Bye bye MEAT! How will the post-meat future look?

[krtek a houby]

No, but there are too many more like him, unable or unwilling to engage in reasonable, civilised conversation.

We've all had our passionate moments, in fairness

 

[Saul Goodman]

We've all had our passionate moments, in fairness

We have, but most of us step back and calm down, occasionally.

 

[Saunders]

There are other non-dairy cheeses though, fruit cheeses (Quince Fruit Cheese 120g - Tracklements), pork cheese (in Swiss/German fleischkäse) a type of head cheese Head cheese - Wikipedia

I would expect none of these to qualify in a dairy cheese competition though.

I’ve always been a bit reluctant to call my fruit ‘cheeses’ cheese. Cheese is its own thing, and I’m actually not especially a huge fan of it or milk or any dairy other than butter
Dulce de membrillo (sweetness of quince) sounds so much more delicious than quince cheese or apple paste

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Ditto the whole concept of 'humane slaughter'

 

[littlebabyjesus]

You think a bullet in the head isn't a humane way to kill something? The evidence suggests that, if it is done right, consciousness is knocked out before any pain or suffering can register. We can't know for sure, but it's likely as close to 'switching off the light' as you can get.

Just listened to that, and there are other bits of it to criticise. His distinction between humans with 'rational souls' and other animals, for example, and his qualification 'to the extent to which animals can suffer' - why the need to say that? But the bullet to the head bit is sensible.

Is there a reason we should give a shit what Michael Knowles thinks?

 

[editor]

Ditto the whole concept of 'humane slaughter'

It's a dreadful way to kill a sentient being:

In slaughterhouses, this device is routinely used on cows, to "stun" them before their throats are slit. However, captive bolt guns are highly prone to malfunctions, and slaughterhouse workers are susceptible to human error.

Even under scrutiny and observation by researchers over a five-day period, one slaughterhouse adequately stunned only 84% of cattle. The animals who weren't properly stunned the first time endured repeated shots from the captive bolt gun.

Fourteen bulls were shot more than three times. One animal ended up being shot five times before losing consciousness.

Researchers also noted that only one in three animals killed at this slaughterhouse were over 30 months old. As cows are not considered adults until they are three years old, this reveals that most cows slaughtered for meat are still only calves.

In another study spanning slaughterhouses across three countries, captive bolt stunning worked without fail only 28% of the time. Overall, this method of stunning is highly unreliable, and can even subject animals to more excruciating pain.

Before being electrically stunned or electrocuted, pigs are hosed down. Then, an electric clamp or wand is held to each animal's head for several seconds as the current is forced through their brain. Researchers have found that electrical stunning of pigs fails up to 31% of the time, meaning roughly one in three pigs is still fully conscious as they bleed to death

https://thehumaneleague.org/article/slaughterhouses

 

[bcuster]

This is the part of meat consumption against which there is no redemptive argument whatsoever. A sentient being must die in order to satisfy a desire that can be met in any number of alternatives.

But the carnivores here will not back down or cede even the slightest ground…

Just mock, scald and belittle the opposition…

 

[Saul Goodman]

This is the part of meat consumption against which there is no redemptive argument whatsoever. A sentient being must die in order to satisfy a desire that can be met in any number of alternatives.

But the carnivores here will not back down or cede even the slightest ground…

Just mock, scold and belittle the opposition…

I'm not a carnivore, I'm an omnivore.
Tell me, what do you eat that doesn't involve cruelty to some animal, whether that's a bee or a human, or anything in between?
Do you eat chocolate? Drink coffee? Eat almonds? Eat avocados? Snort cocaine? All of those things involve suffering. Some involve actual human suffering and murder. Do you do any of them?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

A sentient being must die in order to satisfy a desire that can be met in any number of alternatives.

And you can't get your head around the idea that other people might be ok with killing animals in order to eat them in principle.

It's a fundamental block to conversation on this thread. Certain posters can't square this with their own feelings on the matter. It's monstrous. How can it be true?

 

[Jeff Robinson]

You think a bullet in the head isn't a humane way to kill something?

Less humane that Harold Shipman, more humane that Peter Sutcliffe I guess. Kinda the Tony Blair of the humane killing world.

 

[editor]

This is the part of meat consumption against which there is no redemptive argument whatsoever. A sentient being must die in order to satisfy a desire that can be met in any number of alternatives.

But the carnivores here will not back down or cede even the slightest ground…

Just mock, scald and belittle the opposition…

And industrial scale whataboutery, of course,

 

[Jeff Robinson]

And you can't get your head around the idea that other people might be ok with killing animals in order to eat them in principle.

It's a fundamental block to conversation on this thread. Certain posters can't square this with their own feelings on the matter. It's monstrous. How can it be true?

It’s not in the least surprising to me. “Violent exploiters treat their victims as expendable garbage” is hardly front page news material. What’s more frustrating is that you don’t even realise that’s what you are defending, but again, it’s hardly surprising. Denial is one heleva drug.

 

[Saul Goodman]

And industrial scale whataboutery, of course,

That's just to point out the hypocrisy. Personally, I don't care what anybody eats. It's none of my business, just as it's none of their business what I eat, but only one 'side' seems to be getting their knickers in a twist about it.

It’s not in the least surprising to me. “Violent exploiters treat their victims as expendable garbage” is hardly front page news material. What’s more frustrating is that you don’t even realise that’s what you are defending, but again, it’s hardly surprising. Denial is one heleva drug.

You seem to be confused. It's not denial... Quite the opposite.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It's an arrogant position. A fundamentalist position. Anyone who disgrees is either a monster or in denial.

