Support NeoGAF

[SpacePirate Ridley]

I dont even like foie gras that much but this is idiocy at its finest. Why not ban all the meat, because they usually fuck up the majority of animals for food this days at the factory farms, fucking vegans can do this because in those countries is a luxury food, but if they could they would ban all kinds of meat. Stop trying to forth us your fucking shitty food on us.

Try to do that in France or Spain, here its not a luxury item. The uproar would be insane.

 

[Korey]

Man there are some sick people on here. Thankfully I only have to interact with you through a website, I feel sorry for people who have to actually come into contact with you IRL :O

 

[DragonSworne]

Man there are some sick people on here. Thankfully I only have to interact with you through a website, I feel sorry for people who have to actually come into contact with you IRL :O

We just have to accept vegans for who they are.

 

[Osietra]

Foie Gras sucks anyway, just mix pate with butter.

Champagne sucks, just mix wine with fizzy water.
Sex sucks, just masturbate wearing a condom.
Etc etc.

 

[BobsRevenge]

Interesting. Never knew what foie gras was before. A video of the force-feeding process that produces it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQzH58WJt0Y (not really graphic)

That doesn't look any worse than sheering a sheep. That actually looks a lot better than how they used to produce it. I read Zola's The Belly of Paris a while back, and when they force fed geese in the 1800s, they fucking force fed geese.

 

[Raist]

That doesn't look any worse than sheering a sheep. That actually looks a lot better than how they used to produce it. I read Zola's The Belly of Paris a while back, and when they force fed geese in the 1800s, they fucking force fed geese.

Yep that was much, much worse before. Shoving a huge stick down the bird's throat. Multiple times. With not much care.

 

[speshylives]

People are overlooking the long term repercussions. With all the concern for the psychological state of ducks, we'll never get another Daffy.

Nobody wins.

 

[Tideas]

I'm a vegetarian and I don't see how eating foie gras is any "worse" than eating any other meat.
Pretty ridiculous imho, I can understand the criticism.

As for the whole human-are-superiour-to-animals debate going on:

Sure, but only because the majority of people thinks so. There's nothing intrinsically superior about humans, we just think we are and thus we are superior. Seeing as it is a subjective matter, this little discussion is really about trying to convince others of your particular viewpoint so that you can enforce your will at a societal level.

subjective? wtf are you smoking? We rule this planet. That's objectively enough to say we're superior. We're at the top of the food chain. That's objective enough.

We sent men to the moon. wtf are you smoking?

 

[VALIS]

subjective? wtf are you smoking? We rule this planet. That's objectively enough to say we're superior. We're at the top of the food chain. That's objective enough.

We sent men to the moon. wtf are you smoking?

Which to me, which to plenty of people, engenders us with the responsibility not to be cruel to living things that aren't as intelligent and powerful as us.

For others, it's a flimsy justification for their psychopathy.

 

[Tideas]

Which to me, which to plenty of people, engenders us with the responsibility not to be cruel to living things that aren't as intelligent and powerful as us.

For others, it's a flimsy justification for their psychopathy.

what's wrong with killing things to eat them? regardless if it's "cruel" or "not"?

 

[Jim E. Rossler]

Yep that was much, much worse before. Shoving a huge stick down the bird's throat. Multiple times. With not much care.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABeWlY0KFv8&feature=player_embedded#t=171s
Humans and other animals are different, what's torture for one isn't necessarily torture for the other.
It's why it's inhumane to put a human in a closed off resort lake with nothing but live fish that a duck would thrive in, and it's not inhuman to give a human chocolate that would hurt a dog.

 

[VALIS]

what's wrong with killing things to eat them?

Nothing. Meat was a staple in our evolution and our bodies still need it.

regardless if it's "cruel" or "not"?

This strikes me as the same argument people make for a lot of things in which they'd rather not be bothered by ethics or empathy, especially when it comes to making money. "The purpose of business and employment is to make money, so why not be exploitative if that makes more of it?"

I agree humans are the dominant species on the planet, but the reason for that isn't rocket ships, it's knowledge and the responsibility that comes with that knowledge. We know that animals experience physical and emotional pain and it's irresponsible of us not to try and alleviate that as best as we can while still trying to meet our needs. That's what elevates human over savage, not spaceships.

 

[Raist]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABeWlY0KFv8&feature=player_embedded#t=171s
Humans and other animals are different, what's torture for one isn't necessarily torture for the other.
It's why it's inhumane to put a human in a closed off resort lake with nothing but live fish that a duck would thrive in, and it's not inhuman to give a human chocolate that would hurt a dog.

Muh? Not sure why you're quoting me.
I'm just saying, the "traditional" method was likely potentially harmful given how it was done. It's quite better now.

 

[jchap]

Seared Fois Gras on a perfectly grilled steak = best thing ever

Glad I don't live in California.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

subjective? wtf are you smoking? We rule this planet. That's objectively enough to say we're superior. We're at the top of the food chain. That's objective enough.

We sent men to the moon. wtf are you smoking?

It's all about what metric you subjectively decide is the most important one.

Cockroaches for an example will most likely outlive us, does that make them more superior to us?

We are more intelligent, in most ways but not all, than most animals, but we're also capable of an extensive form of empathy - that includes non-human animals. We are certainly in a position of power over most animals, but I think it iss quite juvenile to equate power with a right to hurt and destroy. Personally, power equates responsibility - a responsibility to ensure that we do not treat animals cruelly if we can avoid it and protecting Earth's ecosphere.

 

[Amibguous Cad]

That's a strange way to think. You might be psycopathic, may want to get that checked out.

Those who are capable of interrogating their emotions and not act on them when they are unreasonable are not psychopathic.

 

[BobsRevenge]

One thing I like to bring up in these discussions that never changes anyone's mind is that animals don't actually feel anything like humans do, to our knowledge. They lack the brain structures that are responsible for self-consciousness and reflection.

They "feel" pain, but they don't really think about it. They don't have any influence over that whole process, so consciousness of a painful state isn't so much a thing for them.

I understand why this doesn't change opinions (it doesn't really influence mine), but I think it's something that is often looked over completely.

 

[666]

Heathen! If that's all you have to say about foie gras, you never ate foie gras.

Ate it in France, a good version too and whilst I understand its merits, its production technique isn't worth the outcome. Had it in a donut in NYC, that was an experience, and my soul shall never recover.

 

[coughlanio]

We're top of the food chain, we can slaughter and eat whatever we want.

I'd rather have a few dead cows and chickens on my conscience than be Vegan, and have the multiple nutritional deficiencies that come with that. The more dead animal I have on a plate at one time, the happier I am.

 

[VALIS]

One thing I like to bring up in these discussions that never changes anyone's mind is that animals don't actually feel anything like humans do, to our knowledge. They lack the brain structures that are responsible for self-consciousness and reflection.

They "feel" pain, but they don't really think about it. They don't have any influence over that whole process, so consciousness of a painful state isn't so much a thing for them.

I understand why this doesn't change opinions (it doesn't really influence mine), but I think it's something that is often looked over completely.

It's still suffering. They, like all living creatures seek to avoid suffering and pain, so I'm not sure how different it is in the end.

 

[BobsRevenge]

It's still suffering. They, like all living creatures seek to avoid suffering and pain, so I'm not sure how different it is in the end.

I agree, but I think it's an important nuance. You aren't empathizing directly with the suffering, because they don't have an awareness of their state of suffering. You can't put yourself in the head of an animal like that, because for us it would be the equivalent of having no head at all.

edit: I believe this is the current understanding. It might change in the future anyways.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

One thing I like to bring up in these discussions that never changes anyone's mind is that animals don't actually feel anything like humans do, to our knowledge. They lack the brain structures that are responsible for self-consciousness and reflection.

They "feel" pain, but they don't really think about it. They don't have any influence over that whole process, so consciousness of a painful state isn't so much a thing for them.

I understand why this doesn't change opinions (it doesn't really influence mine), but I think it's something that is often looked over completely.

That's true to an extent.
But there is no sole brain structure responsible for self-consciousness and reflection, it's all using the same stuff you will find in the majority of other mammals only bigger.
It's also important to point out that we we have such insufficient knowledge of how to observe an inner mental state such as self-consciousness and reflection that we simply do not know if other animals lack them. We are basing our judgement on pretty much just our own reflective abilities and self-awareness.

 

[Jim E. Rossler]

Muh? Not sure why you're quoting me.
I'm just saying, the "traditional" method was likely potentially harmful given how it was done. It's quite better now.

Welp. Misunderstood post.

 

[BobsRevenge]

That's true to an extent.
But there is no sole brain structure responsible for self-consciousness and reflection, it's all using the same stuff you will find in the majority of other mammals only bigger.
It's also important to point out that we we have such insufficient knowledge of how to observe an inner mental state such as self-consciousness and reflection that we simply do not know if other animals lack them. We are basing our judgement on pretty much just our own reflective abilities and self-awareness.

