Because it's going out of its way to be emotionally manipulative.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Toronto chef butchers, eats deer leg in front of animal rights protesters outside his restaurant
- Thread starter Dook's Revenge
- Start date
- Status
It hasn't gotten that cold this winter. The coldest it got was in the -20 C area
By far, the restaurant owner isn't emotionally defunct or takes any sort of pride in what he did, is even open to dialogue, ect. Which is a lot better than ERA's response.
There's no societial stigma from eating meat, but the edgy replies here "omg I'm gonna go now yum yum", when we know we have vegan posters, are kind of misguided.
It's like there's this need to posture about meat eating. Not just in this topic, but every topic it comes up. And it's like...it's just meat, calm your testosterone.
There's no societial stigma from eating meat, but the edgy replies here "omg I'm gonna go now yum yum", when we know we have vegan posters, are kind of misguided.
It's like there's this need to posture about meat eating. Not just in this topic, but every topic it comes up. And it's like...it's just meat, calm your testosterone.
This...
Some people think that when they play the moral overlord it somehow makes them look smarter. But that's often not the case.
I mean, i'm against animal cruelty and as much as i can i find ways to buy my meat as animal friendly as i can.
Locally or though a program that guarantees a good life for every animal. Nowadays more chicken than beef, etc. I eat less meat even in total and have vegetarian weeks. But i do eat meat.
Oh hey the fuck vegans bandwagon, you're back already. I'm not even vegetarian anymore but fuck Foie Gras, that's some bullshit. It's so easy to completely ignore what they're protesting and just shit in them though. Good job.
This is the so called "ethical" farming btw:
But nah fuck vegans am I right?
This is the so called "ethical" farming btw:
But nah fuck vegans am I right?
Yeah that's terrible. I refuse to eat that.Oh hey the fuck vegans bandwagon, you're back already. I'm not even vegetarian anymore but fuck Foie Gras, that's some bullshit. It's so easy to completely ignore what they're protesting and just shit in them though. Good job.
This is the so called "ethical" farming btw:
But nah fuck vegans am I right?
But i agree that eating meat has become somewhat of a struggle for me too. "fuck vegans" isn't the answer imo.
Okay not sure if you're just a troll or have gone completely off the deep end.
It's easy to criticize these particular protestors because their strategy is terrible. You protest one restaurant serving an end product. How about protesting at the farms or perhaps campaigning the Canadian government to make it illegal?Oh hey the fuck vegans bandwagon, you're back already. I'm not even vegetarian anymore but fuck Foie Gras, that's some bullshit. It's so easy to completely ignore what they're protesting and just shit in them though. Good job.
This is the so called "ethical" farming btw:
But nah fuck vegans am I right?
Did you read their signs? What they asked of him in order to reduce protests? The reason this started? How they are targeting one single place instead of the industry, the supplier, or the government?Oh hey the fuck vegans bandwagon, you're back already. I'm not even vegetarian anymore but fuck Foie Gras, that's some bullshit. It's so easy to completely ignore what they're protesting and just shit in them though. Good job.
This is the so called "ethical" farming btw:
But nah fuck vegans am I right?
It's not as cut and dry as you make it seem. They are not just people protesting Foie Gras.
But of course Foie Gras is terrible unless done without force feeding. I like it being illegal in my country.
This thread has turned into a circlejerk of lololol vegans for the most case though, you make it sound like people were interested in an honest discussion in the first place.
Maybe this isn't the only protest they've ever done. Maybe they protest other places too. Given this protest spawned a news article and then a thread on Era, maybe it succeeded in encouraging discussion and spreading awareness.
Just a thought.
Just a thought.
Not trolling at all. I am genuinely curious as to how you can decide to draw the line and say that it is ok to end some organisms life because it feels pain and is intelligent, but then it is ok to kill other organisms because they do not show sign of either. Why are those the criteria that elevate a certain organism as opposed to something like the ability to reproduce, try to obtain favorable conditions, etc. I think it is pretty arbitrary, especially when there are plenty of "lower" animals that do not show signs of consciousness (or at least no more consciousness than something like a plant) but simply live to survive and science on testing if any animal feels pain is much more ambiguous as there are not many good tests for that.
Because I can make emotional bonds with and feel empathy for other animals especially those who feel pain and display affection just as I do but I can't with a carrot. It's a pretty easy line to draw.
If you think being okay with plucking a carrot out of the ground but not being okay with slitting the throat of a pig is somehow arbitrary you're either being very obtuse or very sociopathic.
