• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Chefs react angrily as federal appeals court upholds California ban on foie gras

Brother AJ said:
Well actually, IT IS necessary when it comes to meeting the intense demand for animal products that exists all over the world. The only way these intensive conditions would not be necessary would be if we were to reduce our consumption of animal products by a significant amount, or to refrain from eating them altogether.
Click to expand...

There is no evidence that it is necessary. There is only the fact that such treatment is condoned and often unquestioned. And where it is questioned the industry tries to take any questioner to court to shut them up. And you are correct, like cigarettes the industry cares only for the profit and pushes the product beyond what is safe to consume.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
There is no issue to go away to begin with.

Virtually all conceptions of morality agree eating meat is acceptable, all major religions agree, and it's a practice that has been in existence since we first picked up sticks,
Click to expand...
So? The same was true at one point when it came to the issue of slavery. Everyone agreed it was moral, and we had been doing it for centuries upon centuries. It's logically fallacious to state that something must be done simply because it's always been done.

and all physiological evidence shows our bodies were adapted for just that with canine incisors and a complex digestive system
Click to expand...
Evolution is descriptive not prescriptive. It's not a list of rules for us to follow. Simply because we CAN eat meat doesn't mean we SHOULD. The fact is that we don't need to eat meat to be healthy.

ludin said:
No humans are not animals. Some people may act like it but that does not make it so. You evidently do not know what begging the question is. I did answer your question. they are food that answers your question. You might not see them as food but that is irrelevant. That is simply your view and your opinion. You don't get to force that view point on anyone else.

Then you should apply it to our own self. You are letting your vegan dogma distort your view in the situation. Humans have been hunting and killing animals for centuries. The down side was having to migrate with the herds. Then someone got the bright idea to domesticate and raise those animals.

Agriculture took the place of migration. The fact you don't like it is your issue no one else's. These geese are going to die. Why? People eat them. Plain and simple. Same goes for duck and other fowl. Same goes for cows. I eat vegetables just like other people, however I eat meat. Give me the rack of ribs and bring on the sauce.

Nothing wrong with it and nothing to consider. Animals don't get a choice they are not people. Don't believe me just see the latest court ruling.
Click to expand...
Um, no. Humans are animals. Open a biology text book. You accuse me of being dogmatic while denying scientific facts and stating something must be done simply because it's always been done. This reeks of dogma, and has been used to justify atrocity upon atrocity throughout history. You continue to refuse to ask critical questions. You say they're food, and that they are not people. Why? What's your reasoning for this? There is nothing dictating that things HAVE to be this way. We CHOOSE to treat animals like food, it's not inevitable.

ludin said:
Tell the fox or weasel that the next time he kills a chicken and see how much he cares.
Click to expand...
By that logic why not just rip animals apart while they're still alive, as this is also what animals do to their food. You can't have it both ways. Either you base your behavior on the actions of other animals, or you don't.
 
soylentgreen said:
There is no evidence that it is necessary. There is only the fact that such treatment is condoned and often unquestioned. And where it is questioned the industry tries to take any questioner to court to shut them up. And you are correct, like cigarettes the industry cares only for the profit and pushes the product beyond what is safe to consume.
Click to expand...

There is ample evidence that it is necessary. Do you think intensive conditions were adopted simply because farmers are evil and like hurting animals? It's a necessary business model in order to keep up with the demand for animal products. That said, many of these companies facilitated that demand, but it isn't all on them. As I said earlier, small family owned farms have even had to adopt intensive conditions in order to stay competitive. Again, to make factory farms unnecessary, we either need to significantly reduce our consumption of animal products or discontinue it altogether.
 
Renae said:
It's just pork products that are being pushed out of the public favor.
Click to expand...

Check out the ingredients in 'bratwurst!' You can pry the bacon out of my cold dead fingers!:lol:
 
sangha said:
No, that is not what the law actually says (though I do assume that was their intent). The law does not say anything about the animal eating it voluntarily or not in order for it to be deemed forced feeding (or not). Voluntarily is only used to determine how much a typical animal would eat
Click to expand...

This is an obscene interpretation of why the law is discussing the practice of keeping an animal's throats opened while food is forced through. Lol, what do you believe the law is telling you when it discusses animals doing it voluntarily or not?

In short, it is saying that mass production of fois gras is now restricted to the animals enlarging their livers voluntarily, like they would if not being raised to mass produce fois gras.

What do you think it is telling you?


This was sent from Putin's computer using Donald's credentials.
 
Cardinal said:
Good. How foise gras is prepared is unspeakably barbaric.
Click to expand...

Everything we do to prepare food is barbaric. We are predators. It is how it works.
 
Duck gavage is a disgusting practice. Foie gras is one of those fetish luxury foods that some people just can't live without, but there is no real reason to continue doing it. Reminds me of the Chinese who eat shark fins or tiger testicles because they think it's going to prolong their life somehow, even though it causes unspeakable suffering and destruction to rare species.

I don't think humans should be entitled to eat whatever they want. Some foods are resource-intensive to produce or they are extremely cruel. We can do better as a species.

