Someone mentioned FO3 and FO:NV already. In Skyrim you can aquire a Daedric artifact that enables you to feed on your slain foes (regenerates hitpoints) and other humanoid corpses, turning you basically into a cannibalistic carrion eater :-)

Actually, I think these kind of threads are quite common among vegans.
I have seen a similar thread on another forum, where somebody was asking if there are vegan dentists around, so he could go visit one.

It is strange, but you gotta realize that veganism at its most strict form is a form of religion, and just like many minor religions prefer to keep to themselves and have all kinds of services from the practioners of that same religion, so do vegans.

It really doesn't make any sense, objectively speaking, as it doesn't save a single animal anywhere, but at least it keeps people kind of happy when they can do their business with like-minded people.

Of course the problem with games is that very few games are one-man projects, so while choosing to support some game based on some ideology, you also end up supporting some completely different ideologies.

A very practical form of this controversy is the Leisure Suit Larry remake, where some people wanted to support Al Lowe by buying the game, but boycott is because of Paul Trowe controversy.
I can only imagine how massive these kind of conflicts can get, if one wants to
1) have games that are made by vegans
2) have games that promote vegan ideology.

But to each his own, guess.

As a final note, I really would like to read a vegan review of Broken Sword 5.
L0LZ

Thanks for the highlights. I don't mean to be judgmental or anything but from my personal experience I wouldn't wish to any kids to feel different than everybody else at that age. I know school can be pretty tough on 'different kids', and I sure wish them well.

As do I, but being identical twins, I think those girls will be standing out no matter what they eat xD

I prefer to say that veganism as well as religions, governs Affect in the sense that it takes a moral role of defining some boundaries for what is good and what is bad. Saying veganism is a religion is by definition inexact : it lacks a dogma and an authority.
Good, at least they're a team :)

I saw a reference from the OP to genocide. I didn't see any reference to nazis (except from those who took offence at the term genocide). My first point would be to suggest that nazis are the only people who have committed genocide is both historically inaccurate and probably a little offensive to those other peoples who have been subjected to genocide.

My second point would be that, in the sense that meat eaters regularly kill a significant part of a species every year, I would say that genocide is not a terrible analogy. Now meat eaters might say, its acceptable to kill a significant part of that species every year because it tastes nice and animals don't have rights, or whatever, but in my view that doesn't take away from the fact that they choose to be involved in it.

Personally I don't have a problem with meat eaters, I just feel that they are not always honest with themselves about their choices.

While provocative expression, that is exactly the case. Simply looking at statistics on slaughtered animals and information about their living conditions clearly shows this.
Not sure how that relates to computer games though.


Most vegans are against having pets. And from any eco-friendly point of view, keeping home pets, like dogs and cats, is a complete waste of resources which serves no purpose, and therefore, less pets the better.
Service dogs, like police dogs, are of course a different matter (not sure how vegans see that).


Rat problems are 99% based on and caused by human ignorance, and wouldn't be a problem with even a little use of thinking. Anyone who has ever dropped anything edible on the ground within city limits is contributing to rat/bird/etc. problems. If trash and organic waste is handled and stored properly, there's practically speaking nothing that would benefit rats. Of course a small number of rats would exist even without humans, but those minor populations would be kept in natural balance by natural predators.

The genocide means to eradicate in my understanding. And nothing else (getting the possession of the deceased is a "by product"), this is ideological.
Killing animals is for feeding. While I agree that the industrial process of killing animals is very far from good on many accounts, the eradication is completely out of question too. These are two major reasons as to why you can't compare eating meat to a genocide.
Yes it can sound provocative, and no it's not 'exactly the case' here. Be it from recent or ancient greece history, holocaust has a religious meaning. Killing animals for feeding hasn't.

Edit : 'holocaust' in the WW2 context is considered by many Jews as a "counter-sense" (not sure of the word here), we usually speak of 'Shoah' in europe.

Post 44, from the OP. While the word "Nazi" wasn't mentioned, it certainly implied Nazis.

So if you kill an entire group of people with the intention of eating them (because, I don't know, chinese people taste nice), its not genocide?

I think the comparison is a bad one because genocide, by definition, can only relate to humans.

From wiki (and this is actually accurate this time) the internationally recognised definition of genocide is:

...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Like all legal definitions, its ambiguous, particularly the "in whole or in part" part. There are many arguments in my country whether the forceable removal of "mixed-race" indigenous children from their parents with the alleged intention of educating and assisting them amounted to genocide.

Regardless, I would say a reasonable argument could be put that, for example, measures are imposed to prevent the birth of chickens, or that members of a group of cows are killed, etc. The key is that genocide can refer to the destruction of (a group of people) in whole or in part. Note the definition doesn't refer to the intent to destroy being the sole intent. I don't really see how, killing a number of animals for the purpose of eating them, is not destroying them.

Having said that, I personally don't think the analogy is perfect.

Well...

I'd call that a reference. I'll grant you that the word "nazi" wasn't used, but... I'd say it's pretty obvious.

Now that is more debatable, and I can agree with your viewpoint to some extent. However, I don't want to get on the argument now, so let's leave it at "I respect your opinion".

And with that I can wholeheartedly agree, but I wouldn't limit it to meat eaters. People who eat bacon made in those huge "farms" (more like pig factories), wear clothes made in china by infant labour, use computer screens with components extracted from African mines amidst civil wars, or eat lettuce harvested by people living in horrible work conditions; we all tend to ignore the moral implications of our way of life when it's not convenient.

Yes I get your point about 'target killing'. My point was that genocide holds a more serious issues, and yes it's up for debate : I don't think killing animals for feeding is 'that bad' (as in 'genocide bad').

The (french) definition of genocide I refer to reflect those ideas :
- Killing
- Systematic
- based on ideology / religion / origin / culture .... (abstract things)

I completely understand your legal definition, but I consider it just helps indictment on many different actions under one ruling. I certainly wouldn't want that "some guys that burn the homes of target population and force them to flee their country but just kill those who resist" don't face genocide charges.
And give their money to banks that speculate on food prices.
That list is depressingly long.


Edit : not to mention those crazy scientist making Super Mutants (read the 8 last lines)

Indeed. Which is why I said, we can't fight it all at once: we each choose our own battles according to priorities. Mocking and insulting others for having other priorities or acting as if your battle is the only one worth having doesn't help anyone much. I find providing info on low effort things, such as looking for the dolphin friendly image before buying tuna and buying the brand that has it, a lot more helpful. I learned that one from my vegetarian cousin, btw.
Didn't anybody explain to them that super mutants are sterile?

That 'SAFE dolphin' casts bad chills !

The most sad thing is when you have 'animal rights activist', 'bio food guys' and 'general ecologists' that somehow have all many issues against the system ... but end up fighting eachother about 'pesticides', genetic stuff because their views slightly differ (or because there are some subject they refuse to debate).

“… fruit from the Del Monte Rosé pineapple cultivar does not have the ability to propagate and persist in the environment once they have been harvested.”

They know. They are that evil.

Well, I think we've derailed this topic enough. I originally was reading it because I was curious about the idea presented by the OP that games made by vegans might have different mechanics somehow and I wanted to see if it was true. But I managed to get my berserk button pressed somehow, so I think it will be better to leave and maybe come back in a couple days to see how it all evolved.