lol am i the only idiot here that read the title of this thread and thought some crazy chef killed a live deer in front of protesters and then ripped off a leg and started eating it raw
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Toronto chef butchers, eats deer leg in front of animal rights protesters outside his restaurant
- Thread starter Dook's Revenge
- Start date
- Status
It's not rare at all. A lot of the outrage behind foie gras originated decades ago when geese were the primary source. In more recent years a species of duck called the Mulard was crossbred from two other duck species that is ideal for the process. They have anatomical traits which make them take to the feeding better. Also, ducks, like many water birds, do not have a gag reflex as they are accustomed to eating live prey such a small fish, frogs, snails and other things, many of which are larger than than the size of the tube used in gavage. The feeding tube causes no discomfort to the birds, and feeders monitor the birds comfort and ability to handle the food carefully. The only reason it's called "force feeding" is because the ducks are fed more than they would naturally eat, and force feeding is not done to the point of discomfort due to the characteristics of Mulard ducks. They are typically fed three times a day for 25 days before slaughter.
All foie gras produced in North America is produced under those same guidelines. The only remotely questionable part of it is whether or not it's ethical to feed the ducks more than they naturally would eat, which is already something we do with virtually all other livestock. Generally speaking the conditions under which ducks raised for foie gras in North America are kept is far better than the average chicken kept for industrial egg production.
Reacting to stimuli is not the same as the ability to feel pain in the same sense as we do. Plants don't have a nervous system or brain and there is certainly no scientific consensus on plants feeling pain/suffering.
But let's say you are right and a fucking broccoli can feel pain just like a pig, you would still cut down on the suffering caused by you if you go vegan, since no one eats less plants than a vegan. You know, animals don't live of love and air alone.
And I don't believe for one second that you think all live is equal. Should a rose be given the same moral consideration as a human?
Assuming someone is telling the truth based only on their word, despite that it would be overwhelmingly unlikely isn't critical thinking either.
Wait, so which is it?
Sorry, if every single ounce of meat in circulation was made "local, sustainable and ethical" we'd need another Earth's worth of pasture. It takes up untenable amounts of space and resources. The only reason meat can be so prevalent is because of industrialisation which makes it take up 100th the space and time. It's a completely untenable form of sustenance (until people reduce their intake).
Edit: sorry, this is primarily true of red meat and pork. Not v true of chicken and fish (the latter of which has its own series of horrors).
People think it's morally wrong, but they don't want to change their behavior, so they highlight a small minority of extreme vegetarians / vegans / animal rights activists and then pretend like they're doing a good thing by eating meat because it's pushing back against "militant veganism" or whatever. You can see it all over the place in this thread.
The existance of a handful of vegan protestors in Toronto doesn't change the moral calculus. I wish people would stop using others as an excuse for their actions, and just have an honest discussion with themselves about what they think is right.
Okay you are seriously acting petulant for absolutely no reason because you're making an unproven assumption and just running with it. We get it, we seriously get it at this point.
I think this is the key thing with the foie gras discussion here. You're essentially arguing that all North American foie gras is humane, and that's likely the restaurateur's position too. A lot of people believe that the amount of force feeding required to make foie gras is inherently inhumane, and the only "ethical" foie gras is the stuff where the birds naturally overeat ahead of migration, which as I say as far as I know there is only one producer globally.
I don't think the restaurateur is lying necessarily when he claims all the animals are humanely treated, but he has different standards for what counts as humane treatment of animals.
Dude your first response to me in this was that it must be ethical because he says it is. I never made any claim that what he was doing was unethical even if I think it is. My first post was just trying to get people to question why they think local automatically means ethical because it doesn't.
Basically. The protesters have a different definition of humane: not consuming meat. They're in the minority. Ducks kept for foie gras are generally treated more humanely than most farm animals due to the amount of blowback the product garnered years ago when practices were much worse.
In a futuristic, perfect utopia? Yes, it should.
In the real world, we still have too many problems of our own to sort out. That said, I don't pretend that the steak I ate last night came from a "lesser" life form. It simply came from another life form. All life on this planet likely shares a common ancestor, after all. It all has value.
See, that sounds disgusting and unnatural to me. I'll keep eating the real stuff, not some artificially grown equivalent.
You're calling the fire department without checking to see if there's a fire.
If you have evidence that he's lying, tell us and I'll immediately rebuke him.
I already love this guy.
I hate protestors like that right outside of restaurants. Militant veganism is awful.
I hate protestors like that right outside of restaurants. Militant veganism is awful.
