When Foie Gras Is Outlawed, Only Outlaws Will Eat Foie Gras

Kerry already blogged about defiance of Chicago's foie gras ban, but here's a little more on creative scofflaws in the Windy City:

Yesterday, when the law formally went into effect, restaurants were given a pass:

"'The city gave them a day of fun, but tomorrow we'll see what happens,'" said Joe Moore, the alderman who first proposed the ban. Moore also said that the method by which foie gras is produced - force-feeding ducks and geese through a pipe that is inserted into the throat - clearly amounts to cruelty to animals.

Moore seems unconcerned about asking a goose to be the last goose to die for a mistake.

The Department of Health will not be conducting raids or assembling a foie gras SWAT team, but will act only in response to customer complains ("Waiter, there's a goose liver in my salad!"). Restaurateurs risk (a) a mean letter, then (b) a $250 to $500 fine.

A few enterprising chefs have already figured out ways to work around the sloppily-worded ban, while they wait for the outcome of their pending lawsuit against the city. Chef Michael Tsonton of Copperblue explains:

I'm usually serving the foie gras with some potatoes, salad and brioche. If we cannot sell the foie gras, I will be giving it away complimentary, and I will be charging $15.99 for the potatoes and salad and brioche.

Comments

[luisa]

I'm interested in hearing others' thought here. This first struck me as silly government over-regulation, then I thought preventing systematic torture of animals surely is worthy of using the power of law to stop.

After all if liberty means liberty for the more powerful to inflict whatever treatment they wish on less powerful beings, where does that leave us?

[wellfellow]

Luisa,

I agree, just think of the even less powerful plants and what we do to them! Someday our children will look back in disgust at our shredded carrots over lettuce.

[thoreau]

Moore seems unconcerned about asking a goose to be the last goose to die for a mistake.

That was priceless. It's going to the "quotable quotes" thread on grylliade!

Whether or not you find out about this depends on whether the server squirrels are in a good mood.

Could we force feed them energy drinks?

[jkp]

Worse than useless. Animals have no "rights" as such. I might have been amenable to arguments about cruelty to animals as a reason to steer clear of foie gras -- indeed, I'd never tried it, just because I found those stories distasteful. Now I shall seek to enjoy this rare delicacy at the first available opportunty.

A gun is not an argument. It's about time that the arrogant aldermen of the windy city recognize this fact.

[Hmmm]

Anyone with the will to schlep out to the suburbs will be able to eat foie gras without breaking any laws.

[highnumber]

luisa,

1. We have all heard that this force-feeding is cruel, but how many of us have witnessed it?

2. Assuming that you have seen it, and you do think it is cruel, what do you tell the people who think factory-style poultry farms are cruel? Then, what do you tell the people who think that zoos are cruel? Then, the people who think it is cruel to eat anything with a face?

[Paul]

Highnumber's second point is an important one. It reminds me of Volokh's thoughts on "censorship envy". Once you allow one food to be banned, the next group will ask "What about the food that offends us?" Their objections can't be any more absurd that foie gras opponents', so why shouldn't they get to decide what I can and cannot eat?

[Hydroman]

LIBERTY!!! for all "gonzos"

[lowball]

I don't see anything incompatible with basic libertarianism and trying to minimize cruelty to animals - simply because it would be absurd to try to assign animals the exact same rights as humans does not mean that we shouldn't think carefully about where to draw the line here, or that there should be a line. You wouldn't respond to a law against just torturing animals (with no medical or gastronomic benefit) with the argument, "well, should we pass laws against playing sports on the grassy fields then?" would you?

[Robert]

I think the difference is whether the animal (or person) minds it. As far as I'm concerned, you should be allowed to do anything to anyone who doesn't mind, or who isn't owned by someone who minds. From what I've heard, geese don't mind this. I rather doubt that animals mind factory farming either, because they're not put in pain and they don't know any different.

[lowball]

'Not minding it' is a start at least I suppose. However, given the very small size of a goose's brain, it's a little hard to tell in this case about whether they 'mind' or even if this makes sense as a criterion when we're dealing with animals not really capable of figuring out ahead of time, or remembering, that a cruel way of getting fed at least means still getting fed. They can't sort out those trade-offs; they might not even be capable of pavlovian associations.

