8 ms·

Quelle excellente nouvelle ! Ça en laissera plus pour nous :-D

by Ecco 7y ago

simonblack 7y ago
I came here to say the same thing. But it reads much better in the original French.
- cm2187 7y ago
  I can’t help thinking that this has little to do with foie gras, but is part of wider push by vegetarians to ban meat eating. You could argue that an animal had a bad time for any meat.
  - jeswin 7y ago
    > You could argue that an animal had a bad time for any meat. One could certainly make a case for banning animal slaughter, but I suppose it would be practical only after we have good meat substitutes. But in the meantime we could perhaps ban wanton cruelty such as Foie Gras. I'll add veal too to the list now.
    - dvdbloc 7y ago
      I’m not taking a stance on either side here but how can you make this case when animals are killing other animals all the time for food? Or is the case that humans are “above animals” in that we don’t slaughter anything?
      - seanwilson 7y ago
        > I’m not taking a stance on either side here but how can you make this case when animals are killing other animals all the time for food? We're not in a survival situation, we have options that don't involve killing animals whereas animals do not, and we don't base our moral choices on what animals do to each other.
        dkersten 7y ago
        My cat isn’t in a survival situation either and has options that don’t involve killing. Hell, when she does kill a rodent, she doesn’t even eat it.
        seanwilson 7y ago
        "we don't base our moral choices on what animals do to each other" Also: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/veggie-cat-food/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/veggie-cat-food/ > Unlike dogs and other omnivores, cats are true (so-called “obligate”) carnivores: They meet their nutritional needs by consuming other animals and have a higher protein requirement than many other mammals. Cats get certain key nutrients from meat—including taurine, arachidonic acid, vitamin A and vitamin B12—that can’t be sufficiently obtained from plant-based foods. Without a steady supply of these nutrients, cats can suffer from liver and heart problems, not to mention skin irritation and hearing loss. Unlike cats, we can survive without meat.
        dkersten 7y ago
        Sure. My point was only that cats kill even when they are already well fed. The larger point is that nature can be cruel. I suppose I should have written a proper more detailed comment, I absolutely do believe that humans should hold ourselves to a higher standard and definitely shouldn’t be doing cruel things to living creatures because we do know better and can do better. But nature is still a pretty messed up place sometimes.
        Pyxl101 7y ago
        Be careful about drawing conclusions about broader nature from the behavior of the domestic cat. The cat’s behavior is, like the dog’s, very significantly the result of human driven natural selection. In the cat’s case, humans have favored them for 1000s of years because they kill pests like rodents. That was their ancestral “job”, their role as a domesticated animal that lives in harmony with humans. You can probably find some other animals in nature that kill for no apparent reason though. There is apparently a term for it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_killing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_killing (though the term confusingly conflates unnecessary killing with caching the excess for later)
      - jeswin 7y ago
        > Or is the case that humans are “above animals” in that we don’t slaughter anything Certainly, IMHO. While many animals show varying levels of compassion, we are capable of doing that on a coordinated, global scale; which is unique.
      - Scarblac 7y ago
        We can reason about what we do and make conscious choices about our diet. I don't believe other animals can. That power gives us a special responsibility. We are also omnivores that don't need to eat meat to survive. Maybe for instance dolphins can also reason about what they do, I don't know. But their biology gives them less choice. Also humans now eat so much meat that the mammals we breed for food are 15 times as much biomass as all wild mammals combined. It's almost irrelevant what other mammals do, there are so few of them. Even so, it's a personal choice. It happens that I made a choice to be vegetarian, but that was only five weeks ago... Other people make their choice. But it's different from the case of other animals killing for food.
      - jamil7 7y ago
        Careful using this argument it's an appeal to nature and can be used to excuse just about any behaviour. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
  - seanwilson 7y ago
    > push by vegetarians to ban meat eating Milk and egg production still involve animals being killed for meat though e.g. female diary cows are killed for meat when they stop producing enough milk after a few years and males from diary cows are killed within a month of being born as veal.
    - dkersten 7y ago
      I see no issue with free range eggs from a local keeping chickens (where I know that they are, indeed, well treated, well kept and free range) since they lay eggs most days whether you eat them or not and if you don’t use them, they would rot or attract rodents.
      - seanwilson 7y ago
        > I see no issue with free range eggs from a local keeping chickens - Male chickens are usually ground up alive within a day of being born because they're not economical to keep for meat. Locally kept chickens still feed into this supply and demand as the egg laying hens have to come from somewhere. - Egg laying chickens can live for about 8 years but are usually killed after 2 years when they stop producing as many eggs. This happens at free range farms too. - Also, free range doesn't mean what most people think it does e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_range#Free-range_poultry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_range#Free-range_poultry "In the United States, the USDA free range regulations currently apply only to poultry and indicate that the animal has been allowed access to the outside.[3] The USDA regulations do not specify the quality or size of the outside range nor the duration of time an animal must have access to the outside.[4] ... Free-range chicken eggs, however, have no legal definition in the United States. Likewise, free-range egg producers have no common standard on what the term means" > since they lay eggs most days whether you eat them or not and if you don’t use them, they would rot or attract rodents. We bred chickens to lay eggs that often though (wild chickens lay about 10 eggs a year whereas factory chickens lay about 300 which is so much it damages their health) and for them to leave their eggs unprotected (they've been bred to not "brood"). They're forced into this cycle.
        7y ago
  - jamil7 7y ago
    The push appears to be coming from animal rights groups, many of whom may or may not be vegetarian / vegan. I wouldn't lump this squarely on someone because of their decision to not consume animal products.
  - efiecho 7y ago
    > push by vegetarians to ban meat eating. Only the most delusional of them believes this is even remotely possible. In the real world, demand for meat is raising.

