http://www.cbsnews.c...-foie-gras-ban/
Posted 04 May 2012 - 03:33 AM
Posted 04 May 2012 - 03:41 AM
Posted 04 May 2012 - 03:41 AM
Very pro using anything possible of an animal that's killed for people's sustenance. Very con using farming practices which cause animals organ damage. One man's opinion...
Posted 04 May 2012 - 03:42 AM
completely ridiculous FUCK Peta One of my prouder life/work accomplishments was organizing Maine chefs to thwart a ban when it came up in 2009. I know numerous people who have been working their asses off for years to repeal this ban. I feel real bad for them, the duck farmers, chefs and people of California who can no longer enjoy a perfectly humane and decadent duck experience.
Posted 04 May 2012 - 03:59 AM
I get out that way once in a while, Ryan, I just might...though my diet, especially when it comes to meat, is pretty unusual, and I'd be very, very unlikely to buy either that someone else had raised and killed.
Posted 04 May 2012 - 04:06 AM
Posted 04 May 2012 - 05:40 AM
Posted 04 May 2012 - 05:53 AM

Posted 04 May 2012 - 05:55 AM
Posted 04 May 2012 - 06:07 AM
Posted 04 May 2012 - 07:36 AM
So what is the argument for supporting the consumption of Foie Gras? You can't say it's a necessity. You can't say the ducks would prefer to be inside with hundreds of other ducks as opposed to being free. You can't say they are better off being force fed. ~ You can say it's less-painful than other ways we treat animals. You can say that some of the tactics used by the people that want to ban it are unfair or wrong. But is that really a reason to support it? Seems to me (and maybe I'm being unfair here?) that the argument for consuming Foie Gras is: It tastes good, we like it, and we can. By the way, I'm not necessarily for a ban on Foie Gras. I almost certainly would support bans on the worst, most painful ways that some animals are treated. As the treatment moves away from the very worst and gets closer and closer to more borderline/debatable treatment, I'd prefer the issue be left up to trying to be sure individuals are making fully informed decisions rather than use the force of law.
Posted 04 May 2012 - 12:17 PM
] 1:28 "She's nice. She likes animals. She's not evil." [b]-- Again, demonizing sides (which all parties tend to do) is a tactic I just can't stand. Let's get to the root of the issue, not try to make people devils or saints
Posted 04 May 2012 - 12:38 PM
Friggin' LOK, as the only guy here from CA, they over-regulate the FUCK out of everything already and spend hundreds of millions of dollars on debating fifty cent issues state-wide and that counts more to me than the actual issue at hand. I want to talk about fixing the important stuff.
Posted 04 May 2012 - 01:40 PM
It means I don't eat much meat, that's for sure.
This thread is way too reasoned and civil for such a hot-button topic...we need to stir it up some how.
Posted 04 May 2012 - 01:55 PM
Posted 04 May 2012 - 04:19 PM
There's a thread here extolling bacon. Why isn't anyone in there talking about the treatment of mass market pigs?
Posted 04 May 2012 - 10:05 PM
Posted 05 May 2012 - 03:24 AM
Posted 05 May 2012 - 03:26 AM
Posted 05 May 2012 - 03:38 AM
Last I heard, nature doesn't use a feeding tube. Just saying, bro
Posted 05 May 2012 - 03:56 AM
Posted 05 May 2012 - 04:15 AM
Posted 05 May 2012 - 04:18 AM
I got your point. Gorging to increase fall fat. Check. Choking down a fish is intrusive. Check. Being forced fed 24/7 from a tube...? Sorry, you first...
I understand your point and that these farms are perhaps the cream of the crop - especially when you consider mass farming - but that's not the entire the point of the conversation. Forced fed foie gras is a luxury product. It's not a staple. Would you put a feeding tube down your throat or you cat's throat except out of medical necessity? Not trying to go all cc on you, but it seems to me that this is a luxury we really don't need. Just my opinion...
Posted 05 May 2012 - 04:26 AM
Posted 05 May 2012 - 04:35 AM
Posted 05 May 2012 - 05:09 AM
Posted 05 May 2012 - 05:16 AM