In the case of zoos, it does strike me some of the animals seem to mind some of the treatments they are given, if pacing back in forth in a small cage is any indication. However, I'm guessing snakes might have a harder time letting us in on this.

[highnumber]

given the very small size of a goose's brain, it's a little hard to tell in this case about whether they 'mind' or even if this makes sense as a criterion

From this it follows that there is no such thing as cruelty to a goose.

(Geese can be quite cruel themselves, I would like to point out. I should really recuse myself from the foie gras debate, because I looooove the stuff, and I hate birds. In other words, I would jam my hand down its gullet and rip its insides out the hard way to get me some of that fatty liver.)

[rwdcm]

As a raging liberal even I am offended by government intervention into what restaurants may offer on a menu - and what foods are "banned". After all each person can choose to eat the foie gras or not!

"creative scofflaws in the Windy City" need to let me make my own choice - and eat foie gras liberally, if I please.

[lowball]

given the very small size of a goose's brain, it's a little hard to tell in this case about whether they 'mind' or even if this makes sense as a criterion

"From this it follows that there is no such thing as cruelty to a goose."

No, it follows that the criterion of 'not minding it' might not be apt for everyone in the animal kingdom and/or in all contexts.

[Nathan]

As a raging liberal even I am offended by government intervention into what restaurants may offer on a menu - and what foods are "banned". After all each person can choose to eat the foie gras or not!

The problem is that the geese can't choose whether to be eaten or not.

[?]

neither can a carrot, you raging dolt.

[Ken]

Well I'm against boiling cats alive to jack up the hormones and make it easer to peel off the fur but overfeeding a goose is no worse than what a lot of people do to themselves.

[rickm]

For those that morally equate vegetables and animals: you clearly haven't thought about the issue. Animals, including the ones that humans eat, have the capability for consciousness. Vegetables do not. That is the moral difference. Stop embarassing yourselves.

So, that support factory farming must face a decision. You either think the mass systematic torture and abuse of conscious beings is morally wrong, or it is not. If it is wrong, how can you justify supporting it? If it is not wrong, why is it not wrong?
And don't fool yourself into some charade like 'they don't have rights' or 'its nature'. For one, its not whether they can excercise rationality or perform duties that are implied by rights, its whether they can suffer (It would be wrong to severly torture and kill a human with the mental capacity of a cow, no?). As for nature, we have a choice. Make one.

[rickm]

For those that morally equate vegetables and animals: you clearly haven't thought about the issue. Animals, including the ones that humans eat, have the capability for consciousness. Vegetables do not. That is the moral difference. Stop embarassing yourselves.

So, that support factory farming must face a decision. You either think the mass systematic torture and abuse of conscious beings is morally wrong, or it is not. If it is wrong, how can you justify supporting it? If it is not wrong, why is it not wrong?
And don't fool yourself into some charade like 'they don't have rights' or 'its nature'. For one, its not whether they can excercise rationality or perform duties that are implied by rights, its whether they can suffer (It would be wrong to severly torture and kill a human with the mental capacity of a cow, no?). As for nature, we have a choice. Make one.

[speedwell]

Might as well admit right now I'm a vegetarian. No, keep reading, lol.

I save my sentimental outrage for things like veal calves being kept in dark pens too small for them to lie down in, and debeaking chickens so they don't kill each other in the overcrowded coops. One of my animal-rights friends told me about the quick modern tube methods of force-feeding foie-gras geese, and I had to just laugh. I already knew about the old hold-the-struggling-animal-between-your-knees-and-shove-bravely method; my dad's Hungarian and they ate a ton of goose liver when he was growing up. Compared to that, the modern tube feeding method compares quite favorably with, say, giving a cat a pill.

As I told my friend, "What, so they tube it for a few minutes and it waddles off with a belly full of yummy corn? Boo, hoo. All their pleasure of eating is in the feeling of fullness... it's not like a goose can chew corn, you know. If geese were not naturally inclined to stuff themselves to glorious excess, their livers would not have evolved the incredible fat storing capacity that makes foie gras so terrific." I just cannot manage to get exercised over a glutton goose's obesity-related complication.

Needless to say, I don't have that particular friend anymore. She got offended or something, lol. Oh well, I like my friends to have a sense of humor anyway.

