But if there’s no demand for it, i.e., those who actually THINK about the difference between foie gras and shark fin, then the animals won’t die. And I’m not against animals dying. A lot of them but not all of them. I educate myself hopefully and make my decisions. I could be a selfish bitch and say WTF but I hope I don’t/won’t.
Artists drawing lines? Or human beings trying, in their imperfect and idiosyncratic ways, to avoid a descent into outright barbarism? Without those lines, what are we?
I wonder, where do you draw your lines, assuming you have any?
My only possible written response would come in the form of a five-paragraph essay, with footnotes.
Or we can sit in the floor, eat pizza, and discuss moral absolutism and Nietzsche until the wee hours of the morning.
I’d add a nice bottle of Chambertin.
Reminds me of having a spectacular meal on a duck/goose farm, foie producer exactly a year ago in Dordogne. FFS, i want to live over there
We were in Hungary a few years ago. They are the second largest producer of foie behind France. I could have it for lunch and then again for dinner
I think it has more to do with overfishing of sharks and the disruption to the ecosystem. I don’t really care much about this issue, but personally, I think there should be restrictions only on overfishing of vulnerable species. If they allow the fishing of abundant species of sharks, i’m all for it. The cruelty angle is a non-issue. It’s a fish, with a primitive neurological system to match. The experience of shark “pain" is arguably suggested to be more in lines with what an insect feels than a higher order animal.
I agree with all of that but as a fisherman myself, I know that we need to set reasonable guidelines for the take of marine species so that we can make productive use of the resource in a sustainable way.
There are plenty of sharks out there – I have no problem with shark finning as long as it’s done sustainably. The problem is that it hasn’t been, and I don’t know if there are any viable enforcement schemes to monitor take. And the science behind setting quotas is pretty much always dubious at best.
This is the same as taking rino horns just to make your … hard . What bs . Stop it Eat the whole shark please if you continue with this nonsense.
If farmers harvested foie gras by ripping the livers out of living ducks and tossing the ducks on the ground to die, the ban would be even more popular than the one on shark finning, since ducks are cute and sharks are, well, sharks.
I have a relative in the old country that lives on a small farm. She usually has a flock of about a dozen geese, and I remember watching her, dressed in her rubber boots and field jacket, walking to the goose pen with a bucket of corn.
She would sit on the stool in the shed with her bucket, and the geese would come rushing at her, squawking and nipping each other because they all wanted to be first. She would grab the nearest one, hold its head up, the goose would open its beak, she slid a a metal tube down its throat, poured in a scoop of corn, wait a few seconds, pull out the tube, then let the goose go. They all seemed pretty happy.
She raised the geese for Christmas, not for fois gras.
P.S. Don’t let geese nip you, it hurts.
The notions that gavage is torture and that the enlarged livers are diseased are anthropomorphism. Geese and ducks raised for foie gras are treated better than 99.999% of domestic poultry.
I recall seeing the same scenario in a TV segment aired - I think - on some PBS program that was reporting on whether or not the practice was cruel. This was at least 7-10 years ago.
Both sides of the issue had footage of the act. The “yes cruel” footage was heavily edited, showing the act of geese being grabbed by the neck, a metal tube being forced down the throat and corn being poured down. No before or after - just several 3-second segments of a goose being grabbed by the neck, tube shoved down it’s throat and corn being poured down.
The “not cruel” footage was unedited footage of the interviewer asking a goose farmer about the practice and if he thought it was cruel. The farmer - I think he was in France - was polite but seemed surprised that one would ask if the process was cruel. The translation was basically the farmer stating that the geese actually we’re eager to be fed, and that they all had good lives.
To prove his point about the eagerness of the geese, he brought out a bucket of corn and the tube. The Pavlovian response by the geese was as you described. The geese seemed awful eager to be “tortured” by the farmer.
I’m not a goose farmer and am not a fancier of fois gras - no dog in this fight. But if geese typically have this response to force-feeding, they’ve got it a lot better than most creatures raised for food.
Again, PETA etc. are going after “low hanging fruit.” They don’t have enough power to go after Big Ag. Period. IMO of course
I don’t know “plenty” of cardiologists, but we have two in my immediate family, and both eat limited amounts of animal fats, and lots of whole grains. Not fanatical, but… meat and dairy only occasionally, and even then in reasonable portions. As do their wives and children. I do the same, for me and my son.
Also, don’t play basketball once a week for your “exercise”. That is an excellent way to die of a heart attack on the court when you’re fifty. Stick to softball.
I have a motto (not my creation) “everything in moderation including moderation.”
Thank God for that! (PETA not having more power, I mean)
What’s the new rule? I’m confused.
Still allowed pending further appeals.