Au Revoir To Foie Gras?Next lobster, next rabbit. Myself, I believe I'm lucky to find myself on top of the food chain. I think God created rabbits and ducks for me to enjoy. And soft-shell crabs.Cruel, or just plain bad for you?
Foie gras is an incredible delicacy, but, yes, to produce it requires the forced feeding of ducks. Literally, holding the motherfuckers & stuffing food down their throats.
This is not good.
Saying that force-feeding ducks does not 'hurt' them is asinine. Have you ever eaten so much of a favorite food that you feel so full you want to throw up? Then magnify that by a couple of times with the addition of a giant stuffing a funnel down your throat. Can you imagine the awfulness of that?
Ducks cannot vomit.
My own experiences with the lowly fowl convince me that they are not merely dumb, emotionless little bastards to be exploited for our pleasure, but unique creatures, each (potentially) with beautiful abilities of their own & even, yes, personalities. Convincing humanity that this means doing away with a tasty gourmand's treat in favour of enjoying the antics of our smelly, loud, befeathered beaky fellows as they flap around the pond is another matter.
/slightly drunk
Chefs, restaurateurs and producers say that ducks are not hurt by the force-feeding and enlarged livers,
Absolutely correct! Obviously,ducks enjoy eating, so they MUST enjoy having bushels of food dumped down a metal pipe into their stomaches! And obviously a liver is a vital component of a duck's physiology, so increasing the size of a liver just means "more of a good thing"! Fantastic!
hehe
BtW, people, this is one of the sorts of things that makes me not particularly disturbed about humanity being destroyed. It's not the practice itself, it's the implications.
If the goal is to enlarge the liver, couldn't they just get the ducks really really drunk?
Are they banning the food, or the farming practice? The latter makes more sense, since that is the real issue here, and I would agree with it. Banning the food is difficult (do you ban all fowl liver, or just foie gras?), and would be an example of the kind of invasive nanny-state meddling I don't like to see governments involved in.
pâté de cirrhosis?
There's something about gavage that would make me question myself if I was shoving a funnel down the throat of a bird (even if I was convinced that it was not a cruel process).
From what I understand, the proposed legislation is a ban on sale and production (similar to what Gov. Ahhnold signed into California law in 2004). But I agree with your point rocket.
ah, all you gourmets are size queens. if you really appreciated duck liver, you wouldn't care what size it is.
MonkeyFilter: Ducks cannot vomit.
If its wrong to torture the ducks, what animal is it okay to torture. We're all vegan here, right? No chicken wings tonight? Free-range and died of natural causes?
Can't take a side on this debate, will immediately be called a hypocrite. I can't afford the sweet taste of exquisite suffering anyway, I can only afford the meaty goodness of moderate to severe suffering.
It's interesting to observe that the more investment (either financial or emotional) a person has in foie gras, the more likely they are to claim that its production methods are harmless. I'm sure it's a great comfort to be able to tell yourself "Aww, it's not hurting them any!" when you're eating their deliciously fatty liver.
Everyone outside the foie gras milieu* is, I think, relatively unanimous in agreeing that foie gras is pretty cruel.
* Lookit me, using a fancy word! I think I even spelled it correctly.
If duck liver is outlawed, only outlaws will have duck liver.
American values:
torturing prisoners, A-OK
force-feeding ducks, punishable by law
I'm glad to see we still at least understand what torture is.
Well, its not like we're gonna throw the farmers in the clink for 20 years. They're gonna get a fine and a slap on the wrist. The torturers, they'll be given medals and called heroes.
Just pegged my cynicism meter, thanks.
"If its wrong to torture the ducks, what animal is it okay to torture."
Uh, well, assuming anyway that you're being ironic, I say that, imho, it's not OK to torture any animal. Even insects.
That's just my opinion.
(Disclosure: I massacred thousands of ants with the magnifying glass in my preschool days - I blame that movie about Atlantis with the big parabolic dish laser - but if karma is real, then I'm the Stalin of ant killing)
briank FTW
MonkeyFilter: Stalin of ant killing
Fondle The Weasel?