[ed]

I'll have the cow, please.

[rickm]

For those that morally equate vegetables and animals: you clearly haven't thought about the issue. Animals, including the ones that humans eat, have the capability for consciousness. Vegetables do not. That is the moral difference. Stop embarassing yourselves.

So, that support factory farming must face a decision. You either think the mass systematic torture and abuse of conscious beings is morally wrong, or it is not. If it is wrong, how can you justify supporting it? If it is not wrong, why is it not wrong?
And don't fool yourself into some charade like 'they don't have rights' or 'its nature'. For one, its not whether they can excercise rationality or perform duties that are implied by rights, its whether they can suffer (It would be wrong to severly torture and kill a human with the mental capacity of a cow, no?). As for nature, we have a choice. Make one.

[highnumber]

rickm,

You begin with the assumption that something is wrong and ask everyone else to prove a negative.

That's like me saying to you,
"rickm, prove you are not a pompous self-righteous prick"

[speedwell]

As far as I'm concerned, you should be allowed to do anything to anyone who doesn't mind, or who isn't owned by someone who minds.

Now on the other hand, THAT offends ME. Would Robert also think it was OK to go to Thailand and arrange with a Bangkok pimp to indulge himself in the sexual services of a well-trained young child, so long as the child and the pimp are OK with it?

[rickm]

If I didn't initially make it explicit, I apologize.

The mass systematic torture of animals is wrong because it causes unwarranted and severe pain on a large number of conscious beings.

[kohlrabi]

rickm,

Good stuff. I'm glad you know everything there is to know about the binary levels of consciousness and who has it and who doesn't. Apes are the same as lobsters, right?

[rickm]

If I didn't initially make it explicit, I apologize.

The mass systematic torture of animals is wrong because it causes unwarranted and severe pain on a large number of conscious beings.

Highnumber,
If I was a self-riteous prick, I would merely rephrase my statement and ask, why do you think it is right to systematically torture animals?

[bubba]

I like liver mousse and pate, but foie gras is just nasty.

Given that disclosure, I can't see how it's not appropriate for the local government to regulate animal husbandry in an effort to minimize animal cruelty.

Poultry farms and slaughter houses are regulated.

If you don't agree with the particular line drawn by this council, then vote against them.

My wife is averse to veal, but on grandma's birthday, when grandma wouldn't eat chicken and couldn't eat seafood, she was willing to recommend it.

A recent google suggests that modern veal farms do give the animals room to lie down, do give them light, and do provide a useful outlet for dairy cows unfortunate enough to be born male. Yes, they are tethered to their feed troughs, so I suspect that won't satisfy everyone. My point is only that it's not quite as creepy as it used to be. But, in truth, veal is tasteless and typically overpowered by the sauce, so what's the point?

[rickm]

kohlrabi-
I also don't know whether a mind inhabits your body, so is it ok to torture you?

[highnumber]

The mass systematic torture of animals is wrong because it causes unwarranted and severe pain on a large number of conscious beings.

It is warranted because I am higher in the food chain. Is it not warranted for an anteater to eat ants? Of course it is. Call me a coweater.

[rickm]

kohlrabi-
I also don't know whether a mind inhabits your body, so is it ok to torture you?

[rickm]

highnumber-
the difference being, among other things, is that you have a CHOICE of what you eat. If there is a moral cost to eating meat, which I am arguing, and there is no moral cost to eating vegetables, then the moral thing to do is to choose to eat vegetables and not eat meat. We could also perform a thought experiment where a higher being than us systematically tortured and killed us for taste. How does this change the discussion?

[Ayn_Randian]

alright, who let the PETA-freaks in?

first of all rick, why pick on factory farming? Why not just all slaughter of animals for food anyway?

Secondly, do you get all up in arms at the snake if he eats a mouse? Why? Guess what? My argument is that it IS natural for humans to eat meat; we're omnivores.

Additionally, animals don't have rights because they would have to have some form of self-awareness and rationality. Animals survive solely on instinct, not reason, and rights are wasted on those beings sans reason.

[Ayn_Randian]

alright, who let the PETA-freaks in?

first of all rick, why pick on factory farming? Why not just all slaughter of animals for food anyway?

Secondly, do you get all up in arms at the snake if he eats a mouse? Why? Guess what? My argument is that it IS natural for humans to eat meat; we're omnivores.

