posted
You know there's a book due out in January on that topic. I don't know enough about it to have an opinion, but the hardcore-vegan on my GR friends list plans to read it.
Edit: Ok, I just read enough of the Google Books preview to be sure I have no interest in reading it. I know enough people -- like Porter and his family -- who know what they eat to not buy her hypothesis. I don't think it's terribly original, either.
Edit #2: Amazon has updated the release date. Apparently it was released over the weekend.
posted
I think you can make an argument that because of their different evolutionary histories dogs and cows now have significantly different conscious experiences. And that the greater personality of dogs indicates they are aware of their pain to a greater extent and would suffer more than cows under the same circumstances. I don't really buy that argument, but I can see arguments of that type being made to defend the eating of certain animals and not others. That kind of argument certainly stands on more footing when comparing something like salmon and dogs.
thanks for the link!
edit - okay, thanks for the demotion in status update. Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I DO think it's odd that we have arbitrarily defined which animals we have for pets and love and take to the vet and get really sad when we hear a news story about them being treated inhumanely, and which ones we eat and don't care what happens to.
Inasmuch as you're applying this "we" to everybody else (besides yourself) in this conversation, you are incorrect both about our attitude toward pets and livestock.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
mph, I've already commented on the fact that I think it's generally good what you are doing. I've heard from other people who own or grew up on farms that their attitude towards their animals is quite different from the norm. That they make close connections with the animals they raise and eventually eat. When I said "we" I did not specifically mean those conversing in this thread, but our society in general. Will you admit my statement is correct for the population of America in general? I can't preface every single one of my statements with a note excluding all those who are exceptions. No conversation would ever get anywhere.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Strider: I don't know that I've heard of anyone eating snakes or rabbits in America.
I've seen rabbit in the supermarket, though I can't now remember which state. (I think Michigan, but I can't swear to that.)
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
That said, I'm an unrepentant carnivore, but I do try to buy meat from small, local farms that have good farming practices. We always buy free range eggs, and we often buy free range meat - but not, I admit - and due to cost concerns, always.
I think I could butcher an animal if I had to. I do subscribe to the head-to-tail approach - I eat liver, brains, feet and offal. I'm working up to kidney and tripe. I figure if an animal died for me, I should at least eat all of it, and not be squeamish.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think i'm actually being pretty consistent where I draw my own personal line.
Now you are talking about a completely different line. The fish example you brought up is only an interesting oddity if you consider gold fish and pollack to be the same kinds of animals even though you don't think of cows and dogs as the same kind of animals. Its only an interesting oddity because you see a line that makes cows different from dogs but don't draw that line same line between different kinds of fish.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Its only an interesting oddity because you see a line that makes cows different from dogs but don't draw that line same line between different kinds of fish.
you're right I made the mistake of lumping all fish together, I did the fish community a disservice by doing that. In that sense about the line I draw, you're correct. but:
quote:The fish example you brought up is only an interesting oddity if you consider gold fish and pollack to be the same kinds of animals even though you don't think of cows and dogs as the same kind of animal
see, I do draw that line across the board. I do think that cows and dogs are the same type of animal, but most people don't since they eat one and not the other. Obviously my view of the fish world isn't quite accurate so I can't speak for how the general population views fish. Do most people view their goldfish and all the other fish people keep in a fish tank as different in kind from the fish they eat for dinner? I have no idea. My assumption was that most people don't, hence I thought it was an interesting oddity.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmer's Glue: We don't generally keep the same type of fish that we eat as pets.
edit: well that was pretty late, haha. Note to self: refresh before commenting.
One day when I can afford a large enough tank, I'm going to keep a Bluefin Tuna for a pet, just to prove you wrong.
And I'm going to name it Elmer.
Gonna eat it when it dies?
Yep.
Honestly if it was cute and cuddly I probably wouldn't. But it's harder I think to be emotionally attached to something you can rarely actually touch.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Because the whole appeal is that it seems like it is.
Why do you presume that? I have heard that in Japan it is popular to eat a certain kind of fish where the muscle will continue to spasm for several minutes after the fish has been butchered. The appeal has nothing to do with "sufferering" of the fish. It has to do with the sensation of eating muscle tissue that is moving.
I agree that it would be barbarous to do something because you thought it was causing suffering even if in fact it did not. But that doesn't actually address my question. If we could be certain that this didn't cause the fish to suffer, then that would no longer be part of the appeal, would it? Would it still then be barbarous?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Indeed. One could note that the outrage in the US about the Japanese simulated rape games and the Modern Warfare controversy about acting as a terrorist shooting civilians, means that at least some seem to follow this idea consistently.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
To some extent that's true, but only to some extent.
Do you think watching or making movies like "Kill Bill" or "Clock Work Orange" is barbarous? If so, is it equally barbarous to the Roman's watching real fights to the death in the arena? What about role playing games? Do you think its barbarous for children to play cops and robbers and pretend to shoot each other? I'm trying to get a sense of where you draw the line.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I won't watch the video. I already know I can't handle it. I just got over having nightmares after watching a video of animals being skinned alive in China.
I can't even kill a spider without mourning the spider afterwards. I only kill them because I'm terrified of them. Even then, if I can simply move the spider elsewhere, I will. But if that requires picking up a quarter-sized wolf spider, I can't do it.
I'm not a vegetarian yet, but I've considered it. It's a personal thing with me. I don't want to cost people their jobs or their livelihood, so I'd never push this on anyone.
But I think it's our responsibility to treat animals humanely. By that, I mean like what Strider said about a farmer's relationship with the animals. It's the industrialized, robotic slaughter I can't stomach. I have no issue with farmers.
I need to look into the "free range" deal. I pretty much only eat poultry at this point, but if I can improve on that as well, I will.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yep, and non-industrial farmers slaughter animals and have them accidentally die (especially when young) in plenty of ways, too.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The following is a trailer for a documentary film about what we as humans do to animals. The trailer alone was horrific, and one of the most difficult things I've watched in a long long time. The fish video that started this thread is nothing in comparison. Seriously. I'm giving fair warning. If you get queasy easily or are prone to strong visceral emotional reactions, DO NOT watch this video.
I don't think I can bring myself to ever watch this movie. Though I can imagine it would prompt me to a higher level of activism if I did.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a brother in law that is from Tonga. For his daughter's first birthday party he purchased two pigs to eat. The pigs were still alive, and the pig farm had two options. You could butcher them yourself or have the pig farm do it for an extra $50.
My brother in law opted to do it himself, as he had done it many times in Tonga. I watched him and his two brothers do it, and it didn't bother me as much as I thought it would. They showed a lot of respect for the animal, even thanking the pig verbally it before killing it.
I have no issue with eating meat of any kind. I am one who believes it is there for that. What I have issue with is the inhumane way animals are often slaughtered.
Frying a fish and eating it all while the fish is still alive is grotesque and sick. I love lobster, but I could never cook one myself. I hear they scream when you put them in the boiling water.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