Quelle excellente nouvelle ! Ça en laissera plus pour nous :-D

by Ecco 7y ago

Quelle excellente nouvelle ! Ça en laissera plus pour nous :-D

simonblack 7y ago

I came here to say the same thing. But it reads much better in the original French.

cm2187 7y ago
I can’t help thinking that this has little to do with foie gras, but is part of wider push by vegetarians to ban meat eating. You could argue that an animal had a bad time for any meat.
- jeswin 7y ago
  > You could argue that an animal had a bad time for any meat. One could certainly make a case for banning animal slaughter, but I suppose it would be practical only after we have good meat substitutes. But in the meantime we could perhaps ban wanton cruelty such as Foie Gras. I'll add veal too to the list now.
  - dvdbloc 7y ago
    I’m not taking a stance on either side here but how can you make this case when animals are killing other animals all the time for food? Or is the case that humans are “above animals” in that we don’t slaughter anything?
    - seanwilson 7y ago
      > I’m not taking a stance on either side here but how can you make this case when animals are killing other animals all the time for food? We're not in a survival situation, we have options that don't involve killing animals whereas animals do not, and we don't base our moral choices on what animals do to each other.
      - dkersten 7y ago
        My cat isn’t in a survival situation either and has options that don’t involve killing. Hell, when she does kill a rodent, she doesn’t even eat it.
        seanwilson 7y ago
        "we don't base our moral choices on what animals do to each other" Also: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/veggie-cat-food/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/veggie-cat-food/ > Unlike dogs and other omnivores, cats are true (so-called “obligate”) carnivores: They meet their nutritional needs by consuming other animals and have a higher protein requirement than many other mammals. Cats get certain key nutrients from meat—including taurine, arachidonic acid, vitamin A and vitamin B12—that can’t be sufficiently obtained from plant-based foods. Without a steady supply of these nutrients, cats can suffer from liver and heart problems, not to mention skin irritation and hearing loss. Unlike cats, we can survive without meat.
        dkersten 7y ago
        Sure. My point was only that cats kill even when they are already well fed. The larger point is that nature can be cruel. I suppose I should have written a proper more detailed comment, I absolutely do believe that humans should hold ourselves to a higher standard and definitely shouldn’t be doing cruel things to living creatures because we do know better and can do better. But nature is still a pretty messed up place sometimes.
        Pyxl101 7y ago
        Be careful about drawing conclusions about broader nature from the behavior of the domestic cat. The cat’s behavior is, like the dog’s, very significantly the result of human driven natural selection. In the cat’s case, humans have favored them for 1000s of years because they kill pests like rodents. That was their ancestral “job”, their role as a domesticated animal that lives in harmony with humans. You can probably find some other animals in nature that kill for no apparent reason though. There is apparently a term for it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_killing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_killing (though the term confusingly conflates unnecessary killing with caching the excess for later)
    - jeswin 7y ago
      > Or is the case that humans are “above animals” in that we don’t slaughter anything Certainly, IMHO. While many animals show varying levels of compassion, we are capable of doing that on a coordinated, global scale; which is unique.
    - Scarblac 7y ago
      We can reason about what we do and make conscious choices about our diet. I don't believe other animals can. That power gives us a special responsibility. We are also omnivores that don't need to eat meat to survive. Maybe for instance dolphins can also reason about what they do, I don't know. But their biology gives them less choice. Also humans now eat so much meat that the mammals we breed for food are 15 times as much biomass as all wild mammals combined. It's almost irrelevant what other mammals do, there are so few of them. Even so, it's a personal choice. It happens that I made a choice to be vegetarian, but that was only five weeks ago... Other people make their choice. But it's different from the case of other animals killing for food.
    - jamil7 7y ago
      Careful using this argument it's an appeal to nature and can be used to excuse just about any behaviour. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
- seanwilson 7y ago
  > push by vegetarians to ban meat eating Milk and egg production still involve animals being killed for meat though e.g. female diary cows are killed for meat when they stop producing enough milk after a few years and males from diary cows are killed within a month of being born as veal.
  - dkersten 7y ago
    I see no issue with free range eggs from a local keeping chickens (where I know that they are, indeed, well treated, well kept and free range) since they lay eggs most days whether you eat them or not and if you don’t use them, they would rot or attract rodents.
    - seanwilson 7y ago
      > I see no issue with free range eggs from a local keeping chickens - Male chickens are usually ground up alive within a day of being born because they're not economical to keep for meat. Locally kept chickens still feed into this supply and demand as the egg laying hens have to come from somewhere. - Egg laying chickens can live for about 8 years but are usually killed after 2 years when they stop producing as many eggs. This happens at free range farms too. - Also, free range doesn't mean what most people think it does e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_range#Free-range_poultry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_range#Free-range_poultry "In the United States, the USDA free range regulations currently apply only to poultry and indicate that the animal has been allowed access to the outside.[3] The USDA regulations do not specify the quality or size of the outside range nor the duration of time an animal must have access to the outside.[4] ... Free-range chicken eggs, however, have no legal definition in the United States. Likewise, free-range egg producers have no common standard on what the term means" > since they lay eggs most days whether you eat them or not and if you don’t use them, they would rot or attract rodents. We bred chickens to lay eggs that often though (wild chickens lay about 10 eggs a year whereas factory chickens lay about 300 which is so much it damages their health) and for them to leave their eggs unprotected (they've been bred to not "brood"). They're forced into this cycle.
      - 7y ago
- jamil7 7y ago
  The push appears to be coming from animal rights groups, many of whom may or may not be vegetarian / vegan. I wouldn't lump this squarely on someone because of their decision to not consume animal products.
- efiecho 7y ago
  > push by vegetarians to ban meat eating. Only the most delusional of them believes this is even remotely possible. In the real world, demand for meat is raising.