Foie Gras Ban

[Rodders]

Ok, Ok, I know everyone is against the way they fatten up the goose for the liver. But, what about the way they fatten up the cattle for your steak at Le Cellier? Isn't that the same "cruelty"?

I hear what you are saying and I can't say that these animals aren't mistreated because in some cases they are. having said that, from what I have read, I have yet too see anything as cruel as routinely ramming tubes down animals throats to force large amounts of food into the animal. In my opinion the problem with Foie Gras and many other food production methods is that it involves deliberate mistreatment. The farming of cattle generally involves a reasonable standard of living and in my opinion it is our responsibility to ensure that decent living conditions are provided for our food. I am also of the opinion that mistreatment, whether it be deliberate or otherwise should be eliminated from the system. I am also aware that the system as it stands is far from perfect and we have a way to go before cruel practices are eliminated completely. Just my view from the terraces

[CaptainJessicaSparrow]

With cattle, they are fattened up using corn. Instead of grass and hay, they are feed corn grain, which is very fattening for them so they can gain more weight. Most places is somewhat humane, but again, there are always places that don't get it and treat them poorly.

I'm not a PETA person either, but their videos are....interesting and thought-provoking to say the least.

[Cinderelley]

Well, we could let all the animals go and return to hunting all of our food.

[big blue and hairy]

Well, we could let all the animals go and return to hunting all of our food.

Ummmm....what will you be hunting...lettuce?

[Cinderelley]

Ummmm....what will you be hunting...lettuce?

Well, at first, I thought we would just hunt the animals, but then I realized there were people who opposed hunting. So, in order to be politically correct, we couldn't hunt them. Then I figured we would take out the old ones, like the animals in the wild do. But, I'm sure that would raise a huge outcry about how we need to nurse them back to health. Forget about survival of the fittest.
So, that means we would have to go from hunters to gatherers, but only if we don't use pesticides. It's not right to kill the bugs in such a horrific way. Instead, we'll have to have swarms and swarms of ladybugs after the EPA does an investigation to make sure the ladybugs won't have a negative environmental impact. Which of course they will, since they'll be eating all of the insects that would be eating our food. But instead of coming to that conclusion logically, researchers will have to get a ridiculously large amount of money in the form of a federal grant to complete years and years of research on this topic.
In the meantime, society as we know it will have taken a step backwards in time where we can all live like Grizzly Adams did. We will be one with nature and have animal friends who somehow understand when we speak to them in English and disappear off the screen as we go into town to barter our goods, but magically reappear as we return to our lonely mountain top cabins.



By the way, before anyone gets all upset that I'm so insensitive, I've never eaten this stuff, don't know how to pronounce it, and didn't know that it existed before this thread. Also, no animals were harmed in the making of this response.

[Rhetoric2000]

Well, at first, I thought we would just hunt the animals, but then I realized there were people who opposed hunting. So, in order to be politically correct, we couldn't hunt them. Then I figured we would take out the old ones, like the animals in the wild do. But, I'm sure that would raise a huge outcry about how we need to nurse them back to health. Forget about survival of the fittest.
So, that means we would have to go from hunters to gatherers, but only if we don't use pesticides. It's not right to kill the bugs in such a horrific way. Instead, we'll have to have swarms and swarms of ladybugs after the EPA does an investigation to make sure the ladybugs won't have a negative environmental impact. Which of course they will, since they'll be eating all of the insects that would be eating our food. But instead of coming to that conclusion logically, researchers will have to get a ridiculously large amount of money in the form of a federal grant to complete years and years of research on this topic.
In the meantime, society as we know it will have taken a step backwards in time where we can all live like Grizzly Adams did. We will be one with nature and have animal friends who somehow understand when we speak to them in English and disappear off the screen as we go into town to barter our goods, but magically reappear as we return to our lonely mountain top cabins.



By the way, before anyone gets all upset that I'm so insensitive, I've never eaten this stuff, don't know how to pronounce it, and didn't know that it existed before this thread. Also, no animals were harmed in the making of this response.

Wow. One field. So many straw men.

I'm always intrigued by what people manage to class as "Political Correctness", but banning hunting is a new one.

I'm not sure what pesticides has to do with foie gras.

I've made it clear already in this thread that I'm against the banning of foie gras. But it IS on the borderline, and it is exceedingly unpleasant. And it is quite feasable that somebody would think that it IS going too far without being some kind of parody of an environmental activist.

When the debates were going on over here about fox hunting (and hunting in general) you do occasionally come across people who appear to have a strange notion that "natural death" in the wild is a peaceful, pleasant way to go; rather than virtually always hideous, strung out and horrible - HOWEVER I have seen absolutely nobody make an argument like this on this thread.

Very few animal lovers take too much issue with the nature in which an animal that is to be used for human purposes dies. That is quite another thing from dealing with how the animal lives its life - and THIS is the issue that people have with foie gras. Arguing (or attempting to ridicule) elsewhere is irrelevant.

I don't know if this posts counts as being "upset at your insensitivity" - but your post is clearly designed to ridicule-by- association other posters in this thread who have not come in the least bit close to the points that you imply that they have made. Which I think should be called out.

[Rodders]

Well, at first, I thought we would just hunt the animals, but then I realized there were people who opposed hunting. So, in order to be politically correct, we couldn't hunt them. Then I figured we would take out the old ones, like the animals in the wild do. But, I'm sure that would raise a huge outcry about how we need to nurse them back to health. Forget about survival of the fittest.
So, that means we would have to go from hunters to gatherers, but only if we don't use pesticides. It's not right to kill the bugs in such a horrific way. Instead, we'll have to have swarms and swarms of ladybugs after the EPA does an investigation to make sure the ladybugs won't have a negative environmental impact. Which of course they will, since they'll be eating all of the insects that would be eating our food. But instead of coming to that conclusion logically, researchers will have to get a ridiculously large amount of money in the form of a federal grant to complete years and years of research on this topic.
In the meantime, society as we know it will have taken a step backwards in time where we can all live like Grizzly Adams did. We will be one with nature and have animal friends who somehow understand when we speak to them in English and disappear off the screen as we go into town to barter our goods, but magically reappear as we return to our lonely mountain top cabins.



By the way, before anyone gets all upset that I'm so insensitive, I've never eaten this stuff, don't know how to pronounce it, and didn't know that it existed before this thread. Also, no animals were harmed in the making of this response.

I have to second Rhetoric on this one. A few points that I must pick up with you

First of all, what has hunting got to do with political correctness?

Secondly, I and many other people on this thread are saying that it's not acceptable to torture an animal because it makes it taste nicer, I am not making an argument for or against anything that you have discussed. You may be surprised to hear that I appreciate, understand and even agree with some of the points made. The trouble with those points is that they are totally irrelevant.

[wendy*darling]

Well guys, I think we are done here.

Thanks to the OP for alerting us to the fact that foie gras will no longer be served on WDW property.