What's that Pate that rich people eat called?

[Mrs Miggins]

well that's wrong because foie gras shoudl mean the actual liver, if a restaurant is advertising pate de foie gras as foie gras it is lying.

Nobody does that.
You will always see "pate de foie gras" if that is what you will be getting
And that is what you usually get IME

 

[rutabowa]

Nobody does that.
You will always see "pate de foie gras" if that is what you will be getting
And that is what you usually get IME

yes, i know.

 

[Mrs Miggins]

yes, i know.

Just stating the bleedin obvious

 

[fen_boy]

Was just pointing out that its still torture, fair enough not on the same level (assuming we are the most important animal) but there are similar reasons for the justification of it and its still totally fucking unnecessary.

I can't agree with you there, it's not pleasant, but it's not torture, and the reason's for doing it are definitely not the same as the reasons for torturing people, to claim otherwise is offensive to those people that have suffered real torture (IMO obviously).

 

[selamlar]

Bloody hell Yetman, attack of the old Godwin's law, eh?
I wouldn't regard this as torture, for the same reason that I wouldn't regard killing an animal (not a human, I know humans are animals) as murder, whatever the circumstances. Animals are not human and as such are not entitled to the same rights/treatment as humans. Part of the problem with applying the same standards to animals that ou do to humans is knowing where to stop. Do mammals have more rights than birds? Do birds have more rights than insects? (reducto ad absurdum I know, but you see where I am coming from)

However, that doesn't mean I think you should be unnecessarily cruel to animals, rather that it is a stain against your moral conscience if you are. Problem being, define necessarily

 

[rutabowa]

Just stating the bleedin obvious

oh yeh cool! well you are right i think!

 

[Yetman]

i'm not saying i think humans are better than any other animal by the way, i am just saying that all species of animals have a certain "fuck you" attitude to other spcies and humans are no better than the rest.

We are no better than the rest no. Still a bunch of fucking monkeys in fact. You dont really get any other species as sadistic as us though (except wasps of course) - instead of using our intelligence to enable us to live in harmony with the world, we've used it to fuck it up royally

When humans are all gone the world will be back to a beautiful equilibrium. If only we could be a part of that.

And dont buy cheap meat. Still.....the suffering involved in Foi gras is a definite, its a requirement. The suffering involved in cheap meat production is probable, but isnt definite, and shouldnt (lawfully) happen.

 

[Yetman]

Bloody hell Yetman, attack of the old Godwin's law, eh?
I wouldn't regard this as torture, for the same reason that I wouldn't regard killing an animal (not a human, I know humans are animals) as murder, whatever the circumstances. Animals are not human and as such are not entitled to the same rights/treatment as humans. Part of the problem with applying the same standards to animals that ou do to humans is knowing where to stop. Do mammals have more rights than birds? Do birds have more rights than insects? (reducto ad absurdum I know, but you see where I am coming from)

However, that doesn't mean I think you should be unnecessarily cruel to animals, rather that it is a stain against your moral conscience if you are. Problem being, define necessarily

Firstly, to Fen boy - fair enough, its torture for a reason though, the same reason the holocaust was torture for a reason.

Taking in the above post though, its an accepted notion that we are more important than animals in the heirarchy of living things, so although my feelings may be 'respect all, and all will respect you', thats not practical in this time. We will fuck up though, and it will be because of our lack of mutual respect with nature. It'll only be too late to do anything about it when we do.

As far as necessities go though, humanely killing for food is necessary. Putting an animal through lifetime pain for a slightly interestingly flavoured, totally unnecessary paste, is cruel.

 

[Mrs Miggins]

Putting an animal through lifetime pain for a slightly interestingly flavoured, totally unnecessary paste, is cruel.

I realise that this is a somewhat glib answer and that the production of foie gras is indefensible but the ducks/geese do not have a lifetime of pain.

 

[selamlar]

<devils advocate> But humanely killing animals for food isn't necessary, is it? We could all be vegetarian/vegan. Indeed the economic/resource useage arguement fr vegetarianism is much more compelling to my mind that the killing-fluffly-baa-lambs arguement.