The Tell-Tale Brain by V.S. Ramachandran exposes some neurological justifications for it based on people who have lost their consciousness of various parts of themselves. That research points to what I'm saying here. It's still just a theory though, definitely.

 

[zoukka]

It's a terrible situation. I hate factory farming, but then again we kinda need the meat to feed this overpopulated world. If only we never breeded so goddamn much...

 

[Amibguous Cad]

Nothing. Meat was a staple in our evolution and our bodies still need it.



This strikes me as the same argument people make for a lot of things in which they'd rather not be bothered by ethics or empathy, especially when it comes to making money. "The purpose of business and employment is to make money, so why not be exploitative if that makes more of it?"

I agree humans are the dominant species on the planet, but the reason for that isn't rocket ships, it's knowledge and the responsibility that comes with that knowledge. We know that animals experience physical and emotional pain and it's irresponsible of us not to try and alleviate that as best as we can while still trying to meet our needs. That's what elevates human over savage, not spaceships.

I still don't get the "meat is a necessity" crowd. Is the existence of vegetarians really that much of a secret? Plenty of people are perfectly healthy getting their protein from tofu, and soybean production uses less land and is more environmentally friendly than meat production. Meat is a luxury well-suited to our taste buds, not a necessity.

The perfect isn't the enemy of the good, but it is still fair to interrogate your initial emotional reactions to see if they make sense or are at least internally consistent. If they're not, there's a good chance you're acting irrationally. If you support banning foie gras without supporting more humane meat farming practices (that, to be sure, will increase the price of your chicken sandwiches), you need to ask yourself why. I have the same reaction as most to the videos of the force feeding, but I also know that I don't want my damn chicken bills to go up. It's reasonable for me to conclude, then, that my initial emotional reaction was a bit of motivated cognition; I've never had foie gras, so I don't lose anything by indulging in moral condemnation, but where I do lose something from it, it's pretty clear that I value human welfare, even for getting a luxury, over the welfare of an animal that is morally inconsequential. My moral judgments should not turn on whether I like foie gras or chicken, but be based on more universal concerns, so I can't really condemn a foie gras eater for what he does, and it's hypocritical of me to support banning the practice.

I'm sure there are a few morally consistent vegetarians on this board who aren't acting hypocritically, but I suspect most of the people wigging out in this thread are just poor moral thinkers incapable of examining the reasonableness of an emotional reaction.

It's a terrible situation. I hate factory farming, but then again we kinda need the meat to feed this overpopulated world. If only we never breeded so goddamn much...

This isn't true. Meat products consume far more calories than they produce (animals gotta eat while they're growing, after all). Yields per acre for agriculture are also a lot better than they are for ranching. There's some land that can only grow grass for ranching, not crops, but even taking that into account, a world that banned meat production tomorrow would have a much easier time of feeding the populace.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

I love arbitrary bans of food items and drinks.
It lets me know our government is working.

 

[EYEL1NER]

Never had it but I feel bad for all the people that enjoy it there. At least it is just a state-ban though, so it's not like they will never get to eat it again in their lives or anything.

I would try it. But I don't see French resteraunts too often.
Getting ready to eat whale soon though, so maybe I can get a hold of Foie Gras sometime after.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

The Tell-Tale Brain by V.S. Ramachandran exposes some neurological justifications for it based on people who have lost their consciousness of various parts of themselves. That research points to what I'm saying here. It's still just a theory though, definitely.

Yeah, it's probably the case with most animals. Only problem is that the animals we do eat, actually are pretty intelligent and self-aware to a degree.

 

[666]

Champagne sucks, just mix wine with fizzy water.
Sex sucks, just masturbate wearing a condom.
Etc etc.

Neither of those things are force fed till they die. Kinda.

 

[zoukka]

This isn't true. Meat products consume far more calories than they produce (animals gotta eat while they're growing, after all). Yields per acre for agriculture are also a lot better than they are for ranching. There's some land that can only grow grass for ranching, not crops, but even taking that into account, a world that banned meat production tomorrow would have a much easier time of feeding the populace.

I am well aware of this, but mankind won't give up meat ever. Moderation I can stand behind though.

 

[Raist]

Neither of those things are force fed till they die. Kinda.