I'm not really trying to be ironic. If I accept that I should not torture a duck, then don't I have to accept that I shouldn't be debeaking chickens, or forcing pigs to live in tiny pens, or cows to be herded into the killing room?
The ducks have bad lives, I agree. MOST farmed animals have bad lives. We all say, well, its a matter of degree.
The more I think about this the more I come to the conclusion that either I give up meat entirely, or I accept that nature is a bitch and I'm lucky to be on the top of the food chain, in which case, fois gras? Who cares. They're ducks. Lucky its not you being force fed to engorge your liver.
The argument that fois gras is pure gastronomic entertainment, and is somehow dispensable doesn't wash, because frankly, barbecue is the same thing. We'ld all be perfectly fine on a soy/corn/mushroom/lentil diet, so anything that isn't needed in terms of calories is insufficient to justify any amount of torture on a purely pragmatic "what causes the least unnecessary suffering" scale.
If I accept that I should not torture a duck, then don't I have to accept that I shouldn't be debeaking chickens, or forcing pigs to live in tiny pens, or cows to be herded into the killing room?
And what would be so difficult about that?
Well, you don't see them passing laws, do you?
Speaking of cows being herded to the killing room......
They can have my foie gras when they smoosh it out from my cold, dead hands.
*goes back to slurping back veal through a straw*
Are they banning the food, or the farming practice?
From what I understand, when it comes to foie gras one neccesitates the other. This isn't like chicken eggs, which will continue to come out of chickens under a spectrum of conditions ranging from outright cruel (debeaking as Mord notes, etc) to humane (whatever your definition of that is, chances are that chickens will still be producing eggs), foie gras is by nature grossly distended malformed duck liver, and AFAIK, the only way to get that is to engage in outright barbarism.
If I accept that I should not torture a duck, then don't I have to accept that I shouldn't be debeaking chickens, or forcing pigs to live in tiny pens, or cows to be herded into the killing room? This isn't neccesarily all or nothing. If any of these practices offends you, you can choose not to support them without giving up all meat. Producers are becoming quite attentive to people's desires for more "humanely" raised/slaughtered meat.
No law is needed in order to not eat meat.
No, its not "choose what offends you". They are banning the production of fois gras. This is a violation of equal protection and government intrusion of private industry so long as Tyson, KFC et al., can keep up their practices which are also torturous.
If we are going to outlaw torture of animals, then we do it. We don't just pick and choose what industry we can destroy because it happens to be the least popular.
The distinction is that fewer people will get upset if they don't get fois gras than if they don't get kfc. Not that fois gras production is torture and the rest of them aren't.
Choose what offends me. Yeah, that will make an impact.
Okay, but say it again slower.
What offends me is the hypocrisy. I don't want to see fois gras either, but I don't see a way to get rid of it that is anything other than the hypocritic majority sitting in judgement over a small minority.
How do you think these things work, Mord? Do you think everyone wakes up one day and says "Hey, let's change everything about how we've lived and viewed our world for the past 10,000 years?" No, people's perceptions and practices tend to change gradually, with more extreme examples changing first.
The more I think about this the more I come to the conclusion that either I give up meat entirely, or I accept that nature is a bitch and I'm lucky to be on the top of the food chain, in which case, fois gras? Who cares. They're ducks. Lucky its not you being force fed to engorge your liver.
So, you rail against the "hypocrisy" in others, but in the end all you're doing is using their short-comings as a justification for your own unwillingness to change?
Do we want governments impeding our enjoyment of life solely based on their entirely made-up definitions of what constitutes torture? Very few of us would be impacted by a foie gras ban, or would defend the common practice of producing it, but where does it end? Is veal next?...or the aforementioned lobster and rabbit? Is it torture to keep any animal in a pen or cage, or force it to pull a cart, or ride on its back? Some would say 'yes' to all of the above. Are you OK with having laws passed to appease them?
If governments really feel the need to get involved, they should help these animal advocacy groups in their efforts to educate the public and allow us to make our own informed decisions about what we choose to eat.
I don't feel like letting the majority make my moral decisions based on how much it can get away with. Not as long as they are a bunch of hypocrites. And I don't feel like damning one group of people for being just like everybody else today. My unwillingness to change? You don't know what I eat.