Additionally, animals don't have rights because they would have to have some form of self-awareness and rationality. Animals survive solely on instinct, not reason, and rights are wasted on those beings sans reason.

[rickm]

first of all rick, why pick on factory farming? Why not just all slaughter of animals for food anyway?

Because its the most egregious example and is morally exigent.

Secondly, do you get all up in arms at the snake if he eats a mouse? Why? Guess what? My argument is that it IS natural for humans to eat meat; we're omnivores.

Snakes have a choice, we do not. That does not negate the fact that mouse DOES suffer when it gets eaten. It is natural for humans to eat meat. So what? This is a postive proposition and has no normative or ethical claims, implicit or explicit. Natural does not mean moral. When you rely on how humans lived prior to civilization it really highlights the weaknessess of your argument.

Additionally, animals don't have rights because they would have to have some form of self-awareness and rationality. Animals survive solely on instinct, not reason, and rights are wasted on those beings sans reason.

Babies don't have self-awareness and rationality. Therefore, according to your logic, they don't have rights.

Also, your assuming that rights are derived from rationality, and that the immorality of torturing and slaughtering animals is because a right is being violated, when in fact, it is clearly because the animal is suffering.

[highnumber]

rickm,

You make a lot of assumptions:

If there is a moral cost to eating meat
Just because there is a moral cost in your eyes, does not mean there is in everyone else's.

there is no moral cost to eating vegetables
Do you know everything about the production of vegetables? I'll bet you could find something to get worked up about if you looked hard enough. Why don't you do some research and report back to us about how today's large scale agricultural operations are immoral, and we need to stop eating everything?

(Aside to everyone else:
That ought to keep him busy for a while.)

rickm, one last thing:
We could also perform a thought experiment where a higher being than us systematically tortured and killed us for taste. How does this change the discussion?
You are a twisted one, ain't ya?

[rickm]

first of all rick, why pick on factory farming? Why not just all slaughter of animals for food anyway?

Because its the most egregious example and is morally exigent.

Secondly, do you get all up in arms at the snake if he eats a mouse? Why? Guess what? My argument is that it IS natural for humans to eat meat; we're omnivores.

Snakes have a choice, we do not. That does not negate the fact that mouse DOES suffer when it gets eaten. It is natural for humans to eat meat. So what? This is a postive proposition and has no normative or ethical claims, implicit or explicit. Natural does not mean moral. When you rely on how humans lived prior to civilization it really highlights the weaknessess of your argument.

Additionally, animals don't have rights because they would have to have some form of self-awareness and rationality. Animals survive solely on instinct, not reason, and rights are wasted on those beings sans reason.

Babies don't have self-awareness and rationality. Therefore, according to your logic, they don't have rights.

Also, your assuming that rights are derived from rationality, and that the immorality of torturing and slaughtering animals is because a right is being violated, when in fact, it is clearly because the animal is suffering.

[speedwell]

Count me out as a PETA-freak, O worshipper of my illustrious distant cousin Alice. Breast cancer runs in our family and I'm trying desperately to escape what happened to my mother and to other women in my family. Vegetarianism as self-preservation, imagine that!

But I'm not against veal farming or chicken farming in any case, just lousy, callous, evil farming methods that no person of genuine feeling or integrity would be able to watch without feeling at least a little uncomfortable. It's hard to imagine a humanist like you failing to notice (evading??) small evidences of similarity between humans and animals.

Even Rand had a pet cat, and any cat owner knows cats have personalities. It's not just anthropomorphizing, and it's not thinking animals are better or more human than humans themselves. It's just perceiving reality and drawing the appropriate conclusions. Do that much?

[rickm]

highnumber-

I never assumed that there was a moral cost to eating meat. That statement was qualified, and you disengenuously selected a part of my sentence. Shame on you.

Now, let me clarify the statements I have made.

I have argued that there is a moral cost to eating meat, eo ipso eating meat from factory farming. The eating of meat harvested from factory farming necessitated the death of animal by the hands of the factory farm, which does so in a manner that is systematic, and torturous to the animal. I have argued that this is wrong because animals are conscious beings and conscious beings can feel pain, and the intentional infliction of sustained excrutiating pain for the benefits of taste is pretty clearly immoral.