 

[fen_boy]

Firstly, to Fen boy - fair enough, its torture for a reason though, the same reason the holocaust was torture for a reason.

Without wishing to sound like a broken record, whilst it's unpleasant it's not torture, geese are not people, and it's definitely not for the same reason as the holocaust and in drawing comparison with the holocaust we're starting to move into really offensive AR nutjob territory - I can feel a Godwin invocation coming on

 

[selamlar]

I can feel a Godwin invocation coming on

See above

 

[fen_boy]

See above

Whoops, missed that.

 

[guinnessdrinker]

Neither are gays or jews eh

care to explain?

 

[guinnessdrinker]

Firstly, to Fen boy - fair enough, its torture for a reason though, the same reason the holocaust was torture for a reason.

to compare the production of fois gras and the holocaust is rather offensive. if that's what you actually think, can you defend your ideas here, if you dare?

 

[selamlar]

To be fair, Yetman did say that his/her earlier remark was an over-reaction.

 

[Yetman]

Without wishing to sound like a broken record, whilst it's unpleasant it's not torture, geese are not people, and it's definitely not for the same reason as the holocaust and in drawing comparison with the holocaust we're starting to move into really offensive AR nutjob territory - I can feel a Godwin invocation coming on

So when you read in the paper that (e.g) some kids tortured a dog to death, or someone tortured a horse for fun, you think 'well its not torture' so its not as evil as if someone did it to a person?

I realise that this is a somewhat glib answer and that the production of foie gras is indefensible but the ducks/geese do not have a lifetime of pain.

Ah, sorry, thats ok then. Dig in everyone, it didnt suffer for that long! Hey ho! twat

<devils advocate> But humanely killing animals for food isn't necessary, is it? We could all be vegetarian/vegan. Indeed the economic/resource useage arguement fr vegetarianism is much more compelling to my mind that the killing-fluffly-baa-lambs arguement.

We could all be vegans but the fact we have incisors means we are meant to eat, as are other carniverous animals. Meat can be provided humanely. Foi gras, not so.

 

[Yetman]

to compare the production of fois gras and the holocaust is rather offensive. if that's what you actually think, can you defend your ideas here, if you dare?

Hmm it wasnt a like for like comparison though was it? It was simply to point out that we are shocked and appalled at torture to humans but when it comes to animals we can raise ourselves onto a pedestal and justify it - when the real reasons (i.e greed & unnecessary self satisfaction) are the same.

 

[selamlar]

So when you read in the paper that (e.g) some kids tortured a dog to death, or someone tortured a horse for fun, you think 'well its not torture' so its not as evil as if someone did it to a person?

Yes. Precisely that. I don't think 'Hey, Give those kids a medal, bloody horse had it coming to it', I think 'What a fucked up thing to do'. Still not torture tho, and still not as bad (evil is not a very helpful word when talking about morality. Reason being, evil is by definition indefensable) as doing the same to a human

 

[Yetman]

Yes. Precisely that. I don't think 'Hey, Give those kids a medal, bloody horse had it coming to it', I think 'What a fucked up thing to do'. Still not torture tho, and still not as bad (evil is not a very helpful word when talking about morality. Reason being, evil is by definition indefensable) as doing the same to a human

Fair enough. To me, getting any form of pleasure, or even result out of the applied pain of something else, is torture.

Interesting point about evil though......could this level of 'badness' be defensable? If not does it not make it 'evil'?

 

[Mrs Miggins]

Ah, sorry, thats ok then. Dig in everyone, it didnt suffer for that long! Hey ho! twat

Just thought you might want to get your fucking facts right before you start calling people cunts.

Clearly not

Twat

 

[Yetman]

Just thought you might want to get your fucking facts right before you start calling people cunts.

Clearly not

Twat

I called people cunts way before stating any fact. Dunce.

 

[selamlar]

Could it be defensable? Probably. Does that mean that you have to accept said defense? Probably not.