But honestly, why the hell should I give a damn about those poor ducks. What have they done for me? But the guy that raises them, he's at least contributing to the local economy. He's helping provide jobs for people.
Its a stupid law, and if you are unwilling to go all the way, and outlaw the farming of meat for food, you might as well forget it. This is just legal creep, and there will be another "lets feel good about destroying somebody else's business" next for lobster and veal.
Either that or we'll be inundated with 1000s of laws that have no consistency, all on the basis of citizens advocacy groups lobbying to get some practice that they don't like eliminated.
They could just encourage people not to buy fois gras, and maybe while they are at it educate them about how the REST of their food is prepared. At least then they could be semi-informed, and not just go "omg, fois gras is terrible", while gleefully eating their KFC.
this debate sounds awfully similar to homer simpson's philosophies -
seriously, there's something just not right about mistreatment of any living thing.
If thats the case, you should tell all the animals to stop eating each other.
They're mostly too stupid.
The difference for me is, there ARE humane ways of farming other animal products. It's not a given that any meat, milk, or egg product you eat neccessarily stems from inhumane treatment of animals. Government restrictions require farmers to disclose these things (such as the "cage-free," "free-range," and "organic" labels, although somebody or another is constantly trying to get the definitins of these lables changed). I have the option of eating these products, and the USDA makes sure I can find out which is which. If I want, I can request the cook to quickly dispatch the lobster before boiling it.
There is no human way to produce foie grtherwise there would be some smart guy out there making millions off it, and the government would be in there making sure he didn't sell something else and call it "humanely-produced foie gras."
But by all means, let's not let the government tell us how to produce what we eat. I'm off the cut my neighbor's head off with an Xacto knife and boil it up with some cabbage and potatoes. Them's good eats!
Phutt!
Youze guys don't know how to find the REAL taglines.
MonkeyFilter: They are not merely dumb, emotionless little bastards to be exploited for our pleasure, but unique creatures, each (potentially) with beautiful abilities of their own & even, yes, personalities.
MonkeyFilter: Enjoy the antics of our smelly, loud, befeathered beaky fellows as they flap around the pond.
MonkeyFilter: If duck liver is outlawed, only outlaws will have duck liver.
It's cruel that fois gras is bad for you, but there you are.
I think there are ethical considerations in the way we treat our food animals. Raising and slaughtering meat under humane conditions is a different matter than producing fois gras. The way we treat our fellow creatures speaks volumes about us ethically.
American values:
torturing prisoners, A-OK
force-feeding ducks, punishable by law
I'm glad to see we still at least understand what torture is.
Unfortunately, we don't even have the morality necessary to care for the members of our own species, let alone another.
Yeah, it speaks volumes ethically.
Free-range
"Livestock that is raised unconfined (by current definition, a minimum pen size of 3 feet x 3 feet)."
What was that we were saying? The closer we are too it the more inclined we are to say its humane?
Sorry about the snarkiness. This stuff bothers me. We condemn these fois gras guys but then, we're different, we buy free-range chicken (regulations say anybody can say beef is free-range), and say we're different, we're humane.
I'm sure there are some farms where the animals are happy up until the moment the axe finds them. But they are rare. And the government turns a blind eye largely.
I tend to agree with The Underpants Monster. When I can, I buy cage free/free range/organic. Granted, I live in a small town, so usually this relegates me to buying eggs, milk, and produce. It costs a lot more, but I figure I get it back in karma which balances out when I buy regular mean chicken and cow (which I do once in a blue moon).
I think you make a very interesting and compelling argument, Mord. I'm not really invested in the foie gras issue, but I have occasionally wondered why they are attacking such a small industry when there are so many bigger players in the animal cruelty game.
I don't feel like letting the majority make my moral decisions based on how much it can get away with.
So true, about so many things.
I think I agree with every opinion here. On the one hand, I'm not happy about industrial farming, but on the other hand, I know I'm an omnivore, and am not likely to give up meat.
It is sad that we don't have the acreage and time to raise our own food animals in the way folks did 100 years ago. Cows don't go out to pasture during the day and come back at dusk to be milked. No one has mentioned it, but the megadairies' milk cows live in now are total squalor - mounds of cow shit are mountains they climb to indicate alpha-hood, hip to hip in small enclosures with no grass, only dirt. The amount of pollutants from a herd of 10,000 cows in a restricted space is amazing. But I still eat cheese, milk and ice cream. As do many ovo/lacto vegetarians who don't want to eat anything with a face. For those of you who see the "California Cows" commercials, it aint like that for the products you buy in the grocery stores.
Lamb is the only product that I know of that's raised in a more old fashioned manner, at least in California. We still have shepherds of Basque descent who run flocks on land that isn't theirs. My grandparent's homestead is rented to a herder who uses it for pasture in early spring, but the herds go off to glean wheat and other fields after they've been harvested. Pretty efficient.
So, I guess that if you want to take a stand, but still want to eat meat, you could go with lamb, and maybe goat, and grow your own chicken and turkeys. Oh,yeah, if you're really serious about a stand, you shouldn't eat the eggs from the grocery stores, since the conditions for the animals are probably worse than for the dairy herds. And, let me point out that "organic" only applies to the food animals eat, not to the way they're housed.
So what's the alternative? I guess we could go out and hunt deer and the like, but that's a pretty big commitment to supply meat needs for a family. And, many people see that as more cruel than buying a package of hamburger from the meat display.
Pressing for better treatment of food animals seens a good thing to me, but you can be assured that it'll raise the cost.
Factory farms are an abomination, and sadly are the norm in a lot of places. Humane farms ARE out there - you just have to do the research.
Or you could eat only vegetable protein and feel much less guilty. Jes' sayin'
I would no sooner advocate that my views on the ethical treatment of animals be made into law than I would support making other peoples' views on abortion being made into law. That said, I think there's something to be said for dialogue and exchange when it comes to this issue.
I encourage people to stop eating meat (I've been a mostly-vegetarian with a shrimp weakness for almost 15 years now), but I also respect everyone's decision to do so or not. I do think the corporate megafarming practices currently in place are a hideous form of cruelty which exist only to maximize profit -- the animals are seen as machines, not living creatures. I believe we humans have a responsibility to approach nature the way it approaches us: synergistically, instead of always seeing it as something to exploit and control.
I think all of the especially-cruel meat-production trends (tiny cramped cages, suffocation of male chicks, etc) should be done away with -- we've got plenty of the necessary resources to make it happen. The question is: Will Archer Daniels-Midland make as much money in the next quarter?
But honestly, why the hell should I give a damn about those poor ducks. What have they done for me?
Okay, let's set up an analogy. (I think I got this from Peter Singer, but I can't remember.) Let's say I have a friend whose brother is severely mentally retarded. He can't ever do anything for you. The only sense in which he'll contribute to the economy (as the rest of your quote raises) is by allowing someone to offer long-term care.
And yet we wouldn't think of eating this person. So the distinction must lie somewhere else -- it's because the duck is not a human. It has nothing to do with intelligence or lack thereof. Thus, the real question for me is not: Can the duck build a bridge? Or serve the community? The real question is: Can the duck feel pain? Can it suffer? Obviously the answer to both of these is yes -- and therefore (here's where it gets icky) -- I feel I have a duty as a living thing to treat it with peace, so as to inflict the least possible suffering.
Again, I shiver at the thought of enshrining such a thing in law. But on the other hand, our laws exist in large part to try and delineate some of these nebulous ethical borders.
I don't feel like letting the majority make my moral decisions based on how much it can get away with.
Well, that's a big part of what democracy is, yes? Obviously -- as Thoreau said -- any system which is based solely on the will of the majority cannot be based on justice. But insofar as our laws are never going to make everyone happy, there's bound to be a little of this.
I feel like I'm going in circles somewhat, so I'll taper off here. I'll just add, in stopping, that I'm really not at all interested in flame wars -- just good discussion. One of the things that makes MoFi so great.
a mostly-vegetarian with a shrimp weakness
Heh- I'm stealing that one - thanks.
How many modern urban meat eaters have ever personally killed and butchered their dinner? Any life taken for ones own sustenance should be treated with respect, if not reverence.
*munches on cheeseburger*
A more compelling argument, is that this form of agriculture is unsustainable. Spending 1000 calories for every calorie of meat thats finally put on the table won't hold. The oil crunch is coming, and even if we convert all the arable land to farm, in the absence of petroleum based fertilizers we still won't be able to feed everyone a vegetarian diet, let alone one that contains meat.
But then Paul Ehrlich was saying this 40 years ago. Maybe something else comes along and saves us.
I feel for the ducks. There are more compelling issues. Factory farming is doomed anyway.
Oh, and I do like Pete Singer's argument. The what have the ducks done for me is a hypothetical, I don't have a cart in this race, noone will listen to me anyway. Pragmatically, I don't have to eat meat at all. If I was single, I probably wouldn't I like mushrooms, walnuts, lentils just fine.
So anyway, I admit I'm a hypocrite. Its more convenient for me to have the occasional meat.
I do so, guiltily, because the people I live with haven't given this much thought and its impractical/impossible to persuade them to a vegetarian diet. I buy free-range, organic, small-farm when I can, have started reducing our portion sizes... but there is only so much I can get away with when I'm cooking for others.
The Dalai Lama eats meat, IIRC. He just won't request it for himself. Thats how I look at it.
I think the fois gras is wrong. I think veal is wrong. I think almost all of it is wrong. On the other hand if a chicken decided to die on my doorstep, I wouldn't turn my nose up at some coq au vin. I just don't think a law is the solution.
Not when it treats the small time producer of fois gras differently than the big-time producer of veal.
Yeap you're a hypocrite. It's a side effect of having a thinking self-aware mind. The truly evil, and the truly dumb are possibly the only people who aren't hypocrites.
No, I think the politicians are hypocrites too.
What Mord has said over and over again ...
This law is political correctness gone mad (mind you, all political correctness is based on some level of insanity) There's probably a echo of 'freedom-fries' hating the French as well ...
It's tokenistic, paternalistic and largely irrelevant. It's disguising tackling a large problem by destroying a small one.
As has been said, pretty much all mechanised, industrialised, food production is every bit as cruel as Foie Gras production.
Surprised no-one has mentioned "Fast Food Nation"
If you eat fast food, processed food, food bought pretty much anywhere other than a farmer's market or an organic restaurant or grown/reared yourself then you've got very little right to criticise those who eat Foie Gras, because you're participating in rearing methods that are just as cruel ...
That said ... I try and buy as much meat as possible from farmer's markets and eat Foie Gras very occasionally ... and usually when I'm in France and it's sourced locally.
Had some, pan fried, on Sunday at an all you can eat hotel buffet in Singapore and the guilt overcame the enjoyment of the taste ...
But then Paul Ehrlich was saying this 40 years ago.
And he was right about so much stuff.
This is my simple religion. There is no need for temples, no need for complicated philosophy. Our own brain, our own heart is the temple; the philosophy is kindness.
-- His Holiness the XIV Dalai Lama
Second the mention of Fast Food Nation - a good read and relevant no matter what your diet is.
I'm not against laws prohibiting animal cruelty. If animal cruelty creates jobs, those jobs need to be eliminated.
Because evil exists is no reason to refuse to fight it.
Comparing laws prohibiting the production of foie gras or veal to laws that prohibit "animals eating each other" is a very bad analogy.
MonkeyFilter: mostly-vegetarian with a shrimp weakness
And now, back to the studio.
I love this place.
*grumble, mumble*
Foie gross.
Where's that fooey funnel?
Because evil exists is no reason to refuse to fight it.
You can create greater evils if you don't fight it correctly.
Comparing laws prohibiting the production of foie gras or veal to laws that prohibit "animals eating each other" is a very bad analogy.
Don't believe I ever said pass a law. I was trying to point out that nature itself is cruel, and cruelty in and of itself doesn't make it wrong (or we would be duty bound to stop animals from being cruel to each other). What makes it wrong is that its unnecessary. Noone here is going to starve without meat.
I don't like proselytization in any form. Vegans and many vegetarians elbow me towards misanthropy with this practice. I've never met a carnivore that has tried to change me from my omnivorous diet (and yes I do know carnivores). Maybe I just know all the wrong people.
