products or services will result in that act, then I think you have some cause for being angry at the company. If the company is ignorant of your beliefs, then there's certainly some leeway, but if the company is aware of your beliefs, and chooses not to inform you, then I see reason to get angry. Depending on how forgiving your god may or may not be, that company may have, through negligence, caused the damnation of your eternal soul. Does this exempt the end user from responsibility? No, but there does need to be a free flow of information, so that the end user CAN be aware of how the product or service gels with their religious beliefs. When immigrants come to a country, there is a certain amount of acclimation that has to occur. But, at what point does religion become an immigration issue? Just because the adherents of a given religious minority are primarily non-native residents, that suddenly makes ignoring someone else's religious beliefs okay? Another thing that I would think is relevant: Once a minority reaches a certain size, there is some expectation to factor them into decisions affecting the whole populace. If there were only 5 Muslims, then maybe the onus falls on those 5 individuals. 2.8% of the United Kingdom identify as followers of Islam (according to my random Wikipedia statistic). That seems like more than 5. Now, as to Walkers: they have no obligation to cater to the needs of the Muslim community, or the Jewish community, or the Christian community, except to the extent that they want that community's business. My guess is that the cost of being upfront about ingredients that affect the kosher or halal status of their products is less than the cost of losing 2.8% of their market. Reminder: I think the case pointed out in the article is particularly silly, barring other information, but I think the OP is a little off. |
Infamous Scribbler  Posts: 570 Joined: 24 Oct 2007  | My solution: DON"T EAT THE DAMN DORITOS!! |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1722 Joined: 13 Sep 2007  | Well let me say this: If non-cannibals were a minority, and you were one of them, would you want a company to at least tell you if there is HUMAN FLESH in their food? Now change non-cannibals to muslims, and human flesh to alchohol, and we have what you're talking about. I didn't read the article, so I don't know about this case, but that is my general stance. The golden rule or whatever. |
Infamous Scribbler Posts: 570 Joined: 24 Oct 2007 | My solution: DON"T EAT THE DAMN DORITOS!! Jews don't eat stuff that's not Kosher (I don't see them complaining about not having Kosher Tostitos) so why don't muslims do the same with products containing alcohol. Jesus f...ing Christ that's a no-brainer. |
BANNED  Posts: 675 Joined: 6 Dec 2007     | Ah, autism. I miss the days of Sparta, where kids like that would be left on a mountain until something comes along and eats them. Now we have to take care of the droolers instead. User was banned for: Easiest World of Warcraft Quiz EVER now live. (14 days) |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1550 Joined: 5 Dec 2007   | I think its important to realise that in Islamic countries Islam has a very very dominant position, it influences most every part of society. While in traditionaly Christian countries the separation between church and state has been rather prominent the last hundred or so years. In Islamic coulture drinking alchohol is seen as something very bad and for serius muslims these things might be a big deal. Remember, this is a religion were people pray 5 times a day and spend a month fasting, not some kind were half arsed christians go to church twice a year. Alot of these issues are way overblown, like the Doritos, does this realy affect us? Crisp companies can easily fix this issue. Or other things like saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas", who gives a fuck? But on serius issues like Sharia courts in Brittan (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7233335.stm) i think people are going to far, society can adapt to small changes but big change takes along time. Another thing i would like to note is that all or most of the muslims i know dont realy demand the rest of the world to change for them, alot of these cases can just be some particurlary loundmouthed individuals. |
Pulitzer Laureate Posts: 852 Joined: 22 Aug 2006 |
Congratulations! You completely missed the point! The Muslims are trying not to consume products which contain alcohol. In this particular case, they are upset because the individuals in question feel the alcohol content of the product in question was not accurately represented, thus preventing them from knowing there was alcohol, and subsequently avoiding the product. No one discussed above is demanding kosher/halal Tostito/Dorito's, they're just looking for product labeling which accurately warns them about potential religious dietary concerns. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 3626 Joined: 25 Jan 2008 |
Nice to see someone good at arguing a point. Consider this side... Frito-Lay lists all relevant ingredients on the back of the package, but the article claims the packaging did not indicate alcohol in the product. This means either the alcohol IS mentioned on the ingredient list and the Muslim community is whining because there isn't a blatant "Alcoholic Product" label on the front of the bag, in which case they are being too lazy to read the ingredients... OR the ethyl-alcohol is NOT listed on the ingredients list... If it is the latter case, where its not listed as an ingredient, either Frito-Lay has failed in their responsibility for proper product information (very unlikely chance), or it is of such irrelevant quantity that the FDA doesn't consider it an ingredient. The article stated the alcohol is used to bring out the flavor, but doesn't mention if the final product actually CONTAINS alcohol. Alcohol is flamable, and cooked products with booze in them tend to burn off the alcohol in cooking. Now if it is the first option, where it is listed in the ingredients, how far must a company go to appease people? Muslims don't like alcohol or pork, Jewish food must be Kosher, Vegitarians hate meat, Vegans can't touch anything that ever came from an animal, not to mention allergies... There are many eating customs and disorders, Frito-Lay just wants to sell some F-ing chips... My stance is that it is up to the customer to make sure food meets their needs, not the company's problem. If your faith/health requires you to avoid a particular item, and you cannot be bothered to find out yourself, it's your problem.