Ok, but what about those who do not feel emotional towards animals, especially the ones they eat. Why is it not ok for them to eat them if it is ok for you to eat a carrot that you do not feel an emotional bond with. And once again, that is a completely arbitrary decision that you have made. You have decided that for you, the criterion of what to eat or not to eat is based on the ability to form an emotional bond with the thing that could be eaten. Why is that more valid than other criteria.
Also, if you think that slitting the neck of animals is the go to or preferred method to kill an animals (it can be used) then you are insane. I don't think many would argue that the best method of killing an animal for meat is just going straight for the throat.
Anyone who is incapable of forming an emotional bond with an animal and sees them as being on the same level as a plant is outright deranged and likely quite capable of visiting harm on another human.
Where did I say there was a preferred method of killing an animal for food? The cutting of the neck to sever blood vessels, with or without stunning, is what's done at slaughter so I have no idea where you are going with this. Google "sticking", mate.
There are plenty of people that do not enjoy pets or form emotional bonds with animals and the like that do not go on killing sprees. I think you are highly exaggerating your point there. You did not say it is the preferred method, but you are putting forward the most violent sounding form of slaughter possible to skew the argument in your favor. I can google sticking, and you can google "how animals are slaughtered for food" and see that there are a variety of mechanisms that are used that are not simply slitting the throat. Where I am going with this is that you are setting forth arbitrary criteria that you think should apply to everyone, without giving any reason as to why those criteria are more important than other criteria. You are arbitrarily elevating one form of life over another by saying plants are lower than animals, so why is it wrong for people to do the same and say animals are lower than humans.
I am ok with you believing that animals are on the same level as humans and plants are lower. I just think it is an arbitrary decision and someone could just as arbitrarily shift the balance in another direction.
The difference between a carrot and a mammal is not arbitrary. There is a logical basis behind the whole empathy for animals thing, it's not just about feelings. We know that mammals and other species are fully conscious beings, are capable of experiencing pain in the same sense that we do, have social behaviour, can get traumatized etc. Having empathy for a carrot on the other hand is baseless lunacy. It may react to stimuli, but that's a fucking far cry from the ability to feel pain as a conscious experience. Drawing the line at animals capable of suffering is not arbitrary and certainly more ethical than "anything but human goes, no other factor should play a role" as most see it here.
But let's assume, for the sake of the argument, that all life is equally capable of all those things and equally valuable as a consequence: Veganism would still be the more ethically sound lifestyle, since vegans consume less plants than meat-eaters. Animals eat too, you know. Meat is also responsible for a lot of deforestation in order to grow the food for lifestock, so all in all, you would still cause less suffering if you chose to go vegan/cut down on meat.
I've been to places in the Dordogne where the geese come waddling up at feed time and jostle for the feed. Doesn't look particularly cruel to me. Obviously there are producers where it doesn't work like that but it is possible to make Foie Gros without hurting the geese.
I agree with this. I am not arguing that plants are conscious or that people should have empathy, I am just arguing that feeling pain and having consciousness are just two criteria that people can choose, and especially when a lot of the arguments come down not eating meat because they have respect for an animal's life, you are already making the decision to classify some life as inferior or lower than other life, so why is the decision to stop at animals more morally sound than any other? If you say that it is ok to eat plants because they do not feel pain and do not exhibit consciousness, is it then ok to eat animals that do not exhibit pain or consciousness?
For the second point, I just want to be clear. Is your argument that veganism is more ethically sound because by having humans eat meat, we are forced to raise large amounts of livestock that also eat plants, thus the combined humans eating vegetables and livestock raised for meat eating vegetables would be more than if humans just followed a vegan diet? Sorry if that last sentence is confusing, but that is the only way I can think to state it and that makes sense to me and I agree with it.
Last edited:
I don't really get your point? If you agree with the bolded parts of my post, you must also agree that a vegan lifestyle causes much less suffering than a meat-based lifestyle. So:
Less suffering > more suffering
That's literally it. To me, that makes sense, while the "anything but human" argument doesn't. We are animals too, we are closely related to other animals and I don't think it's very logical under those points to build a wall around our species and exclude other animals, that are very similar to us in many ways, from moral consideration. And if you think that "anything but your own species, no mather it's intellectual/social complexity and ability to suffer", is an acceptable moral compass, then consider the following thought experiment I posted a few times already in this thread:
Imagine a race of very advanced aliens lands on our planet. According to that sort of logic, it would not be ethically problematic for them to put us into little cages, where we can often not even turn around and round us all up for slaughter and consumption. We would be another species, so no problem, right? Especially considering the fact that such a race of interstellar aliens would be much more advanced than us. The difference would likely be even bigger than between us and pigs.