Temple Grandin has spent a large part of her working life thinking about abattoir design and making it better for the animals. Her method has involved imagining herself in the animals' place, and in this way she has made a tangible difference in the way things are done. In splendid Temple Grandin formatting style, she lays out much of what she has learned in this article.

Making Slaugherhouses more Humane for Cattle, Pigs, and Sheep

Is Temple Grandin a monster or in denial, I wonder? She must be one or the other, as in her opinion:

Slaughter can be done with a high level of animal welfare.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

So, to be clear, do you agree that Gov. Kristi Noem shooting her puppy in the head because they were not trainable as a hunting dog was a humane thing to do?

 

[Funky_monks]

This is the part of meat consumption against which there is no redemptive argument whatsoever. A sentient being must die in order to satisfy a desire that can be met in any number of alternatives.

But the carnivores here will not back down or cede even the slightest ground…

Just mock, scald and belittle the opposition…

Because that is an opinion worthy of mockery.
Literally everything you eat necessitates the death of animals in its production.

 

[Funky_monks]

It's an arrogant position. A fundamentalist position. Anyone who disgrees is either a monster or in denial.

Nah, come on, the vast majority of humans eat meat and are therefore monsters.

There but for the grace of animals goes Jeff.

 

[kabbes]

So, to be clear, do you agree that Gov. Kristi Noem shooting her puppy in the head because they were not trainable as a hunting dog was a humane thing to do?

I certainly think there are an awful lot of dogs in shelters, who are suffering from separation anxiety and attachment loss, for whom a swift death would be much more humane than keeping them in cages for the rest of their lives. Death for an unwanted animal that has no place in the world is not the worst thing for them. You can hardly let a dog free to become feral.

That doesn’t mean I defend Noem, because I criticise the decision to get a dog in the first place if the owner isn’t willing to see their responsibilities through to care for the animal. But I have less criticism for the person that owns up to their failure and takes responsibility for dealing with it than I do for those who assuage their guilt by dumping their animal in a “rescue” shelter.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

So, to be clear, do you agree that Gov. Kristi Noem shooting her puppy in the head because they were not trainable as a hunting dog was a humane thing to do?

I agree with Temple Grandin that, done right, animals can be killed in a way that is consistent with high animal welfare. A bolt/bullet to the head is one way to do that.

I have little interest in Noem and her blood sport ways. Certainly not going to leap to defend her. But what is it exactly about her that you are attacking? Are you attacking the idea of ever killing an animal for any reason? If so, say so. Because I have little idea what your point is. Or is it specifically the idea of killing with a bullet to the head? Because if it's that, I think I've already covered what I think.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

I agree with Temple Grandin that, done right, animals can be killed in a way that is consistent with high animal welfare. A bolt/bullet to the head is one way to do that.

I have little interest in Noem and her blood sport ways. Certainly not going to leap to defend her. But what is it exactly about her that you are attacking? Are you attacking the idea of ever killing an animal for any reason? If so, say so. Because I have little idea what your point is. Or is it specifically the idea of killing with a bullet to the head? Because if it's that, I think I've already covered what I think.

Why won't you defend her (I mean, leaving aside that she's a fascist piece of shit of course)? Given that a "bolt/bullet to the head" is "consistent with high animal welfare" what exactly has she done wrong?

 

[bcuster]

The conventional way that veterinarians already use is far more humane that a bullet as a method to kill animals. Why won't slaughterhouses use these methods? Cost? Lack of concern? Sadism?

 

[Saul Goodman]

The conventional way that veterinarians already use is far more humane that a bullet as a method to kill animals. Why won't slaughterhouses use these methods? Cost? Lack of concern? Sadism?

Wait... What?

 

[bcuster]

Wait... What?

Mockery and lols from you. You're consistent, I'll grant you that...

 

[Jeff Robinson]

The conventional way that veterinarians already use is far more humane that a bullet as a method to kill animals. Why won't slaughterhouses use these methods? Cost? Lack of concern? Sadism?

Vets use barbiturate-based medications to euthanise cats and dogs. It would be far less economically efficient to kill animals for food in this way, but also, I would imagine, make the body parts procured unsafe for human consumption.

 

[bcuster]

Vets use barbiturate-based medications to euthanise cats and dogs. It would be far less economically efficient to kill animals for food in this way, but also, I would imagine, make the body parts procured unsafe for human consumption.

I'm not sure about the consumptability of the post life flesh. But I believe it is far more humane to kill animals in the manner prescribed by veterinary science
As for cost: you've struck gold here, shipmate! The most humane methods for killing will certainly drive up the cost of meat.
Thus, consumption of it will decrease.
Eat less meat!

 

[kabbes]

This is a new low of idiocy.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Why won't you defend her (I mean, leaving aside that she's a fascist piece of shit of course)? Given that a "bolt/bullet to the head" is "consistent with high animal welfare" what exactly has she done wrong?

Why should I defend her? She mistreats dogs, among other things.

You're really reaching with this.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The conventional way that veterinarians already use is far more humane that a bullet as a method to kill animals.

Why? Specifically what is wrong with killing an animal by shooting it in the head? There appears to be a lot of emotion in that position but not too many facts.

Putting an animal 'to sleep' is a kind and clean way to kill it. It dies in your arms - literally in the case of my cat - and appears not to be in any pain or to be afraid.

Killing an animal by walking up to it and firing a bullet into its head is messy. Blood and brain will likely be splattered around the place. But is it actually less kind than an injection at the vet if consciousness is knocked out by the bullet scrambling the brain before the animal can register what has happened?

 

[bcuster]

I've had pets die in my arms. I saw panic and fear.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Why should I defend her? She mistreats dogs, among other things.

Why? Specifically what is wrong with killing an animal by shooting it in the head?

.