The other thing about evil is that it is often used as an appeal to higher authority, for example for many Christians, a good definition of 'evil' may be 'doing something against the expressed will/law of God'. Runs into problems immediately as a) what if there is no God? and b) God says you are allowed to, indeed sometimes must, do really fucked up things. EG Abraham and Isaac

 

[Mrs Miggins]

I called people cunts way before stating any fact. Dunce.

Cool that makes you right then. Clearly.

You did see the word "indefensible" in my post yeah? Probably not. Too busy occupying the moral high ground.

 

[Yetman]

Cool that makes you right then. Clearly.

You did see the word "indefensible" in my post yeah? Probably not. Too busy occupying the moral high ground.

So what was the point in defending it if it was indefensible? Or was that not the point of your post? What exactly was the point of your post then?

Me too.
I sometimes think "I'm not eating this ever again because the way it's produced is not very nice". And then I come across it in a restaurant and I order it because it's fucking gorgeous. Hey ho.

The moral high ground could be a platform at the bottom of a fucking mineshaft from where you are standing.

 

[Yetman]

Could it be defensable? Probably. Does that mean that you have to accept said defense? Probably not.

The other thing about evil is that it is often used as an appeal to higher authority, for example for many Christians, a good definition of 'evil' may be 'doing something against the expressed will/law of God'. Runs into problems immediately as a) what if there is no God? and b) God says you are allowed to, indeed sometimes must, do really fucked up things. EG Abraham and Isaac

Yeah I suppose it is a subjective thing, even though by definition it shouldnt be. I suppose my own reason is the only thing I have to judge things with, but I'm pretty sure I'm in the majority on this one.

 

[rutabowa]

Yeah I suppose it is a subjective thing, even though by definition it shouldnt be. I suppose my own reason is the only thing I have to judge things with, but I'm pretty sure I'm in the majority on this one.

the thing is you are picking one random, very low scale production, food product that causes no more pain to the animal than loads of huge scale production techniques that a huge majority of people i guess tacitly condone because they buy the products. and then yr making out the people who eat the small scale one to be like totally unforgiveable evil, but the people who eat the large scale products (which cause suffering to thousand of times more animals than foie gras production does) you're just saying "well it's not totally sure taht the animals are suffering, so these people are ok".

 

[DRINK?]

PETA is starting a campaign stating that the secret ingredient in KFC chicken is "cruelty" cruelty is apparently the most f*cking delicious thing on Earth
Which is why veal and fois gras are the best food ever yumma yumma

 

[Yetman]

the thing is you are picking one random, very low scale production, food product that causes no more pain to the animal than loads of huge scale production techniques that a huge majority of people i guess tacitly condone because they buy the products. and then yr making out the people who eat the small scale one to be like totally unforgiveable evil, but the people who eat the large scale products (which cause suffering to thousand of times more animals than foie gras production does) you're just saying "well it's not totally sure taht the animals are suffering, so these people are ok".

Nah its not ok, of course it isnt - its just this thread is about Foi gras, hence me going on about that in particular, and also theres no way you can eat it without knowing how it was made.

I appreciate your point though - but we have to make a start somewhere.

 

[Mrs Miggins]

So what was the point in defending it if it was indefensible? Or was that not the point of your post? What exactly was the point of your post then?

I wasn't defending the practice - which is why I said it is indefensible - I was pointing out that you don't actually know what you're talking about. You'd prefer to just brand everyone as a cunt rather than enter into any sort of conversation. Why bother trying to persuade people that they really shouldn't eat foie gras on the ground of cruelty if you can just get their backs up and call them names eh?

The moral high ground could be a platform at the bottom of a fucking mineshaft from where you are standing.

Thing is, Yetman, I never claimed any moral high ground did I? I answered a thread honestly. I know that the means of production are fucking horrible but nevertheless, on rare occasions, I will eat it because it's delicious.

Can you honestly say that you live by every single one of your no doubt very fine and high morals 100% of the time, each day and every day? If you can, then I bow to your moral superiority for you truely are super-human. Rather than sub-human like me and a few others who have had the balls to admit eating it.