You would eat at restaurant that has people outside protesting that it has vermin because he showed you an old certificate?
I'm sorry I wasn't referring specifically to you but others in the thread, I was just trying to respond to a host of replies at once through yours.
That's a completely different scenario than here, though. I'd worry if there were vermin. If people were protesting eating meat, I wouldn't care.
You are literally the person trying to turn this into something it isn't. Nothing about this was bullying anybody, it was light hearted, a joke. And yes, you asked why people are saying it being local means it was ethically produced and I responded that it's because they claim that to be their mission statement on their website. Which I have no reason to believe to be a lie or a fabrication and if you do, then you need to prove it thusly instead of being seemingly alarmed and outraged that we are neither alarmed, nor outraged, nor just wantonly assuming that he's lying.
I agree with this point, but I think lab grown meat is still a ways off from emulating actual meat (or at least the things that people like about conventional meat) and people overestimate how quickly we will be able to develop indistinguishable lab grown meat that can be produced on a scale large enough to replace conventional meat.. Once it does I would totally eat it over regular meat.
Yeah and his word is far different from a certificate but i think the scenario is more similar than me calling the fire department for no fire
The same? No. More than they currently get, that's for sure.
You don't know if there are rats. If a restaurant has a good reputation and a solid history of health inspections, I'd need to see more proof like, say, a photo or video of the rats. There is no such thing as an "old inspection." You're either current or you're not.
I'm excited for lab grown meat, not only for ethical reasons, but because we'd no longer have any physical and health limitations from the animal. Getting a good marble on a cut take a lot of work normally, but it should be trivial in a lab
Looked it up, seems to be the case. Maybe Asterix in Egypt isn't as historically accurate as I thought? :D
Absolutely everything should be possible. What I worry about is us getting so used to the technology, we start to mess around.
He's not the bad guy, he's a hero like the original thread title said.
I just finished watching since I enjoy Dawkins from time-to-time. I honestly can't disagree with much he says in the video. I guess my question for you is what point are you wanting to make with this as the foundation? Because Dawkins talks about pain and suffering, but he doesn't necessarily go anywhere further than making one think about the fact that animals feel pain, and animals can suffer. Completely agreed. So, is this a jumping off point for stating we have a moral responsibility to do what we can to ensure animals don't suffer? Or even further than that---we shouldn't eat animals at all? (Asking in good faith to try and get a conversation going)
We would still have to shoot deer, because they are bloody pests and we have successfully managed ti hunt their natural predators into extinction.
As far as I'm concerned a health inspection is old as soon as complaints start coming in and that's how I was using the term. Anyway I have work now and depending on how the thread looks I might do a response on something other than my phone when I'm done. I got a little upset over time but I wasn't trying to "fit anything into my argument" or whatever I was accused of. I just think that it's very unlikely this guy is using ethical Foie Grad just based on his word and I wasn't accusing him of anything. I think holding down and force feeding an animal is unethical regardless of gag reflex and what not.
I was just thinking... imagine "real farm meat" becomes a luxury good because grown meat is cheaper and just better in every aspect besides it being "the real stuff" to some people. Venison could end up being more affordable since they'd HAVE to hunt it, right? Crazy concept.
The question should be if ethical foie gras causes suffering (besides the slaughtering, since that's always part of the equation). But I have no idea how I'd go about finding that out tbh.
I'd say venison would end up being comparatively cheaper, but still not really affordable, because we would still not hunt enough deer to satisfy the increased demand.
It wouldn't. At least not me. Hell, I'd eat a dog if it was professionally butchered and I was sure it was free of parasites.
Thats not what he's doing.
How about not moving the goalposts?
That's true, but it has nothing to do with me being willing to eat dog.
From a personal perspective, I would find it the best solution to just not eat any animal capable of suffering (I don't mean reacting to stimuli, since that is something pretty much every living thing is capable off. I'm talking about pain as a conscious experience, which many animals are not capable off. As far as we know anyway. Insects for example react to stimuli like heat, but there is no evidence that they actually consciously suffer from These stimuli. An insect with a missing leg will walk not different than one with all legs intact and their brain is not complex enough to suggest that they can feel pain).
A leg, like in the pictures? Wouldn't bother me I think. I'm actually curious to try, though I imagine it's bad.
Not what's happening here, so you can calm down. This is about a counterprotest. Really don't appreciate that tone, wow.
That would be terrible, yep. Obviously. Any more ethical conundrums?
OK, so you have the same standpoint as me from a morality perspective then I guess.
