Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Chicago Bans Foie Gras

Rate this topic


softwareNerd

Recommended Posts

Imagine this (fictional) news-story:

Sacramento, May 1st 2035: Governor, Richard Nader, today signed a bill that will make California the first vegetarian state in the nation.

The slaughter of animals has been illegal in California for the last decade, and taxes on meat products have been raised steadily. Per capita beef consumption has dropped from a high of 66 pounds per year at the end of the last century to just under 10 pounds today. Some cities, led by San Francisco, already ban the sale of meat and meat products within their jusrisdictions.

Lawmaker Ron Reagan III, who sponsored the bill, said: "Violent acts toward animals have long been recognized as indicators of a dangerous psychopathy that does not confine itself to animals. Without an all-out ban, people in the less progressive areas of the state were making a mockery of the rule of law. A vast majority of Californians don't support cruelty and killing. It's really simple actually; I think the bible says it well: 'Thou shalt not kill.'"

Think it can't happen? I'd agree. Wait though... why not? What's the reason? Because the constitution does not allow it? Or, because it would not have popular support?

I've discussed the ethics of veal-eating with colleagues. I figure there's a fair number of people who'd sign up to ban veal. A fair number, but nowhere near enough. So, what's a PETA activist to do? The answer: target a smaller constituency. They came up with a very creative target. Any ideas?

Foie gras! Who is going to object to a ban on foie gras? How many people even eat foie gras over their lifetimes? How many even know what it is? How many who eat it will really miss it if it's gone? Foie gras is a target with little democratic (small "d") support.

A veal-eater ought to object to a ban on foie gras; a beef eater should too. Will they? Nah! That would be to defend a principle, rather than to defend something real. Too abstract to worry about. So, Chicago just went ahead and banned it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ultimate conclusion of this ban is obviously the conferment of voting rights on ducks and geese. I mean, with the passage of the ban, the poor ducks and geese are subject to the law, but have no say in it! How unfair is that! We must allow ducks and geese to participate in all levels of the Democratic process!

All those in favor of fuliguline and anserine suffrage, say "Aye!"

-Q

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That stuff looks pretty gross, but that story's almost enough to make me want to try some.

I had the same idea. Unfortunately I read that the sort of feeding to get these foie gras is also forbidden in Germany (and Austria). But thanks to the internet, I can buy that stuff online. :homestar: Strangely enough they allow that. For a carnivore on principle like me, this message is very bad news.

Edited by Felix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unsurprising, given that the place is run by turkeys.

I just got a call from the TAU pressure group (Turkeys of America United), they've taken off from their campaign against Thanksgiving to let you know that they are offended at being compared with Chicago politicians. They are so mad that they are planning to file a lawsuit under the anti-discrimination act. :sorcerer::homestar:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you pronounce "foie gras"?

Is there a special brand and/or specific recipee or form of preperation that you would recommend for someone who's never tried it?

"Foie" is pronounced like "aw" with an "fw" sound in front. "Gras" is pronounced "graw."

I tend to like goose liver (as opposed to duck liver) varities. I can't recommend a particular brand, but the fattier ones are generally better. Also, I would recommend eating it plain (i.e. not with any trimmings).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
The ultimate conclusion of this ban is obviously the conferment of voting rights on ducks and geese. I mean, with the passage of the ban, the poor ducks and geese are subject to the law, but have no say in it! How unfair is that! We must allow ducks and geese to participate in all levels of the Democratic process!

All those in favor of fuliguline and anserine suffrage, say "Aye!"

-Q

Rather, say QUAAAAAAACKKKKKK!

Sorry, my friends, but I find the banning of foie gras to be beyond ridiculous. And the vegan movement, that challenger of nature which flagrantly disobeys nature, gets emboldened by the banning of such moves. I find that beyond appalling.

Why not challenge this new ban in courts? It has nothing to do with safety. it regulates, rather than protects, one's rights.

I am in strong disagreement with the vegetarian movement. Human beings are omnivorous by nature, and need meat as well as vegetables and fruits to survive in good health. If, despite that basic law of nature, one still wants to be vegan, so be it. But vegetarians have no place in the legislative movements to disrupt the rights of others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Foie" is pronounced like "aw" with an "fw" sound in front. "Gras" is pronounced "graw."
The latter being similar to the standard American pronunciation of "coup de grace" ;)

And the vegan movement, that challenger of nature which flagrantly disobeys nature, gets emboldened by the banning of such moves.

...

I am in strong disagreement with the vegetarian movement. Human beings are omnivorous by nature, and need meat as well as vegetables and fruits to survive in good health.

I think this claim distracts from the relevant point. Man is by nature a rational being. He is not by nature a heterosexual or carnivorous / omnivorous being. There is no law of nature that says that man must eat meat. The proper objection to being vegan or vegetarian is generally that it is an irrational choice (sometimes it is a decision arrived at rationally, depending on the individual -- though I have yet to meat a rational vegan), based on mysticism or a broken system of ethics. In fighting these food Nazis, it's important to be right, because they represent the cutting edge of a very dangerous form of fascism spreading through our culture.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is not by nature a heterosexual or carnivorous / omnivorous being. There is no law of nature that says that man must eat meat.

So you would challenge long-established biological fact? ;)

That fact is that man, by nature, is omnivorous, and is able to eat both meat and plants.

Man, in his rational nature, has that choice upon which to eat whatever he thinks he needs to survive, and that may include meat.

My point is government has no right to deny him that choice- or right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you would challenge long-established biological fact? :confused:
Which fact? Not the fact that man is capable of eating both plant and vegetable matter, but the claim that by nature man needs meat. In addition, in saying "despite that basic law of nature..." and moving on to the choice to chose not to eat meat, you are misleadingly suggesting (I presume accidentally) that not eating meat is a violation of man's nature, which it clearly is not. It is not man's nature to eat meat: the rationality of doing so has to be determined by reference to the facts of the individual such as cost, alternative food sources, allergies, aesthetic value. I agree on the point that it is not the government's business, and I'm just urging you to not clutter the argument with a mistaken argument about man's nature. It is man's nature to live by reason. That will suffice to direct the argument away from using guns to prevent people from living by reason.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of these animal-rights stories could have made decent comedy a couple of decades ago. Here's one about lobsters, from "Wholefood Stores ™". They're concerned about the way they're treating their lobsters! If they have their way, I won't be able to point out the lobsters to my kid when we go shopping. As part of their test of new "lobster condos", they're going to keep them away from "glass tapping children".

The spokesman for Wholefood is quoted as follows:

"We wanted to treat them less like merchandise or a curiosity to be shown to a kid," said Amy Schaefer, a spokeswoman for Whole Foods. "It's not like buying a dozen eggs."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An update on this story, heard on NPR...

Wholefoods has decided that they cannot provide lobsters with an adequate quality of life, so they will ask their vendors to kill the lobsters instead, and will only sell them frozen. Being considerate, their vendors will use a special high-pressure chamber that will kill the lobsters swiftly. [And, if you think this must be a joke, you're still sane.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you evaluate the quality of life of a lobster?

And as for not wanting to treat them like merchandise, uh, how much are you charging again?

-Q

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is no one talking about banning the cod and octopi from eating lobsters, too? They're violating the lobster's rights just as much as we are . . .

David Odden, there are times when your comedic skills surpass your love of canines. This is one of those times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of these animal-rights stories could have made decent comedy a couple of decades ago. Here's one about lobsters, from "Wholefood Stores ™". They're concerned about the way they're treating their lobsters! If they have their way, I won't be able to point out the lobsters to my kid when we go shopping. As part of their test of new "lobster condos", they're going to keep them away from "glass tapping children".

The spokesman for Wholefood is quoted as follows:

I have GOT to go see these lobster condos. I live in Virginia Highlands.

Part of me wants to sarcastically suggest that these lobsters are inhumanely undersupplied of a plentiful amount of expensive amenities, but I do not want to inadvertantly trigger a concatenation of events to bring about lobster-human equality in the city of Atlanta.

An update on this story, heard on NPR...

Wholefoods has decided that they cannot provide lobsters with an adequate quality of life, so they will ask their vendors to kill the lobsters instead, and will only sell them frozen. Being considerate, their vendors will use a special high-pressure chamber that will kill the lobsters swiftly. [And, if you think this must be a joke, you're still sane.]

I guess I should have continued reading (at least the next post) before issuing my previous elation. This would be amusing if there was a lobby protesting the new pre-killed lobster policy because consumers want the option to purchase a lobster from the supermarket to keep it as a cherished pet, like Homer Simpson did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In terms of consumer perception, the "wholefood" and "organic" type of stores have a few things things going for them:

  • tastier food
  • healthier food
  • "goodness" factor (not hurting the poor lobsters)

In return, many charge slightly higher prices, which their customer's are willing to pay for the perceived additional value.

I'd like to see a "Sane Foods" store that does the first, does the second without pandering to irrational fears, and scorns the third.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...