Again, there is no moral cost to eating vegetables, eo ipso eating a vegetable, because vegetables have no capacity to feel, or suffer, or even exhibit any evidence that they possess even a semblance of consciousness.

Now, you could simulatenously embarass yourself and denude your stunted intellectual ability by claiming that we don't know that animals have consciousness. But again, I don't know that other humans have consciousness, but in the totatlity of my experience I have amassed a mountain of evidence that suggests that is the case.

[highnumber]

rickm,

While I was not implying that you may discover the consciousness of vegetables (there's a joke in there somewhere), I was suggesting that the cultivation on the scale required to keep the human race alive may require acts or have consequences that you would view as immoral. Seriously, you should look into it.

[rickm]

I was suggesting that the cultivation on the scale required to keep the human race alive may require acts or have consequences that you would view as immoral. Seriously, you should look into it.

And I have. I also have never made any indication that I would adhered to a proscription of moral absolutism vis-a-vis the torture of animals. Obviously, the costs of NOT eating meat need to be taken into account, much as the costs of eating meat need to be taken into account in the decision on whether to eat meat or not.

My general point is that the moral cost of eating meat harvested from factory farms is pretty high, absolutely and relatively to the alternative of eating purely non-meat forms of food.

[CeaderRapids]

HighNumber,

The fact that other immoral acts have and will continue to occur does not change the point Rick is making. Is that seriously what your implying?

Its very simple.

It is immoral to torture animals. A logic based, intelligent organism would agree.

Having conquered the problem of feeding our selves, we have a choice. Eat meet, or refrain from eating meat.

It is not immoral to eat vegetables, it is immoral to eat meat(as proven earlier).

Therefore, a moral being would CHOOSE not to eat meat.

-Chris

[highnumber]

rickm,

Don't ask me how I know this, but you haven't spent much time here, right?
You probably don't know this, but almost everyone who comments here is a Christian who believes that God put the animals on Earth so that we may eat them. We're Bible-believers. You shouldn't try to change our minds, because our pastor, the Rev. Nick Gillespie, assures us that we will be damned to hell if we don't full advantage of the resources our Lord has given us.

[Solitudinarian]

Therefore, a moral being would CHOOSE not to eat meat.

But a connoisseur would ORDER the foie gras.

[Ayn_Randian]

Well, rick, does that mean you believe the moral choice (and who the hell spells Cedar Ceadar?) is to be a vegetarian, correct? Do you have any idea how many moles, deer, birds and other animals get caught in threshers and combines every year? hmm...

[j gray]

"It is immoral to torture animals. A logic based, intelligent organism would agree"

but a perfectly logical intelligent organism would probably recognize that the word "immoral" means whatever you want it to and isn't some discrete category of action. i'm sure all the christians around here would argue that its moral for god to torture us if he feels like it just because he's god. so we can consider ourselves the gods of the animals since we have dominion over them and not the other way around.

[smacky]

I don't think I've ever had foie gras, but with all of the hubbub about it, I think I'm going to have to try some sometime. Maybe I'll even like it and want more. (Hey! This is kind of the same way I initially got into drugs...funny, that.)

[lowball]

I would not argue that the only moral option is to become a vegetarian or that animals have the same rights as humans. I would only argue that rules on animal torture do deserve some serious discussion, as there is a line to be drawn somewhere here. Saying, "Well, I hate _______, so therefore they deserve to have their guts ripped out" doesn't make for much of an argument.

Ayn_Randian,
"Peta freaks," huh? So, let me see, for someone who looked at all the evidence for global warming, concluding that the globe was indeed warming but then said, "well, it doesn't follow from that that we should sign on to the Kyoto Protocols" you would refer to as an environmental fascist, right?

[speedwell]

Smacky, you may have my share, and with my (atheistic) blessing.

The simplest way: You will need a fine Hungarian wax pepper and some really good cottage bread, and the drippings from frying the goose liver, a la Robert Lang (who wrote one of the most famous Hungarian cookbooks). Wipe up the drippings with the bread, and eat chunks of the liver (season it with just a bit of salt), taking a bite of the pepper every now and then to clean your palate from the fat and put a fine curl in your hair.

