zom-zom wrote:And I'm a meat-eater. I have no problems with that. My opinion though, is that anyone who eats meat should have to kill, gut, and clean a large mammal at least once in their lives to get some perspective. Perhaps they would have a bit more respect for the life of the animal they are eating.

This is the most interesting idea that I've picked up from this thread. It's a neat application of the idea of Naked Lunch.

I happily eat all popular kinds of meat, but I've never had to kill and prepare meat as zom-zom puts it above. I don't have a great eagerness to do so, but I wonder whether my eating habits would change if I did. When I was 16, I was offered a job in the local butchers, which I nixed as soon as I visited the premises. Feels hypocritical.

scott wrote:I would save you, though, cause I like your bass playing. And any band that's alright by Stabby Cat is alright by me, too.

I thought Stabby Cat wanted to stab and kill Jay Ryan? Maybe we can call off the restraining order.

Do you drive a car? Ever hit and killed a bug on your windshield? If so, how do you live with yourself? Do you still drive? I am making the assumption that bugs are equal in importance to geese and capable of bug love.

Again, there's a big difference between an animal spending its life heading for slaughter and an animal doing the same but in extreme physical pain for that whole life.

Chapter Two wrote:Again, there's a big difference between an animal spending its life heading for slaughter and an animal doing the same but in extreme physical pain for that whole life.

There's a big difference to the animal, but its opinion isn't taken into account at any other point up to the axe.

Why is torture such a guilt-button for people, versus every other aspect of an animal's life?

Torture is dehumanizing, as is breeding, captivity, execution, etc. If you're going to eat animals, you can't humanize them.

jason smith wrote:

Sly Bug wrote:I understand the process of foie gras making can upset people but to ban things seems to be an American habit these days.

Wasn't it enough to communicate about how foie gras is made and let people decide by themselves if they want to eat any or not?
Obviously, knowing that, there are persons (like SpankMarvin) who wouldn't eat foie gras and it'd be their own decision.

Obviously it wasn't enough. People didn't show the moral capacity to sacrifice their personal enjoyment for the suffering of creatures with smaller brains. The atmosphere of a fancy resteraunt and a plate of savory food is too far removed from where that food actually came from. Do you really want to think about that when you're trying to eat?

My point wasn't to debate whether it's right or not to eat foie gras or even any animals. Some people think it's bad and they don't eat them. It's their decision to be vegetarian and I'm totally fine with it.
Other people think it's OK and eat meat/foie gras. I am one of them.
My point was, as far as people can get the information, it's important to me the decision to eat or not foie gras remains their own choice.

jason smith wrote:

Sly Bug wrote:Chicagoans, don't you feel like someone is stealing a part of your individual freedom?

You are seriously going to invoke "freedom" as part of your case? Certainly animals are more stupid than us and in some way maybe the natural order of things is for us to dominate them. But they are never given a chance to make it a fair fight. They are born into a life of involuntary servitude.

Of course, I invoke freedom. We, human beings, are at the top of the food chain. It's a fact. The way you deal with it should be your own choice.
Being a vegetarian is a very acceptable individual solution. To prohibit everyone to eat meat is an attack to your invidual freedom. A tiny attack, sure, but still an attack.

jason smith wrote:Should we just not regulate anything at all? I wish I shared your optimism for human nature. So we don't really need laws against rape or murder, we should just let people decide for themselves -- wouldn't want to impose on the freedom of those that enjoy murdering and raping!

WTF! Other members have already ansewered you about this point but I will too.
My definition of freedom among human beings:
Your individual freedom should only end when it decreases someone else's freedom. La liberté des uns s'arrète là où commence celle des autres.

oyrgawd wrote:

Chapter Two wrote:Again, there's a big difference between an animal spending its life heading for slaughter and an animal doing the same but in extreme physical pain for that whole life.

There's a big difference to the animal, but its opinion isn't taken into account at any other point up to the axe.

