Confab wrote: » Load of bollocks. Animal rights activists cry their hearts out at a dead duck yet walk by badly suffering homeless people without a care in the world. Sheer hypocrisy.
AskMyChocolate wrote: » I would imagine it involves a central nervous system. QFT.
enda1 wrote: » Why? CPU, wiring, sensors. This is essentially enough to capture physical sensory information which seems to be enough to constitute a pain response for some people. I forgot that this was after hours...pity that logic needs to be suspended to enter.
Shenshen wrote: » Your printer has pain receptors??? :eek:
AskMyChocolate wrote: » Of course there is no difference between animate and inanimate objects. That is why, no doubt, you would have no problem throwing a baby into a fire with the same disregard as you would an LDR. And tell me, does your printer go around plugging in all the little printers to make sure they have enough electricity? Or is it single?
enda1 wrote: » A baby would exhibit the emotional response which would constitute the action as cruel.
kraggy wrote: » https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32815SIgq1A
enda1 wrote: » You chose a vegan philosopher to decide for you a question of neurological response? Do you go to the mechanic too when you have pains in your chest??
Diapason wrote: » I love foie gras, pan seared and served with brioche and a glass of Sauternes, there's nothing like it. I've done a lot of reading about its production, and I'm pretty convinced that at the very least there's a lot of one-sided argument going on. The force-feeding thing is obviously very emotive, because people know they wouldn't like to be force-fed themselves. But duck and goose physiology is not like human physiology. Bear in mind, these birds gorge themselves at certain times of the year, they fill a toughened pouch in their necks (called the crop) and digest as they see fit. Having cut a mallard open for cleaning, I got a whole new appreciation of all of this. Analysis done on birds during gavage for stress hormones and the like have proved inconclusive. It's possible (and for my money, probable) that the birds aren't nearly as uncomfortable as you might think. Anyway, that's not to say there aren't foie gras producers who do horrible things, but that's not gavage itself (as far as it goes) so much as bad animal husbandry. PETA and its ilk will only ever show you the worst. Ultimately, I'm not sure whether foie gras is cruel or not, and if you don't want to eat it, more power to you, but the usual anthropomorphic response is not compelling. Ducks and geese aren't built like humans. There was a very good article on the subject written by Jeffrey Steingarten that used to be available online, but I can't find it now. Shame really, because it illuminated some of these issues.
Diapason wrote: » Analysis done on birds during gavage for stress hormones and the like have proved inconclusive.
mikedragon32 wrote: » My teacher in primary school used to tell us all about the disgusting processes used in producing foods like fois gras, black pudding, even certain sausages.
ScumLord wrote: » I don't think there's anything inconclusive about it, I have no doubt both sides are lying to support their viewpoint but forced anything is going to cause distress.
ScumLord wrote: » Killing an animal is one thing, death comes to everything and being killed by a human these days is as nice a death as a prey animal can hope for. But I do think our domestic animals deserve respect and a good quality of life.
Diapason wrote: » Why? Because if the proper scientific analysis suggests that it isn't causing distress then the rest is just an anthropomorphic response. I'm not suggesting it definitely isn't cruel, I'm just saying that I'd want to see evidence of it. For a slightly glib example of what I mean, if you forced me to spend a night naked on a marsh that would cause me distress. Not all animals are distressed by the same things. Totally agreed. And as I've said elsewhere, I'd sooner be a foie gras duck than a battery chicken! Again, with proper husbandry, there is evidence that foie gras ducks are pretty happy.
ScumLord wrote: » It may be possible to create the product on a small farm for a high price where the animal isn't distressed that much. But in this world of cheapness and bulk buying I'm sure the vast majority of foie gras is coming from intensive farms.
ScumLord wrote: » I don't think ducks are physiologically able to have pipes down there throught, I would guess it would be similar to a person having an endotracheal tube put down their throught in hospital. That's designed specifically to be shoved down a persons throught and it's still not pleasant having it done.
Diapason wrote: » On this one I think you really *are* wrong. A duck's gizzard is completely different to a human's. Because of the stuff they eat, it isn't nearly as soft, it's designed in a completely different way. Again, trying to attach human experience to this is fraught with problems. One other thing, the pipes aren't down there for long. Just long enough to fill the crop. Again, I'm no expert, quite the opposite, but I have some moral qualms which some reading around has gone quite a long way to address. I wish I could find that article I referred to. Gah!
ScumLord wrote: » I don't think there's anything inconclusive about it, I have no doubt both sides are lying to support their viewpoint but forced anything is going to cause distress. This in particular is cruel and unusual. Killing an animal is one thing, death comes to everything and being killed by a human these days is as nice a death as a prey animal can hope for. But I do think our domestic animals deserve respect and a good quality of life. How can making sausages be any more cruel than turning the dead animal into any other pork based product?
Guill wrote: » I think we are omnivores. i heard rumours of vegitarians before! are they actually real?
Diapason wrote: » If you have time, have a read of this article. It's a good example of what I'm talking about.