Jokodo
Veteran Member
Yes, sure. But you can't blame other people for not sharing your preferences.
I don't blame anyone, but I do blame religion.
It doesn't make any difference to you whether the reason other costumers' demands are different from yours are religious, purely cultural, or whatever else: If people want to make sure that their food hasn't touched any pork, they'll create a demand for eateries that don't sell pork whether their reason is that they consider it a sin, or that the idea of the knife that cuts their turkey stake having previously cut ham is as appalling to them as the idea of a cockroach having crawled across the ham is to you for purely cultural reasons, or a biological difference in their taste-buds/scent receptors makes them actually faint from the mere smell of ham.
I don't know what you mean: the reason something is no longer available on the market matters, if only in a moral sense.
I can envision a world far in the future where cage eggs might be considered so morally repulsive that there is simply no market for them. But the people avoiding cage eggs now are (generally) doing it for a good reason: cage eggs cause unnecessary suffering compared to eggs produced without birds locked in tiny cages. The consciences of the egg eaters are assuaged, but the suffering of millions of birds is actually reduced.
Eating halal meat over haram meat might assuage the conscience of Muslims, but their beliefs are delusional. They'd be better off, and the world would be better off, if they did not have such deluded beliefs.
Then don't compare it to free range eggs (not really a valid comparison anyway), compare it to something you (or at least a majority of people in your culture) wouldn't eat for no rational reason. Say, horse meat, or fried insects. The world is not becoming a better place by people in English speaking countries not eating horse (no, don't start to argue that eating horse is repugnant because they're such intelligent, sentient animals - pigs are more intelligent; and don't try with the fact that horses are less efficicient plant-matter-to-meat converters than pigs - it's probably true, but by that logic you should go poultry only, or better yet vegan).
To repeat: For someone who thinks life is much worse without product X, it is an inconvenience if product X becomes harder to come by because of other consumers' mismatching preferences. How those other consumers rationalise those preferences doesn't make it any better or worse, and telling off Muslims for prefering to eat halal is no more rational, or less egocentric, than telling off native-born Britons for not buying enough horse meat or fried locusts for British mainstream supermarkets to carry those products.
Last edited: