Aha...
Alright people, this is what I mean when I talk about the ridiculous places our society is going. We're going to legislate and outlaw fois gras now?! The only thing I can say is that it better have an ethnic food clause as I intend to use it! ;)
posted by z @ 12:27 AM
7 Comments:
At 7:43 PM,
Anonymous said…
Do you agree that there is at some undefined point a certain amount or type of behavior that would be considered cruel to animals, and should society in fact protect animals from said cruelty? If we agree on the above point, the question then becomes how we define cruelty.
At 9:59 PM,
Anonymous said…
That was me up there in the previous post:)
At 2:02 AM,
z said…
Absolutely! I think most people would. The disagreements start once you actually try to define that line.
I would say that most industrial meat "farming" is cruel to the animals. Does that mean that we should stop the practice? Well, not really. There is no viable alternative. Granted there could be a discussion here (more than open if you're interested), but I think overall that statement is correct.
The normal food (which for some reason has a special name these days - organic) is more expensive and that does not suit the general populace. Instead we get industrial food (which for some reason is called food) and organic food with their different price brackets. Therefore the masses and the elite both get their fill.
To target fois gras without tackling the beef, chicken and pork industries is the height of hypocrisy. In my opinion the latter are the same or much worse when it comes to animal treatment. It just happens that fois gras is an easy target as it is a delicacy not consumed by general populace in the United States.
At 10:45 AM,
liz said…
z, i agree ... KFC is worse to its chickens than people are to foie-gras geese. And i know what they do to the geese.
At 10:47 PM,
Anonymous said…
Couldn't it be argued that since foie gras is a luxury rather than a necessity (unlike industrial meat), why should we go out of our way to be intentionally cruel?
E.
At 3:11 PM,
z said…
Sure, anything can be argued.
I could argue that we are intentionally cruel to animals in most our dealings with them. Let me break it down.
1) Meat growing and processing - quite vile and incredibly cruel
2) Zoos - keeping animals locked up in cages and displayed for people's amusement is quite cruel
3) Pets - locking up animals in our living spaces for our physical and emotional benefit is selfish and cruel. For example, pet birds spend their entire life in a small cage!
4) And so on and so forth...
The way fois gras is produced pales in comparison. And I know - I've seen it done manually. It's a two week process where prior to harvesting the bird meat (ahhh, rhetoric... this campaign is full of it) twice a day the bird is held under one arm while the corn is stuffed down its throat with a finger. Pleasant? Not at all. Cruel? Sure. Fact of life? Absolutely.
It is important to keep things in perspective. Most predators do not kill their pray before they start consuming it. Try that for cruelty. Nature is cruel. This seems to me a bit like crying over stepping on a few ants while we're bulldozing their entire colony.
Of course, there is no real justification for more cruelty. Just because we use and abuse animals does not mean taking away a small part of that suffering would be pointless. I would like to see some real interest in animal welfare though and not just token self-gratifying gestures of the "we saved these three birds while we annihilated their entire species" kind. We seem to be very good at the latter.
At 10:15 AM,
nell said…
Re: pets in houses.
If Wisconsin decides to let people (read: rednecks with guns) hunt "feral" cats in an effort to control the cat population, then it could most definitely be argued that keeping such animals inside is for their own safety.
Not that I'm exactly pleased about the "solution" to the feral cat problem.
Post a Comment
<< Home