It's a lose-lose for vegans too since if they don't want to protest their impact is small or at least slowed (I can only convince so many friends by living a good life), but when they do protest they justify in the minds of others the act of eating meat. Even if people are hesitant about eating meat they know they aren't that invested in it and being that militant looks unappealing.
you quote the two people in the thread who have a stance that you do and turn that into childish responses and smugness.
i did take the time to message the restaurant about their foie gras source though, so if i get a response i'll post it here :)
It's almost as if factory farming is necessary (for the moment) to retain the meat production necessary to feed a growing global population. Or should meat only be the province of the wealthy?
It's more like we have a group of protestors saying that there are rats in this guys kitchen and he came out and said no there are no rats look at this safety certificate I have. Neither of us are there to see if there are rats but we have protestors saying there are and you saying you trust his certificate.
I mean obviously the vegan protesters have a completely antithetical definition of humane to the restaurateur, but I don't think they're definitely in the minority looking at the public at large. Aside from the force feeding angle, a lot of people also have very serious reservations about the restricted movement aspect of the process.
If you would have told me this was an article from
My god, did you come up with that yourself, you comedy genius? I have never seen that one before, that's for sure. It's almost as funny as the "go and make ma a sandwich" shtick under feminist videos.
Actually, by most accounts it's quite good and getting better as technology progresses. Eventually, you probably won't know the difference. (It's still animal flesh, just grown instead of raised)
I get what you are saying, but people can hold a certain views and not completely live them out in the entirety of every aspect of their lives. I will try not to assume much about you, but I bet you are typing this response on a phone or laptop that is made in a factory by someone who does not have adequate worker's rights, even though you likely support workers' rights. My point is not to call you out specifically, but everyone has to make some concessions on their morals to live life in a modern society. Again, not to say that that means people should give up on fighting for what they believe in, but it is not practical to expect everyone to give up everything to support their ideals.
Also, the practical aspect of protesting prohibits some people from doing so. Whether it is taking time to actually go out and protest, which would take an individual away from work, or buying meat that is from animals grown in an acceptable environment, there are increased costs associated with protesting that some people just cannot afford financially.
You sound like one of those people who are sure vaccines are a government conspiracy tbh. Not saying that I know the answer to this case, but your reasoning is absolutely paranoid.
Modern foie gras producers in North America don't restrict movement. The birds are kept in open pens, not cages.
You're asking me to trust a random accusation over a certificate from a health inspector?
That may be the case, but if I have a choice, I'll always choose the real deal. Personally, I do prefer to eat animals I know. My parents cow Steak 1 is going to the butcher this year, and Steak 2 next year.
Should a pig be given the same moral consideration as a human? If you admit yourself that all life is not equal, then how do you argue for veganism? If all life is not equal, how do you justify drawing an arbitrary line on what life is edible or not?
Where have I done this exactly? Please point out specifically where I assumed the best possible case and insulted the protesters. Otherwise you're doing the same thing here to me, assuming what works best for what you're saying.
Because I'm irritated, threads like these are always huge circle jerks. I mean fuck dude did you see the original title? I didn't even want to post because I knew I would be alone against it all but I think its worth standing up to the bully threads these always turn into.
Guy is a fucking hero in my book.
It's fine if you don't wanna eat meat, but don't try to force your crap on people who obviously don't want it. Not just that but protesting local businesses in a pathetic attempt to force your BS on people? I mean really?
It's fine if you don't wanna eat meat, but don't try to force your crap on people who obviously don't want it. Not just that but protesting local businesses in a pathetic attempt to force your BS on people? I mean really?
From the thread title I was expecting something like the dude just bringing a raw deer leg and started munching on it in front of them or something lmao
It's still wrong. If cutting down on meat is neccessary to ensure no animal has to suffer in a cage where it can literally not even turn around, then so be it. No one has to eat meat every day.
The Pharaos may not have been able to build the pyramids without the help of slavery, but from a moral standpoint, such facts are piss-poor arguments. Neither building a pyramid nor eating meat every day is a neccessity. I'm not saying both are equally bad, obviously. It's only meant as an example.
See, it's the opposite for me.
The thought of being able to grow "perfect" meat, with controlled fat marbling and blah.. Yes please. When we get down to it, nature is chaotic and animals can have all kinds of issues.
Why go natural when we can go good?
Like, I'm not gonna go eat wild bananas when I can have the ones we bred to be great, it's the same with meat, but less about quality I guess.
- Status