Besides which? Gavage makes a duck liver swell to 20 times its normal size. That's just... so incredibly disgusting. And then you want to stuff your face with all that fat? Don't we have an obesity epidemic in this country?

Anyway, my main objection is the cruelty. If you want to lick your chops with dense duck fat like a glutton, that's your business. But it's one aspect of French cuisine I will never understand or respect.
 
Brother AJ said:
Evolution is descriptive not prescriptive. It's not a list of rules for us to follow. Simply because we CAN eat meat doesn't mean we SHOULD. The fact is that we don't need to eat meat to be healthy.
Click to expand...

Meat is the only natural source of vitamin B12. It's also the best way to get iron. Some of us *do* need to eat it to be healthy.
 
Liver let die!

Apologies.
Evilroddy.
 
Bucky said:
Chefs react angrily as federal appeals court upholds California ban on foie gras - LA Times

Eating Foie gras is like having an orgasm in your mouth. It may be the most delicious thing on this planet. Just insane California is banning food.
Click to expand...

Bucky, this forum is no place to discuss your sexual proclivities. I personally don't care if you have decided to become fully public about your coming out. Nonetheless, declaring your homosexuality in an OP would be more appropriate in the Sexuality Forum.
 
Brother AJ said:
Um, no. Humans are animals. Open a biology text book. You accuse me of being dogmatic while denying scientific facts and stating something must be done simply because it's always been done. This reeks of dogma, and has been used to justify atrocity upon atrocity throughout history. You continue to refuse to ask critical questions. You say they're food, and that they are not people. Why? What's your reasoning for this? There is nothing dictating that things HAVE to be this way. We CHOOSE to treat animals like food, it's not inevitable.
Click to expand...
No humans are mammals. Lol.
Yes you are being very dogmatic.
Like most vegans I encounter. Just another extremist
No dogma about it at all. It is simply fact.
It is actually up to you to prove that they are not food.
You say so is a fallacy not an actual argument.

We have numerous studies and ruling that animals are not people.
Not too hard to figure this out. However if you want to contrend they are people
Then please prove it.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2017/05/20/face-pets-aren-people/9N1QGjmMNmgMuzw37A5rVP/story.html

Because well they are food. There is no other use for a cow.
While a chicken has a benefit of eggs they only lay so many then well
There is no point to the chicken. It is useless.

By that logic why not just rip animals apart while they're still alive, as this is also what animals do to their food. You can't have it both ways. Either you base your behavior on the actions of other animals, or you don't.
Click to expand...

That is exactly what a wolf or fox or weasel will do. Rights do not exist in the animal world. There is hunter and prey. The cat doesn't care if the mouse doesn't want to be eaten and the same goes for all animals. That is the largest difference between humans and animals. I can base my actions and behavior of that of a rational person that knows the difference between animals and people.

Again please go tell the fox or weasel not to kill the chicken that the chicken has rights and see how far it gets you.
 
Brother AJ said:
So? The same was true at one point when it came to the issue of slavery. Everyone agreed it was moral, and we had been doing it for centuries upon centuries. It's logically fallacious to state that something must be done simply because it's always been done.
Click to expand...

It's also logically fallacious to appeal to pure emotion.
Evolution is descriptive not prescriptive. It's not a list of rules for us to follow. Simply because we CAN eat meat doesn't mean we SHOULD. The fact is that we don't need to eat meat to be healthy.
Click to expand...

Depends upon your conception of health, and yes evolution is a great guiding principle for determining diet.


Um, no. Humans are animals. Open a biology text book. You accuse me of being dogmatic while denying scientific facts and stating something must be done simply because it's always been done. This reeks of dogma, and has been used to justify atrocity upon atrocity throughout history. You continue to refuse to ask critical questions. You say they're food, and that they are not people. Why? What's your reasoning for this? There is nothing dictating that things HAVE to be this way. We CHOOSE to treat animals like food, it's not inevitable.
Click to expand...

ok so if we're animals then can we kill 19 animals a piece for sport in one hunt like Wolves do? or reject a salmon that's too small after grabbing it like bears do?
your idea that we are in fact animals, is an argument against your case.


By that logic why not just rip animals apart while they're still alive, as this is also what animals do to their food. You can't have it both ways. Either you base your behavior on the actions of other animals, or you don't.
Click to expand...

why not? because they're not appetizing to us raw and alive, but we absolutely could do that if we needed to.
 
Brother AJ said:
There is ample evidence that it is necessary. Do you think intensive conditions were adopted simply because farmers are evil and like hurting animals? It's a necessary business model in order to keep up with the demand for animal products. That said, many of these companies facilitated that demand, but it isn't all on them. As I said earlier, small family owned farms have even had to adopt intensive conditions in order to stay competitive. Again, to make factory farms unnecessary, we either need to significantly reduce our consumption of animal products or discontinue it altogether.
Click to expand...

No, farmers took up the practice when they became corporate entities rather than single family farmers. It's about profit not about being evil.

And i agree the consumption levels are driven by corporate greed rather then eating healthily.

And we can have a healthy diet that includes meat. But unfortunately that would cut into the profits of business so they work against any such ideas developing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom