"Freedom" thread or something

Atavachron wrote: ]Cruel or unusual practices toward an animal (even a non-mammal) particularly for a food product that is not a staple or in high demand in American culture, could be considered unethical.   I believe that it is.   There's not much more to it than that.

I don't think things like demand for a meat should affect the morality of an action nor the legality. Unless, I'm misunderstanding, neither of us really wants to get into a prolonged discussion about animal rights. I'll just sum my position by saying that I don't give them any.


Edited by Equality 7-2521 - March 05 2012 at 07:46

stonebeard wrote: ^ It's certainly no less unethical than the mass killings that happen in modern day animal meat processing. And if something like chicken breat is more in-demand in America, does that mean the cruelty that goes on it more acceptable even though it is more prevalent by orders of magnitude? Seems a bit backwards to me. The modern way of meat processing is largely unnecessary, for survival at least. Humans do not need nearly as much meat as current Americans eat to lively healthily, and even less to flourish. It's less about necessity and more about pleasure now.

You're saying a couple of things--  firstly, the existence of a larger more standardized cruelty does not mean preventing a small cruelty is backwards.   Further, California passing such a law may contribute to a larger conversation about how animals-for-consumption are treated.    Or maybe not, but one does what they can in their little corner of the world.   Second you raise the issue of whether we need to be eating such large amounts of meat in the first place.   As a meat-eater I am of course biased on this to a degree, but I would point to a continuing need for affordable protein sources for a struggling population.   I'm not going to tell someone able to get a pound of ground beef for a third the price of other cuts, who can feed themselves or family because their market offered chicken parts at three bucks a pound - however questionable and non-range fed - that they can't or shouldn't do that.   Maybe someday we'll have a more agrarian, humane and 'sustainable' system but until then people need affordable meat protein (not just beans or cheese or even protein supplements though those are all very good too).

^OK since everybody decided to ignore my opening post, and since I want to ignore this animal discussion because I detest cruelty against animals AND also curbing freedom, it's time for me to proselytize.

Slarti and all democrats, please read this good article if Obama let you down... .

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Atavachron wrote: Did someone say cheesesteak?   Essential eating, though just last week I went to my local place (totally authentic BTW, no west coast nonsense) and got the 'Mr. Philly' which is double meat and cheese with onions and hot&sweet peppers... whiiiiich wasn't such a great idea as I'd not had one in awhile. On subject, California has, or will in July, initiate a new No Foie Gras law that prohibits the serving of it or the cramming of food down birds' throats to make it.   Though I have usually tended to side with the foodies on this, all the Tony Bourdains and Mario Batalis and Gordon Ramsays who champion meat in every form and eviscerate veganism & Raw Foodism, I'm not sure yet how I feel about this.   Two things strike me first: 1) I nor anyone I know will miss eating foie gras, mainly because we don't-- it's expensive, artery-clogging and if I want to indulge in rich fatty meat I'll get some BBQ or have a nice pastrami or roastbeef sandwich.   2) the notion that force-feeding an animal is not cruel, that it is "natural" and that the bird "is used to both eating and feeding its young that way" may not be accurate enough to allow people to do this just so someone feeling extravagant can have what is essentially pâté, something that is still available.   Even Wolfgang Puck supports the law and believes chefs should think forwardly about it. Yeah I know, we should all be able to eat whatever we want, but when so much equally tasty, fatty meat products are available, I don't feel too bad disallowing a metal tube down a poor goose's throat to shove cornmeal into its stomach just so some accountant can impress his date. I've never had it and probably never will, but it's not sufficient for us simply to agree that a practice should not make place to make the argument for its outlaw. I just don't see a reasonable basis for the law.

Cruel or unusual practices toward an animal (even a non-mammal) particularly for a food product that is not a staple or in high demand in American culture, could be considered unethical.   I believe that it is.   There's not much more to it than that.

The T wrote: I only want to take the opportunity to thank you all for still ignoring my first-post question... .

 

Atavachron wrote: Did someone say cheesesteak?   Essential eating, though just last week I went to my local place (totally authentic BTW, no west coast nonsense) and got the 'Mr. Philly' which is double meat and cheese with onions and hot&sweet peppers... whiiiiich wasn't such a great idea as I'd not had one in awhile. On subject, California has, or will in July, initiate a new No Foie Gras law that prohibits the serving of it or the cramming of food down birds' throats to make it.   Though I have usually tended to side with the foodies on this, all the Tony Bourdains and Mario Batalis and Gordon Ramsays who champion meat in every form and eviscerate veganism & Raw Foodism, I'm not sure yet how I feel about this.   Two things strike me first: 1) I nor anyone I know will miss eating foie gras, mainly because we don't-- it's expensive, artery-clogging and if I want to indulge in rich fatty meat I'll get some BBQ or have a nice pastrami or roastbeef sandwich.   2) the notion that force-feeding an animal is not cruel, that it is "natural" and that the bird "is used to both eating and feeding its young that way" may not be accurate enough to allow people to do this just so someone feeling extravagant can have what is essentially pâté, something that is still available.   Even Wolfgang Puck supports the law and believes chefs should think forwardly about it. Yeah I know, we should all be able to eat whatever we want, but when so much equally tasty, fatty meat products are available, I don't feel too bad disallowing a metal tube down a poor goose's throat to shove cornmeal into its stomach just so some accountant can impress his date.

I've never had it and probably never will, but it's not sufficient for us simply to agree that a practice should not make place to make the argument for its outlaw. I just don't see a reasonable basis for the law.

Did someone say cheesesteak?   Essential eating, though just last week I went to my local place (totally authentic BTW, no west coast nonsense) and got the 'Mr. Philly' which is double meat and cheese with onions and hot&sweet peppers... whiiiiich wasn't such a great idea as I'd not had one in awhile.

On subject, California has, or will in July, initiate a new No Foie Gras law that prohibits the serving of it or the cramming of food down birds' throats to make it.   Though I have usually tended to side with the foodies on this, all the Tony Bourdains and Mario Batalis and Gordon Ramsays who champion meat in every form and eviscerate veganism & Raw Foodism, I'm not sure yet how I feel about this.   Two things strike me first: 1) I nor anyone I know will miss eating foie gras, mainly because we don't-- it's expensive, artery-clogging and if I want to indulge in rich fatty meat I'll get some BBQ or have a nice pastrami or roastbeef sandwich.   2) the notion that force-feeding an animal is not cruel, that it is "natural" and that the bird "is used to both eating and feeding its young that way" may not be accurate enough to allow people to do this just so someone feeling extravagant can have what is essentially pâté, something that is still available.   Even Wolfgang Puck supports the law and believes chefs should think forwardly about it.

Yeah I know, we should all be able to eat whatever we want, but when so much equally tasty, fatty meat products are available, I don't feel too bad disallowing a metal tube down a poor goose's throat to shove cornmeal into its stomach just so some accountant can impress his date.

And yes I still can't believe there is such a thing as a cheesesteak...

He logged in yesterday, so unless someone has whacked him and taken over his account, he's okay.

I miss him though.