In this I say again, it should fall more to the consumer to find out than the company to inform. If you mention to a McDonalds employee that you have a nut allergy, or request food information, they will tell you. But should that same employee ask every customer if they have an allergy? Or a religious mandate? And if in the unheard-of case where a company will NOT tell you if their food is safe for your situation, you don't eat it. You walk into a Pizza Hut, and ask if their Pepperoni is beef or pork. The cashier doesn't know. If you still decide to order and eat it, and find out later it was pork, you can't go back to Pizza Hut and complain.
Two things here. First, give me an honest answer to this. If Christians became a significant minority population in Pakistan, would they then allow us alcohol for our religious practices? If Jewish people were to move to Afghanistan, would they start marking whether or not something is Kosher? I do not have a definite answer myself, but my belief is that the Muslim/Islamic world would not adapt to people immigrating to their nations. I'd in fact readily believe they would oppress anyone of other faith, and by their laws, execute people for breaking with Islamic ways. So answer me this next question. Tit for tat, if Muslim nations would not adapt to English custom, why should English nations adapt to Muslim customs?
I guarantee I'm more than just a little off, but I am at the same time quite on the mark. I never pass up a good argument, and this one put my mood more than a little on the offended side. But it is a good topic to debate so long as we keep racism clear of it. |
Copy Clerk Posts: 95 Joined: 9 Feb 2008  | It is the daily mail remember, they have a reputation for exaggerating things like this. Stupid article aimed at white middle class tory british trying to get their blood boiling about immigrations impact on their crisp consumption. As its the daily mail its nothing to be taken seriously.This is the newspaper that supported Hitler remember. |
Press Junketeer  Posts: 378 Joined: 8 Jan 2008  | Make it clear what's in your food, if there's bad shit in it you shouldn't be making it any ways. Don't eat some food if you're not supposed to. I don't see why this ruffles people's ungangly feathers so much, everyone gets angry about something or another. Don't get mad just cause people believe things should be a certain way. It doesn't mean it's gonna happen. |
Infamous Scribbler Posts: 570 Joined: 24 Oct 2007 |
Oops... Sorry. I must admit that I haven't read the article, I wasn't aware of it until now actually. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1197 Joined: 1 Jan 2008 |
Uhh... Unless you're a native american, you too are an immigrant. |
Muckraker  Posts: 264 Joined: 7 Jan 2008   |
Or of course, not from the states. A note: alcohol is a potent solvent for use in dissolving pigments in food and other products, and there are plenty of situations where it could show up in the process somewhere along the line. If your food product contains an amount of an ingredient far below the legal requirement to even list, there should be an understood limit to what people can bother you for. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1110 Joined: 16 Jan 2008   |
Our sausages are only 0.01% human meat, what're you complaining about? I don't think anyone is qualified to say "this substance which is a sin to imbibe in some cultures is in a such a small quantity it won't bother that culture." The quantity doesn't matter. If your religion forbids eating it, it doesn't mean you can have a little bit 'long as the mighty one doesn't notice. And the McDonalds reference doesn't quite work, since McDonalds don't have ingredient listing on their paper wrapping so the only real option is to ask, and bearin in mind this is a packet of crisps it'd be a lot of effort to write a letter/make a phone call just to ask if crisps have alcohol in them. And common sense would never suggest to me that crisps would have alcohol in them. You're gonna sell booze, sure, it's a bit obvious that it might have alcohol in, but crisps? That should be marked. Though you can't really have a big warning for everything that might be inedible for some since nearly everything is inedible to someone. |
Pulitzer Laureate Posts: 852 Joined: 22 Aug 2006 |
To summarize my understanding of this particular case: The final product contains a level of ethyl-alcohol that is below the amount considered relevant by the governing agency (this is the UK, do they have a "FDA" or is it something else?), but the level that concerns the Muslims in question is surpassed. So, really, we have a disagreement between the governing agency and the Muslims in question over what the relevant amount of ethyl alcohol is. In this case. As I understand it. This is why I think that this case in particular is silly. The levels are below those stipulated as okay by religious leaders as they are similar to what would be found in bread (based on my reading). Someone is making noise for the sake of making noise. Now, I agree with you that it is the consumer's end responsibility to check and see if the product in question violates their personal requirements, whether that be for allergies, or religious mandates. But, I also see it as the manufacturer's responsibility to make readily available the necessary information. I, as the manufacturer put all relevant information on the bag, and you, as the consumer, check the bag before consuming it. Nowhere do I get the impression that anyone is looking for a giant "ALCOHOL INSIDE" label, but instead, they just want mention at all that there is alcohol inside. We have government regulatory agencies to ensure that manufacturer's put all pertinent information on the bag, so that consumer's don't have to track down representatives at each company to try and figure out what they're eating.
In the case of food labeling, the general assumption is that if something is listed on the bag, the bag contains said item. People do not concern themselves with what the bag says it does not contain. "No Arsenic" "No Old Ladies" "No Lace". If we go down this road, then everytime we want to market a product, or consume a new product, we must go down the entire list of things we don't want, to make sure they're not in there. Let me assure you, there are LOTS of things on my list of things I don't want in my food. Human feces, for example. But I depend on the ingredients list to ensure that only things I want in the product are indeed in the product. So, YES, I AGREE, it is up to the consumer to ask, but it is ALSO up to the manufacturer to fully disclose relevant information. This is NOT the cashier asking every customer if they have a nut allergy, but instead making available the information necessary to determine which products do and do not contain nuts (or, given the severity of some individual's nut allergies, which products were produced on machinery that also processes nuts).
Let's see, answers for your early questions: 1. No, I don't believe that any country whose legal system has been built around Sharia will accommodate your personal religious preferences, because Sharia in and of itself is religiously oriented towards Islam and its principles. Once you have a significant enough presence to get the law changed, then certainly. But why would anyone change their laws for such a small minority, in such a way that would be extremely offensive to the majority? And in any case, I don't think the question is relevant. Also, before the question I just asked is attempted to be turned around on me, let me point out that I think existing law in the UK and the US protects the minority in question, so the article linked, and the discussion at hand, is not a case of a minority trying to get the law set by the majority changed. The item that someone else listed about trying to setup a dual-system that incorporates Sharia into the British legal system as an optional path? In my mind, that would qualify as changing the law for the minority in a way that would offend the majority, and as such, I think it would be silly. For your last question: First of all, Muslim is not an equivalent descriptor to English. In addition, not all predominantly Islamic countries have Sharia embedded in their legal systems. So, let's not talk about "Muslim countries." Let's talk about countries that have built their legal systems around Sharia. So, now, we have countries that have intrinsically tied their religion with their government. And honestly, I can't speak for the UK, but for the US, why should a country with a strong history of separation of Church and State NOT act like a country with very little separation? Why? Geewhiz, I dunno... maybe because it is one of our founding principles? Why should we respect religious diversity, when other countries are willing to repress it? Because we're better than that. Please understand that I am not expressing dislike for any particular religion, or nationality, but I AM stating a specific preference for religious tolerance. That last question makes you sound like a 5 year old. And I mean that in the least respectful way possible. EDIT: Clarified small point (equivalent descriptor) |
Pulitzer Laureate Posts: 852 Joined: 22 Aug 2006 |
Depending on if you're a proponent of the Multi-Regional or Out-of-Africa models of human origin, the only natives are in Africa. Everyone else, Native Americans included, are just immigrants. Depends, of course, on if you define immigrant as "not here first", or "didn't come from here". |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 4427 Joined: 23 Dec 2007  | I defeat all arguments against the British that I have encountered in-game and online in Battlefront and the provided link with my prefrence; |
Paperboy Posts: 21 Joined: 9 Sep 2007 |
Imo some1 should have left you on a mountain...I bet you are mom and dads only child @Topic |
Muckraker  Posts: 289 Joined: 22 Dec 2007 |
What warranted that kind of a response? |
Pulitzer Laureate  Posts: 783 Joined: 9 Jan 2008    | I am so sorry, I couldn't take this Topic seriously. The title is what made me burst out laughing. Just the thought of Samuel L Jackson shouting "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! I have had it with these mother fucking snakes on this mother fucking plane!" I dare any of you to replace the word "snakes" with "Musilms." Then you would be racist, not me. He he he. It's to late for me to actually care about this subject and I'm in the mood where everything is funny. Night people. C: |
Paperboy Posts: 21 Joined: 9 Sep 2007 |
Are you kidding me? P.s: Really sry for offtopic |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 3626 Joined: 25 Jan 2008 | Lots to reply to, so bear with...