Why is torture such a guilt-button for people, versus every other aspect of an animal's life?

Torture is dehumanizing, as is breeding, captivity, execution, etc. If you're going to eat animals, you can't humanize them.

breeding, captivity and execution don't have to hurt.

sparky wrote:

zom-zom wrote:And I'm a meat-eater. I have no problems with that. My opinion though, is that anyone who eats meat should have to kill, gut, and clean a large mammal at least once in their lives to get some perspective. Perhaps they would have a bit more respect for the life of the animal they are eating.

This is the most interesting idea that I've picked up from this thread. It's a neat application of the idea of Naked Lunch.

I happily eat all popular kinds of meat, but I've never had to kill and prepare meat as zom-zom puts it above. I don't have a great eagerness to do so, but I wonder whether my eating habits would change if I did. When I was 16, I was offered a job in the local butchers, which I nixed as soon as I visited the premises. Feels hypocritical.

As a meat-eater, I've felt this way for quite some time, yet I haven't actually taken the plunge and gone a-huntin' to execute this belief, so perhaps I am a bit hypocritical in espousing it. But I can tell you that the converse mentality to the one addressed above annoys me to no end.

I have heard the gist of the following statement expressed by many people: "Oh, I can't think about it being an animal when I eat it; it can't actually look like one. It has to be a non-descript, anonymous slab of protein, so that I can divorce myself from the reality of what I am complicit in, the killing of another living thing." Fuck that. If you're going to eat an animal, you should understand what the hell you're doing. If it's "too gross," then you shouldn't eat meat.

And maybe this is a tangent, but it's something I've wondered about for a while...maybe one of you can set me straight. Cattle production has been proven to be environmentally unsound and virtually impossible without cruelty to the animals. Yet in most (again, I could be wrong) American cities and towns that are near wooded environments and forests, there is a recurring problem with the "overpopulation" of deer.

Now, of course, the reason the deer population is out of whack is most likely due to our ("Western civilization's") presence eliminating natural predators. Regardless, however...wouldn't it be preferable, both from an environmental perspective and an animal rights perspective, to encourage hunting, killing and eating deer in lieu of supporting the cattle industry? Just a thought, flay me if you must.

zom-zom wrote:I spent the past three years sous-cheffing in a French restaurant.

Ok, is that why you kept asking how to prononciate French words?

Sly Bug wrote:

zom-zom wrote:I spent the past three years sous-cheffing in a French restaurant.

Ok, is that why you kept asking how to prononciate French words?

Mais non. I only asked about "Petoncles" and "Petanque".

My family is from Quebec, where they speak "Real" French.


We're not going to turn the clock back, people aren't going to stop demanding their cheap cheeseburgers 'n steaks. But if we can start eliminating some of the bad livestock-raising practices and torturous methods don't you think we should? People are eating more free-range and organic meat. It tastes better and it doesn't fuck up the land as much. And like our friend said, it doesn't have to hurt. Except maybe that last clonk on the head.

My brother raises longhorns in WI. They wander around 120 acres eating grass, get no injections, lead a relatively stress-free-cow life. I'm going to eat the hell out of some of that beef, and I feel better knowing that these animals at least had a decent enough time being cows.

Wood Goblin wrote: No offense, but this reasoning bugs the shit out of me. The two things aren't mutually exclusive. Believe it or not, I can both be opposed to the foie gras industry and think that the schools could be improved. I can be disgusted about both factory farming and the Iraq war.

Well, that's not really my point. Regardless of where one stands on the issue, I am perturbed that our local government is spending more than $0 of what I pay in sales taxes, parking meters, property tax, etc etc on something that I feel to be waaayyyy the hell down the list in terms of priority right now rather than after other things have been taken care of. Because you can't spend however many thousands of dollars you spend to pass and enforce a law like this while at the same time spending those exact same thousands of dollars fixing up dilapidated schools, for example.

So yes, these things are mutually exclusive.