All domesticated meats are prestige foods. It has been this way with humans since neolithic times. The amount of resources invested into an animal in order to bring it to the point of "edible maturity" is quite taxing on a community. With the foie gras issue, the ducks have to be force fed, which is even more resource hungry, which in turn increases the prestige of the food item.
Many vegetarians are very well aware of this fact and tend to bring up the resource weight of meat as defense for their own diet while loosening all ties to the ancient human ritual of eating domestic meat (which was likely only eaten during feasting or ritual ceremonies according to corroboration with modern day analogies). Why does a vegetarian have to justify his or her lifestyle?
Omnivores have brought feasting and ritual to everyday rituals of ham sandwiches, corndogs and chicken wings. Those that don't participate in the elite feasting of meat aren't in the same echelon of humanity as us prestige-eating elites. Does this ghost of social norm still exist in our daily world? Is this the mentality that vegetarians suffer under? Is this the reason for people's nosiness in regards to the justifications of a vegetarians diet? Does this reflexive need to justify one's diet then present itself, at least in my eyes, as proselytizing? If you look at the shop price-tags, it would seem that vegetarian and free range proteins carry more of the anthropological sense of prestige, but do they constitute a greater investment of resources?
For the love of humanity, if only people could quit harping on how vegetarianism or meat is great and vice-versa how one or the other sucks. The slippery slope in that last paragraph be damned, the proselytizing is there. There are bigger issues at stake here, such as how much you are driving your post office co-workers over the edge, Moby.
The odd thing about foie gras is, however, that we don't think eating animals with multiple open sores, mad-cow disease or any other form of unhealthiness (besides obesity) is a prestige form of social currency.
That's all bullshit, for the record—fatty, indulgent bullshit
Those that don't participate in the elite feasting of meat aren't in the same echelon of humanity as us prestige-eating elites... Is this the mentality that vegetarians suffer under?
What in the name of the gods are you talking about? My being a vegetarian has nothing to do with whatever "echelon of humanity" I exist in, according to other people. (For the record, I'm in the same "echelon" as all the great icons of history's most noble struggles -- Frederick Douglass, Gandhi, Gabriella Pinto, Ken Saro-Wiwa, etc. You can decide where that is.)
I'm not proselytizing -- you'd know it if I were. (read: I didn't start this thread.) But I do believe every human has the right (the duty?) to challenge -- with compassion and respect -- every other human on important questions of ethics and right action. Otherwise, we risk spiralling into zombiesque comas of rigity, closed-mindedness, and orthodoxy.
Agreed?
sorry but it HAS to be done
MONKEYFILTER: zombiesque comas of rigity, closed-mindedness, and orthodoxy.
This is a pretty intense subject. I am a former vegetarian myself, and sometimes find myself eating surprising things: bunnies, duckies, gross-seeming but really delicious delicacies...
I believe that Nature is non-moral. Animals predate, kill, devour. We "excuse" them of cruelty because we deem that they do it to survive, but who has not seen a well-fed housecat toy with a mouse it has no desire to eat; just an impulse to kill?
Eating meat is not bad (morally), nor is "farming" or domestication of some of the yummier (and more tractable) species for convenience. Its when the kiiling is raised to a level of mechanized objectification of a given animal as "product" (and therefore, immune to any need of fair treatment) that we become so disturbed. as well we should be, if only because the stories of industrialized animal cruelty remind us that in so many parts of the world humans are treating other humans in pretty much the same way (except maybe not eating them!).
If it bothers you, be a vegetarian, or eat mostly free-range/organic/small farm animals, as I do. I'm not sure how I feel about the idea of the government prohibiting the production of foie gras, it smacks of totalitarianism to me. regulation, yes, and if you find it reprehensible then don't eat it... but I have to say when I get a chance to try it I will. I hear that stuff is teh YUM!
There's a lot to digest in this thread. Seriously, pun not intended.
There are many insightful comments, which makes it all the better for me - as I hesitated posting this to begin with. And thanks to roryk for providing yet another ascii masterpiece that speaks a thousand words...
