PETA and Foie Gras

[RandFan]

Off topic, but I'm sick and tired of this kind of reports. Over 4 minutes of talking heads and about ten seconds of the actual force-feeding, the latter shown again 4 times. - And a few clips of ducks ... hey, I happen to know what ducks look like. Sure, it does not look very dramatic, and I don't think it is any more or less cruel than a lot of other things we do to domestic animals.

But why is this a video clip? Half a page of text and a still photo would be just as informative.

...Never mind ....

Hans

OMG, too much info. Dude, next time don't watch. Jesus Christ, don't read the damn page. Use your freedom of choice. It's why you have it.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

I wonder how much damage the duck suffers once its liver has been removed and ground up into a tasty spread.

If it doesn't duck then its goose is cooked, in what's sure to be a fowl end.

But you're asking about once its liver has been removed. I'd venture to say that by that point it doesn't feel a thing.

 

[Skepticemea]

For maxiumum rage, you'd want a tub of foie gras to dip it in.

Deep-fry the buggers in it. Yummo.

 

[Damien Evans]

Ducks swallow live crayfish.

That's hardcore

 

[citizenzen]

Sure, it does not look very dramatic, and I don't think it is any more or less cruel than a lot of other things we do to domestic animals.

I'm a twenty-year vegetarian, but I agree with this statement.

The enslavement and butchering of animals is overall a cruel practice and these days it's less and less necessary to our survival.

But so long as it is a part of our culture, it's hard to get worked up over one form or cruelty while overlooking all the rest.

 

[redfarmer]

The enslavement and butchering of animals is overall a cruel practice and these days it's less and less necessary to our survival.

Just curious, you use the word "enslavement", which is an extremely strong word. Do you believe that meat eating would be less cruel if we still hunted all of our animals in the wild?

 

[citizenzen]

Just curious, you use the word "enslavement", which is an extremely strong word.

I think enslavement is exactly what we're doing to domesticated animals.

What word would you think more accurately describes it?

Do you believe that meat eating would be less cruel if we still hunted all of our animals in the wild?

I think meat-eating would be less cruel for the animal, and less of a drain on our resources, if we minimized it and learned to enjoy meatless diets.

But I am not advocating that for everybody. People need to come to that decision themselves.

I chose it for myself. And that is good enough for me.

I suspect that any change in the overall diet of human beings will happen gradually and over a long period of time.

 

[redfarmer]

I think enslavement is exactly what we're doing to domesticated animals.

What word would you think more accurately describes it?

I don't know what I would call it other than farming. But, by a strict definition of enslavement, it could be argued in that regard that dogs, cats, fish, guinea pigs, etc. are being enslaved when we keep them as pets or service animals. Are you opposed to keeping animals as pets?

I think meat-eating would be less cruel for the animal, and less of a drain on our resources, if we minimized it and learned to enjoy meatless diets.

But I am not advocating that for everybody. People need to come to that decision themselves.

I chose it for myself. And that is good enough for me.

I suspect that any change in the overall diet of human beings will happen gradually and over a long period of time.

That's not what I asked, though. I asked if you thought meat-eating would be less cruel if we still hunted all our meat wild.

 

[mumblethrax]

Once the actions are being performed for fun, the actions are cruel. This both expands and contracts the amount of things that would qualify for me.

Shoot a chicken with a pellet gun ( and yes i have seen this, and gotten angry) out of boredom? Cruelty. As an example.

But if what is being done is being done for the purpose of food, or the increased ease or production, well that is what we are using the animal for.

What is it about food that make food production self-justifying in all cases? Even if this argument works for staple foods...we're talking about foie gras here, right?

 

[redfarmer]

What is it about food that make food production self-justifying in all cases? Even if this argument works for staple foods...we're talking about foie gras here, right?

So what is your case that foie gras should be an exception?

 

[citizenzen]

Are you opposed to keeping animals as pets?

To a degree, yes. I think that animals should only be kept as pets if they are treated humanely and with love. I believe that many, many people who own pets are not suited to care for them in such a way.

I asked if you thought meat-eating would be less cruel if we still hunted all our meat wild.

If we only hunted animals, but still tried to maintain as much consumption as we do today, I imagine it would be equally cruel.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

This is like a proud-heterosexual American male getting ****** to death by a young Heather Locklear. No, two Heather Locklears.

Heather Locklear ? Way to date yourself To your credit, you did qualify it with young.

 

[mumblethrax]

So what is your case that foie gras should be an exception?

My case is that giving food producers impunity to charges of animal cruelty is arbitrary and irrational, that this kind of cruelty can only be justified is where there's a similarly weighty countervailing interest (like, you'll otherwise starve). Since that's only ever true of staple foods, and only in specific circumstances, that leaves a lot to answer for. Most of the food we produce should be regarded as a luxury, and especially foie gras.

 

[redfarmer]

To a degree, yes. I think that animals should only be kept as pets if they are treated humanely and with love. I believe that many, many people who own pets are not suited to care for them in such a way.