Conquerer actually. North America was taken from the Native Americans by force and by contract, which is a very dumbed down way to look at it, but we did not immigrate to an existing nation, we sailed to new land and took it. Slight differences between colonist and immigrant.
Along the lines of something I mentioned, just because they used alcohol in the process, doesn't mean there is any IN the product. Even if there is, is it of sufficient quantity to give two damns about it? Gremlin made a comment about minute amounts still not being acceptable, but unless you create something at the atomic level inside a vaccume, how do you truly expect to get anything totally perfect? Industrial food processors are cleaned with alcoholic substances, should they not clean the machine in case irrelevant quantities of cleaner come into contact with the product? Dust contains human skin flakes, should anything that touches dust be thrown out for fear of cannibalism? If people had ANY idea of how impure their food is, they sure as hell wouldn't eat at a restaurant ever again, but except in extreme cases it is harmless.
All packaged food is required by law to list ingredients and nutritional information. If you need more information than that, the vast majority of companies would be more than pleased to answer any questions. If a company WON'T tell you what's in the food, why would you buy it anyways? There is more I wish to respond to, but I have to leave to catch a movie, may get back to this later. One last part I do have to comment on...
Then it shows a 5-year-old has much simplistic wisdom. It is not an invalid or immature question. If a group of people will not accept another's customs, why should the rejected person accept the group's? |
Infamous Scribbler  Posts: 641 Joined: 6 Feb 2008 | TBH this subject is so trivial that it shouldnt be considered important. There are always ppl willing to complain about anything for any reason. The only reason this paticular trivial affair is getting some coverage is becuse "muslim incompatability" is the hot topic for the right of raving mad in the UK atm. As for the consumer-producer debate; Im staying out of that one :-) |
In my typical lack of doing work while at work, I read articles from FARK.com... There were some rather bizarre stories today, ranging from a 7-year old autistic kid escaping his mother at the airport and winding up downtown, to the announcement of the new Spongebob Squarepants rectal thermometer... I take most of what I see in the news fairly lightly, but every now and then something hits me like a Donkey Punch and my mood goes sour...
Now I know this forum, the internet, and the world is a multicultural place. I can accept that. I know that there are people all over with beliefs that aren't my own. I can accept that. What I CAN'T accept is when one of these cultures or religions starts to get pissy because other people don't bend over backwards to adhere to their beliefs. Now I'm not saying this out of hatred towards Muslims, but just because the Muslim community doesn't like X, Y, or Z item, don't expect the world to cater to your beliefs!
What am I ranting about? Muslims criticise Walkers (Doritos) after it is revealed that some crisp varieties contain alcohol.
Maybe this isn't so irritating to others, but when a religious/cultural group who are immigrants to a nation start complaining about something not being acceptable to their beliefs, it really rubs me wrong and gets me thinking some people need to be deported. I could go on for hours about this, but with the vast cultural scope we have here on the Escapist (and the large number of British nationals), I'm interested on how other people see this. A company is obligated to adhere to the norms and beliefs of its nation and people, but is its obligation only to nationals, or must it cater to immigrants? This is not to say a company can't choose to cater to anyone it chooses, but if a company decided it had no interest in whether or not its food was Kosher for example, is that wrong?
Intellectual debate only please, no flame wars or trolling. This is not a debate of whether or not you agree with X, Y or Z cultural/religious belief, only how far a company or nation must go to appease minorities.