But even if you don't care about that, there is also the ecological argument when talking about going vegan. Lifestock produces a lot of greenhouse gases, wastes a lot of ressources, is one of the leading causes of deforestation, and the foodprint of a vegan diet is much smaller than the footprint of a meat-based diet.
I don't want to tell anyone to go fully vegan or anything, but at least thinking about those issues, accepting the facts around it and having an honest conversation about it with others, as well as yourself, without the usual easy dismissals and shitposts, should be the obligation of everyone who eats meat.
And regarding the last part of your post, yes that's what I meant.
Incidentally, you can eat a plant-based diet while avoiding killing even plants. If you're interested in improving your moral high ground (and I'm sure you are based on your posts so far), if you convert to Jainism you can lord it over everyone.
For the bolded, this example still supposes that consciousness and ability to feel pain are the criteria that decides something is able to be eaten or not ("humans and pigs"), rather than other factors, and also supposes that I am arguing that factory farming is ok ('little cages"), which I am not saying. What if I were to use that example and say that aliens came here and decided to eat jellyfish. Would that be morally intractable even though jellyfish do not feel pain or exhibit consciousness?
For the italicized, that is what I am trying to do here. I agree that veganism is better for the environment, but I also think that argument does not completely rule out eating meat altogether. You can still raise animals on much lower scales than we do now and eat them without negatively impacting the environment to a large degree. I don't think you can argue against that because otherwise the argument would be that there should be no animals. If you say that the aim should be to not affect the environment to any degree, then we should all stop using plastics, forms of transportation, etc.
We can always strive to be better and improve but being realistic I think expecting everyone to strictly adhere to veganism is ridiculous if you don't expect them to also abandon all other aspects of modern society that also contribute to harming the environment (to be clear, I know that you specifically are not arguing this but there are those in this thread who say you are immoral if you are not vegan).
Thanks for at least taking the time to talk this out and not just dismissing my arguments outright.
Last edited:
I feel similarly. I eat meat, but I respect the decisions of vegetarians or vegans if they feel upset by the concept. Why are people being so mean? A lot of the posts in this thread that are laughing, calling him a hero, and making fun of vegans feel callous and aggressive to me.
Neither side in this protest was acting appropriately, but they both seem to be coming from completely different sides. I can see how both are upset with one another, and I doubt they could ever come to an agreement.
If they were only protesting the production methods of foie gras as has been brought up by some, why does that one sign in the photo say "Murder" and not something related to the supposed reason for the protest?
There comes a time when we all have to realize we are somewhere below what others perceive to be the moral high ground. How one deals with it is up to them.
I long ago made peace with the fact that my conscience allows me to eat meat without feeling guilty. I applaud the protestors for sticking up for what they believe in, but if not eating meat means I'm morally bankrupt, I guess that's the way it is.
On a side note, I always thought that creating foie gras was a morally repugnant practice until I ate it for the first time. All of the sudden, it didn't seem so bad. Funny how that works.
Human rights and woman rights are different (and even these movements at times are the empty domains of privledged). There is more to it because animal rights can be seen as detrimental to these causes because often times it is the domain of white privileged people and frames animals as being more important than humans especially humans who aren't white. It can literally be read as 'White people are privileged enough to not have anything to fight for apart from animals because they love dogs too much'
A simple google search is enough to bring out a myriad of opinion on the issue:https://www.google.com.au/search?sa....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..6.2.547...0.0.8LJZkASqjCY
Because people from poor communities and much of the world dont have the time or money to pick and choose their dietary lifestyle and suddenly decide to be vegan on the whim. They also don't have the time or money for pets because theyre already struggling to feed themselves and their family and they probably dont have a freestanding home with a big backyard for a pet, which is why its hard not to scoff at this whole movement
And yes i know meat consumption is bad but what is going to happen? I like meat, everyone i know likes meat therefore we will keep eating meat because humans are not logical
Last edited:
Evening all,
Quick update. Mrs. Luchadeer and I went to antler for dinner tonight ( part of a suprise trip to Toronto I setup for our wedding anniversary).
The food was wonderful, and the place was packed.
We were talking with one of our servers this evening, and it sounds like the protest has been great for business!
We will definitely be going back next time we are in town.
Quick update. Mrs. Luchadeer and I went to antler for dinner tonight ( part of a suprise trip to Toronto I setup for our wedding anniversary).
The food was wonderful, and the place was packed.
We were talking with one of our servers this evening, and it sounds like the protest has been great for business!
We will definitely be going back next time we are in town.
- Status