And knowing you're enjoying it, I'll just vicariously enjoy it too. Unless I should find out you're my next-door neighbor, in which case I may abruptly and without warning transition to non-vegetarian. 🙂

[Jeb]

This whole thread has certainly put me off wearing goose leather.

[Robert]

"Would Robert also think it was OK to go to Thailand and arrange with a Bangkok pimp to indulge himself in the sexual services of a well-trained young child, so long as the child and the pimp are OK with it?"

Yes, as long as there's no infliction of bodily damage or pain. Or at least you're going to give me a reason why it should be otherwise. If you say the child should object, tell me why that's anything other than an opinion. Explain how you think it differs from: Lotteries are a bad bet for the player, therefore nobody should play them, therefore nobody should be allowed to play them.

Robert

[Metaphorically Speaking]

You wouldn't respond to a law against just torturing animals (with no medical or gastronomic benefit) with the argument, "well, should we pass laws against playing sports on the grassy fields then?" would you?

Hunh. Another despicable, "if there's grass on the field, play ball" type. Dee-sgusting.

[Metaphorically Speaking]

You wouldn't respond to a law against just torturing animals (with no medical or gastronomic benefit) with the argument, "well, should we pass laws against playing sports on the grassy fields then?" would you?

Hunh. Another despicable, "if there's grass on the field, play ball" type. Dee-sgusting.

[Samuel L. Jackson (Chicago Edi]

I want all these muthafuckin' livers off these muthafuckin' plates!

[Samuel L. Jackson (Chicago Edi]

I want all these muthafuckin' livers off these muthafuckin' plates!

[highnumber]

"Well, I hate _______, so therefore they deserve to have their guts ripped out" doesn't make for much of an argument.

Yes, it does, if their guts are edible & tasty, and the hated creature is mine to do with as I please.

Have you ever known a goose? I don't mean have you met a goose once at a party, or hired a goose to do your landscaping. I mean have you ever sat down with a goose and tried talking to them? Dirty, spiteful creatures.

[smacky (Inigo Montoya Edition)]

When my father was small boy, he was chase by some mean geese. I vowed that one day, I would come face to the face with this mean geese and say to dem, "Hello. My name is smacky. You chased my father. Prepare to die."

[rickm]

As of yet no one has seriously rebutted any of my points. Some "reason".

[Cosmo]

I probably stepped on some ants while walking to work. A senseless waste of animal life.

Does that make me immoral? Why or why not?

[rickm]

Cosmo-
Other things being equal, it would have been better if you avoided the ants than stepping on them. However, I would argue that it is not immoral, or only negligably immoral (if that is such a concept), for ants to be killed indiscriminately because of the very low morals status they have due to their simple nervous system. In other words, they don't feel pain or suffer. So, suffering or pain cannot be inflicted upon them.

[Russ 2000]

ROTFLMAO!

[Cosmo]

rickm,

How about spiders?

[rickm]

Cosmo-
I'll do the thinking for you.
If an animal has a central nervous system, it can feel pain, and inflicting massive amounts of pain for a matter of taste is pretty clearly wrong.

Spiders do not have a central nervous system.

[highnumber (Johnny Cash Editio]

This morning, I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die.

Does that make me immoral? Why or why not?

[Cosmo]

rickm,

What about tarantulas?

[rickm]

No,
but it makes you trivialize serious moral dilemmas.

[highnumber (Cannibal Edition)]

This morning, I slaughtered my enemies and ate of their flesh.

Does this make me immortal? Why or why not?

[lowball]

rickm,
No one has seriously rebutted my arguments either. So when I say, "I don't think animals should be tortured for sport or merely to please the palate" (which is a different criteria from the use of animals or animal meat for medical research or to maintain a healthy diet) the best someone can come up with is, "oh, that's too bad, I loves to rip up the little critters." Or, "oh yeah, youse is a peta freak." Thoughtful people on this thread.

[Isaac Bartram]

rickm, you have not really demonstrated that factory farming is cruelty to animals. You have merely made an assertion that it is.

Likewise noone has actually demonstrated that the geese suffer to make foie gras. Except for speedwell that is. And she just said that an older method no longer in use was extremely uncomfortable for the geese.

[rickm]

Isaac-
Even the most cursory examination of the conditions that animals live and attempt to thrive in factory farms would show the examiner that the conditions are cruel even to the most dispassionate and callous observer. I'll leave that up to you.