Surely the important factor to note here is that they don't kill the ducks in this process - they employ lasers to excise painlessly only about 75 percent of the liver, leaving the rest to regenerate in the course of a few weeks, thus readying itself for more "plumping up". Similar to the gentle down-removal process, of course.
> Why does a vegetarian have to justify his or her lifestyle?
i don't. but people invariably ask me why i don't eat meat. should i just tell them to fuck off? what if we're (as is frequent) becoming acquainted over dinner? it might lead to a somewhat difficult main course, not to mention the brandy and cigars.
in my experience (~ 20 years non-meat-eating), there's less proselytizing from vegetarians than there is interrogation and failure to comprehend from omnivores.
But this is the slippery slope point of that terrible paragraph in my uninvited tirade: The proselytizing that does occur seems to me to be the result of the ignorance and predjudice of omnivores.
scartol, turn your sarcasm detector up, the words I used are a jingoistic parody of anthropological thought. For the record, proselytizing comes in different forms, and I doubt I was referring to you anyway; that was an open letter.
Vegetarians come in a wide range of proselytising fervor, it seems to me. I've known some who didn't bring up their choice unless you noticed and asked about it, and others who were incredibly annoying. Much like the rest of us.
I'm a little surprised that there are so many here who don't eat meat, but only because they seem to be more in the quiet end of the scale. The article which SMT linked to was certain to lead to a discussion of choices, and explanations of why we've chosen as we have. I really haven't seen real proslytising - just offering of opinion.
STOP SPREADING YOUR IDIOTIC LIES! ABJURE YOUR DIETS OF DEATH AND JOIN MY AUTOPHAGOUS CULT NOW!
mmmm is it quidlunch time?
the quidlunch kid! Hey, do you have one with just the veggie turkey on it?
since i realized the cruelty inherent in all livestock farming, i buy my animal produce from a local cooperative called manor farm. the animals are all members of the cooperative, but their spokescreature is a pig called napolean. it's so cute - he walks around on his hind legs, plays cards, and drinks brandy.
MonkeyFilter: a jingoistic parody of anthropological thought
I really haven't seen real proslytising - just offering of opinion.
I haven't noticed out and out proselytizing either until scartol replied to my first post in this thread. Like I said in the earlier post, I personally don't see the need to challenge other people's dietary choices—save perhaps Dahlmer. But even the Hamatsa like a little of "the other white meat" now and again. Maybe all I wanted to say is that the parable of "the good samaritan" is a thorn in the side of the believer's neighbors. Must we condone the other's behaviour in order to live our own lives?
I'll be the judge of that.
And I'd like to also mention that "Foie Gras Fatwa" is either an excellent band name or a good Polka title.
Foie gras fatwa
and twa foie gras...
*tap dances into the wings*
From what I understand, many Tibetan lamas have no real problem with eating meat. In fact, they believe that doing so helps the animals overall karma. There is also a path, focusing on confrontations with the darker aspects of samsara, that utilizes the skeletal remains of executed murderers in their ceremonies with the understanding that doing so will aid the criminals future incarnations.
And the Shambhala path, based out of Nova Scotia, in particular is known for its leaders' susceptibility to carnal appetites.
Yep, I used to share a house with a bunch of 'em. Busy folks!
I must give credit to StoryBored for the fatwa on foie gras
*dances a little foie gras fatwa jig*
Duck the hall with owls and swallows,
Fa la la la la, foie gras fat-wa!
Eat enough of that goose liver, and you're going to get fat-what, what?
tis' funny, Southpark just played the episode where the boys kidnap a bunch of calves to prevent them becoming veal. Stan starts developing mini pussies all over his body because he's the only one who doesn't eat any meat. Because not eating meat turns you into a giant pussy.
"It does bother me the way it's raised, but then my grandfather raised cattle in Kansas, so I'm very aware of what farm life is like," said Pati Heestand, a retired graphic designer and foie gras aficionado.
Mmm. Quite.
..---.. .'--. .' _ `. ' '. '--._.' (o) : ' . __ * ; ' . .--' `. * / '..--' ; `..---...___ .' `~-. .-') . ' _.' : : ' ' \ / `._ _.' `~--....___...---~'