Would anyone please think of the grapes? Cut off from their homes, squashed and locked up in barrels for months

 

[Amibguous Cad]

I am well aware of this, but mankind won't give up meat ever. Moderation I can stand behind though.

This is the biggest non-sequitur I have ever witnessed.

A: This bird is black!
B: No, actually, here's photographic evidence that it's brown
A: I'm well aware of that, but there's no way it's ever going to cross the Atlantic Ocean!

In the first place, I'm not sure why you think it's so impossible for everyone to give up meat: greater social changes have happened, and if a small portion of the population can be convinced to give up meat, why is it so difficult to believe you could convince the majority of people to do so?

More importantly, we were talking about the feasibility of feeding mankind without meat production. The feasibility of convincing everyone to ban meat production is totally irrelevant.

 

[666]

Would anyone please think of the grapes? Cut off from their homes, squashed and locked up in barrels for months

GRAPISTS!!

 

[MYE]

good

 

[Emerson]

what about pinchy

do you have a heart? would you eat him knowing he was boiled alive?

Or you could just chop its head off right before you cook it.

 

[zoukka]

More importantly, we were talking about the feasibility of feeding mankind without meat production. The feasibility of convincing everyone to ban meat production is totally irrelevant.

Maybe in a purely theoretical level yes.

 

[dragonelite]

We just have to accept vegans for who they are.

They are going against human nature my mirror says my canines are their to rip meat of bones.

And how can i ever give up litson/lechon(roasted pig).

 

[Kalnos]

In the first place, I'm not sure why you think it's so impossible for everyone to give up meat:

Because it tastes good and I don't want to give it up.

 

[Meier]

It was banned in Chicago when I lived there for some time but I think they may have overturned it? I don't have a problem with it personally.. it's especially inhumane.

 

[YoungHav]

Lets ban all meat for that matter.

 

[davepoobond]

whales are aliens, did you guys not learn anything from star trek iv or whatever it was

 

[ChiTownBuffalo]

Chicago tried this, and it didn't work.

Foie is delicious.

 

[ReBurn]

At the end of the day it is still liver. And liver is gross.

 

[XiaNaphryz]

So much for the ban:

Eight years after its inception in 2004, the California bill banning the “force feed[ing] of a bird for the purpose of enlarging the bird’s liver beyond normal size” finally went into effect on July 1, much to the chagrin of chefs and gourmet foodies statewide. Violators can expect fines of up to $1000, though that hasn’t stopped at least one Antoine Price of San Clemente from serving a full-course, liver-infused meal last Monday night—just one day after the ban went into effect.

About his menu, aptly titled “Foie You,” the French-born Price said, “They can lock me up if they want. I don’t mind.”

The ban has itself been met with mixed reactions. Instituted in an effort to bring an end to controversial feeding practices used to create the Foie Gras delicacy, the ban counter-intuitively resulted in a 400% increase in sales over the last month—a side-effect of the surge of “doomsday” dinners and hoardings for those trying to get their last tastes of the now-illegal dish.

On Monday, an official lawsuit was filed against California Attorney General Kamala Harris and Governor Edmund Brown to protest the ban, which the plaintiffs have argued is “unconstitutional, vague, and interfered with federal commerce laws.”

In spite of all the fuss, however, some law enforcement officials have suggested the law won’t even be getting strict enforcement. One gastropub owner recently told CNBC he believed the whole thing would just eventually blow over.

As long as the ban is staying in effect, though, (and if we’re really thinking about our bird friends’ welfare), do you think we could extend it to apply to duck faces, too?

 

[XiaNaphryz]

San Francisco restaurant located in Presidio to start serving foie gras:

Starting later this week, foie gras will be openly — and apparently legally — available at one San Francisco restaurant. Along with nearby newly opened Dixie, Presidio Social Club is located in the Presidio, which is federal land and according to the restaurant, hence exempt from the California foie gras ban.

As of Saturday July 14, Presidio Social Club will begin to take advantage of its location and do what most other restaurants cannot do at this point: It will introduce foie gras as a menu staple, offering a foie gras slider indefinitely. They’re also including foie gras as a supplement in their Bastille Day prix fixe menu all weekend.

 

[Stinkles]

Basically...butter. Butter with a bit of nuttiness and some umami.

bit gamey too. I love it but it is cruel and pate is more varied and often better, so who cares.

 

[Haly]

San Francisco restaurant located in Presidio to start serving foie gras:

This "ban" is a joke.