[highnumber]

This thread was about foie gras. For thoughtful serious discussion, see the top of the thread. In fact, rickm, this is what in wrote in response to luisa's earnest question:

Assuming that you have seen it, and you do think it is cruel, what do you tell the people who think factory-style poultry farms are cruel? Then, what do you tell the people who think that zoos are cruel? Then, the people who think it is cruel to eat anything with a face?

Three hours later, you found us. Where do you fall on that continuum? Your questions regarding factory farming were answered. We don't all share the same views as you. You have trouble accepting that and keep harping on the same points.

[rickm]

highnumber-
The trouble I have is not that people don't accept my viewpoints, it is that people don't accept my viewpoints without even making an attempt at a serious rebuttal. That shows how serious they aren't.

As for the other set of questions, these are largely empirical, and the answers should be deducable from my previous arguments.

Are factory style poultry farms cruel? Well, given what I have seen, yes. This is an empirical questions. The moral question is, is it wrong to have systematic torture and slaughter of chickens. As I have shown earlier, yes, it is.

As for zoos, again, this is largely an empirical question. Are they cruel to animals? I'm not sure, I haven't seen much evidence they are.

As for not eating this without a face, I don't see how a face factors in the organisms ability or inability to feel pain and suffer. We could imagine a person who lacked the characteristic of a face, and still feel pain. I don't think 'faceness' is criteria to be morally considered.

[Russ 2000]

Saying, "Well, I hate _______, so therefore they deserve to have their guts ripped out" doesn't make for much of an argument.

True. And saying "I enjoy sunlight and open air and therefore _______ enjoy them and should be farmed that way" also doesn't make for much of an argument.

[highnumber]

rickm,

Are factory style poultry farms cruel? Well, given what I have seen, yes.

Which farms did you visit? What were the specific cruelties that you eyewitnessed?

This is an empirical questions.

I think I understand what you are saying, but, no, the definition of "cruelty" is subjective.

The moral question is, is it wrong to have systematic torture and slaughter of chickens. As I have shown earlier, yes, it is.

The systematic torture of chickens or anyone/anything - yes, most will agree that is wrong. Systematic slaughter - different story. Any livestock farmer engages in the systematic slaughter of animals. That is the nature of their business.

[highnumber (Groucho Marx Editi]

I got one more:

This morning I stepped out of my hut and shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got into my pajamas...

Does this make me a surrealist? Why or why not?

[ignorant redneck]

A solution--force feed animal rights activists and eat them.

[ignorant redneck]

But in earnest--if the city can regulate the morality of food--why not the morality of sex? If some people dislike gooseliver mush and are able to oppose it on maral grounds, what about the people who dislike fellation, and oppose that on maral grounds?

Who appointed a municipal government the guarian of food morals? If it's unconstitutional for the city to regulate who and how I have sex, where does it find the right to regulate what I choose to eat?

Sometimes I think the world is run by schizophrenic idiots.

[ack]

mmm, I look forward to eating a monkey tonight, cooked while it's still alive and screaming.

[Nero]

I hear tell monkey brains taste best if the monkey is given electro-shock treatment beforehand and then if the head is cracked open while it is still alive - I'm salivating just thinking about it. More fun than watching Christians getting eaten by lions, especially since you can't eat the Christians later (now why didn't anyone think of feeding "The Monkies" to lions?).

[rickm]

Classy bunch of people, I tell ya.

[JME]

I guess my problem is the government telling me what I can and cannot eat and telling the restaurants what it can and cannot serve. Veal calves and now pigs are raised in small confining crates. Chicago is also tossing around an ordinance to ban restaurants from serving trans fats to "save people from obesity and heart disease" but fails to recognize that people are their own worst enemies and will consume trans fat filled products anyway in their own homes.

If the aldermen want to protect the people of Chicago and their health, they should concentrate on preventing the violence in the city and should consider a ban on the sale of tobacco products (which they won't do because of the tax revenue).

[dwb]

Never thought I would hear a liberal express concern over killing something with "consciousness". Kind of shoots the liberal view of abortion in the foot eh?

Funny that....

[rickm]

dwb-
not if you are a thinking person and realize the distinction between morality and illegality.