It is conceivable that some human slaves were kept humanely and loved. Did that justify their slavery?

If we only hunted animals, but still tried to maintain as much consumption as we do today, I imagine it would be equally cruel.

In that case, may I suggest that the enslavement issue is a rhetorical non-sequitur? If all meat-producing farms were shut down today but people still ate meat through hunting, you would still be opposed to it. You are opposed to meat eating wholesale, no matter how it's done. Please don't misunderstand: I'm not criticizing your position here, only trying to clarify it.

 

[redfarmer]

My case is that giving food producers impunity to charges of animal cruelty is arbitrary and irrational...

Can you demonstrate that food producers are being given impunity to charges of animal cruelty and, if so, how it is relevant to the discussion of whether it is possible to produce foie gras humanely in any circumstances?

...that this kind of cruelty...

This entire thread is about whether foie gras is cruel or not. Can you demonstrate it is, given that several of the more popular claims have been debunked early in the thread?

...can only be justified is where there's a similarly weighty countervailing interest (like, you'll otherwise starve). Since that's only ever true of staple foods, and only in specific circumstances, that leaves a lot to answer for. Most of the food we produce should be regarded as a luxury, and especially foie gras.

What do you consider "luxuries"? Are mayonnaise, mustard, ketchup, relish, and similar condiments luxuries since we could eat the foods they are normally applied to without them? What if scientists were able to create a tasteless capsule that met our nutritional needs? Would that make all foods luxuries?

I submit the distinction between luxury and staple foods is an arbitrary one, and to believe that the only reason we eat food is for nutritional needs takes a very dim and narrow view of the act of eating altogether. Food is almost universally as much, if not more, about taste than it is about meeting nutritional needs. We humans are one of the few species that often will not stop eating when we are no longer hungry. It's the Super Size theory: even though none of us need a Super Sized order of french fries to survive, if placed in front of us (assuming we like the taste of the french fries), the majority of us will eat all of the french fries despite the fact our hunger stopped before we ate all the fries.

 

[RandFan]

Heather Locklear ? Way to date yourself To your credit, you did qualify it with young.

Old, young, hell I'd hit it. But then I had a poster of Farrah Fawcett on my wall. I'd hit that too if it wasn't for the pesky laws.

 

[redfarmer]

Old, young, hell I'd hit it. But then I had a poster of Farrah Fawcett on my wall. I'd hit that too if it wasn't for the pesky laws.

So is it safe to say, if there was a heaven, you'd be banging Heather Locklear AND Farrah Fawcett for all eternity....at the same time?

 

[Babbylonian]

So is it safe to say, if there was a heaven, you'd be banging Heather Locklear AND Farrah Fawcett for all eternity....at the same time?

Boy, this is really getting off topic. At least mention that all three of them would snack on foie gras during breaks.

 

[mumblethrax]

Can you demonstrate that food producers are being given impunity to charges of animal cruelty and, if so, how it is relevant to the discussion of whether it is possible to produce foie gras humanely in any circumstances?

Did you read the post I was responding to?

This entire thread is about whether foie gras is cruel or not. Can you demonstrate it is, given that several of the more popular claims have been debunked early in the thread?

I didn't see any debunking, just a link to an Anthony Bourdain video. I'm not inclined to see his view as authoritative, nor his presentation as impartial.

Are mayonnaise, mustard, ketchup, relish, and similar condiments luxuries since we could eat the foods they are normally applied to without them? What if scientists were able to create a tasteless capsule that met our nutritional needs? Would that make all foods luxuries?

Yes, and yes. Keep in mind, however, that this distinction was raised in the light of the necessity of harm to animals. I'm not aware of any specific animal cruelty that takes place during the production of mustard.

I submit the distinction between luxury and staple foods is an arbitrary one, and to believe that the only reason we eat food is for nutritional needs takes a very dim and narrow view of the act of eating altogether.

Well, you've submitted it, but maybe you could flesh out your criticism? But I haven't suggested that we only eat for nutrition. Only that basic nutrition is a more serious matter than taste. If someone in sub-Saharan Africa says "I have no bread" and you say "I have no cake", I regard one of you as being in a more perilous situation (it's not you). And If you're suggesting that we may torture animals to death if the result is delicious enough, you're taking a much dimmer view of eating, and of human beings, than I am.

 

[citizenzen]

It is conceivable that some human slaves were kept humanely and loved. Did that justify their slavery?

Here. Let's make your analogy more apt ...

Let's imagine that human slaves didn't merely work on the plantation. Let's imagine that while some worked on the plantation, many other slaves were fattened up, and eaten by their owners.

If that were the case, then I would at least say that slaves that were neither forced to work the plantation, or eaten ... that slaves that were well fed, loved and cared for as if part of the family of the slave owners ... that those slaves were the most humanely treated of slaves.

Does that justify entirely their captivity? No.

It just places it in its proper context.

If the worst thing you do to animals is to house some and treat them with the same kindness as members of your own family, then that isn't as cruel as butchering and consuming them.