Good morning, Obvious Troll. My, you're looking obvious today. Obviously. Happy trolling, and don't forget to be obvious about it.

Bourdain > Winslett.

Anything > PETA.

Can we please stop pretending that PETA is a credible source of information? Even on issues where I agree with them, I would certainly never cite them. They're an embarrassment.

I'm in favor of treating animals humanely. Let them act naturally, roam around on farms and pastures and fields and whatever else they do. Totally cool with that. And I'd gladly pay more for the increase in the cost of food raised that way.

But there's no way I'm going to stop eating meat.

The point is that if you eat foie gras, you can afford anything - you can choose to be cruelty-free, environmentally friendly, supporting poor farmers...

And yet you choose to spend your money on cartoon-level torture on animals so you can eat their diseased livers. If you buy foie gras, you're just a world-class asshole. It doesn't matter if you do mental gymnastics to convince yourself "dur, technically, ducks like having tubes in their throats and infections in their livers". It's a symbol of what a dick you are, just like spitting in your face (dur, it's just water, the source of all life) or peeing in your wine (dur, it's sterile and will cure a sea urchin sting).

Anyone who thinks PETA should be a source of any information lacks critical and analytical thinking skills.

Or just refuses to do a speck of research, maybe.

Why the hell would I ever watch a video from PETA?

@3

Weird, isn't it?

Almost as if somebody skipped right past the a whole host of moderate and reasonable voices and went looking for the most unreasonable, proactive, confrontational point of view that could be found. Why? Why would a blogger do that?

All this discussion makes me want to try it. I have no idea where to get some, though. But I'm not going to eat any, since I don't really need any more fat in my diet.

However, if I don't go out right now and eat some, does that mean PETA won?

"if you eat foie gras, you can afford anything"

Not really. Most eat small quantities of foie gras a few times a year, typically during major holidays.

@ 5, you really aren't saying anything truthful.

btw, anybody knows where to get goose foie gras? I only seem able to locate duck liver.

I stopped reading at PeTA.

@10 Quinn's serves it the last time I checked. @13 not sure if it's goose or duck...

Well, because I was curious, I looked it up. Quinn's is duck. Is it really all that different?

I'll give you cruelty: there are a whole host of parasitic wasps that lay their eggs in prey insects. The larva hatch out and, from the inside out, eat the contents of the host until they develop into adults and break out of the carcass.

Gaia is brutal, bloodthirsty, and cruel. Just ask the antelope torn to pieces by hyenas. Why should the human animal be any different?

Duck is stronger tasting, less firm and significantly cheaper. Arguments about which is best go both ways. I assume it depends on how it is served.

I had foie gras last in December. I served it on a bed of dressed frisee from the garden, with a little Madeira used to degrease the pan on top, and a side of matchstick fries. It was great. I am really hungry now.

FUCK YOU FOR RUINING KATE WINSLET FOR ME.

Sorry...that last remark was directed at PETA, not Ms. Clement. My emotions got the best of me.

Fuck...I have to add foie gras to my grocery list now?!?!?

I LOVE foie gras... I couldn't eat it every day (far too rich) but it is in my top 10 favorite foods for sure. You can buy whole lobes of it from Seattle Caviar in Eastlake. It's a regular item on Rover's dinner menu. It's also available at Mistral Kitchen (last time I ate there a few months ago).

Foie gras with some seared scallops, beets and a balsamic reduction... Great, now I may have to go find some.

@17

You're making the wrong point. Under human hegemony, animals typically live much improved, less obscene lives.

The domestic cat, despite living in and around human settlements has its life-span significantly improved with being brought into the home. Beasts of burden, despite being required to labor for human needs, are at least taken care of and--again--live longer, less stressful, and more productive lives. Animals for slaughter achieve much higher populations and may reproduce much more prodigiously under human care.

Under the auspices of a vegan-ethics rulership style, our agricultural output would be significantly decreased, what with the lack of, essentially, manure. Fields don't turn after a season and produce a smaller output without the addition of animal manure. On top of that, certain natural conditions--fields of one type or another--are more suitable to animal or plant agriculture. I was driving through Ireland many, many years ago; I noticed, as any would, the preponderance of sheep--all over the fucking place, even at the side of the road, frequently marked with paint, I assume, to denote owner; this is due to the fact that much of the terrain of Ireland is not suitable to the development of crops, being so rocky as it is, but is nevertheless perfectly suitable for animal husbandry.

Fucking PETA fags assume they have more wisdom to offer than the several millennia of experience we have now in agriculture--going back to the beginning. Crops were and are developed according to efficiency; animal agriculture forms an essential component of our whole farming apparatus.

@1 and 9: I find it interesting that a lot of the footage isn't that different, but Winslet's all "THE HORROR" and Bourdain's all "PAR-TAY LET'S EAT!" The juxtaposition of the claims about cruelty with the real-life animal doctor's actual fowl physiology learnin' seems instructive as well. I also enjoy Bourdain's smoking jacket and Winslet's accent. If you don't find it interesting for these or other reasons, that's fine (and if I were trolling for comments, who'd be the one falling for it?).

@5

BOOM! raku for the devastating, in yo' face! win!!

And the crowd goes wild!

Brilliant post raku. :D

Roasted quail on a foie gras toast. Can you tell I haven't had lunch yet?

@26, are you two even speaking the same language as the rest of us?

Ban it. Ban it. Ban it. What arrogance we humans have - to think we're so above it, to think we are the only ones who can feel true pain. Our ability to treat (or ignore the treatment of) animals this way is inextricably linked to our ability to treat (or ignore the treatment of) other humans this way as well. It comes down to who we see as "human". They're different from us, therefore their suffering is not ours. It's a sickness that spreads.

I have two servings of foie gras in my freezer, any one want to come over and help me eat it?

@12

Few of the other commenters in this thread have even made any claims of fact.

They simply whine about PETA and preemptively declare them an uncredible source (without citing any basis -- substantive or otherwise -- for making such a claim).

"Waaahh! I want what I want! And what I want is stuff this fat and flesh into my greasy face! I don't have to care about the cruelty, exploitation, and murder that was perpetrated to turn a living, breathing, feeling animal into a commodity for me and my selfish, entitled ilk to shovel into our gaping maws!"

STOP EXPLOITING ANIMALS, FOLKS.

THAT SHOULD NOT BE CONTROVERSIAL.

According to one estimate, world fois gras production in 2005 was 23,500 pounds. At 2 lbs/bird (a reasonable estimate, I am given to believe), that’s 12,250 birds per year. In the world.

By contrast, in 2003 10.7 Million cattle alone were raised in large feedlots, according to the USDA, and this number only represented one third of the 33 Million total cattle raised in the U.S. This does not take into account the number of pigs and sheep raised in feedlots in the U.S., or the cattle, sheep, and pigs raised in the rest of the world.

Thus, the number of creatures affected by fois gras production is substantially smaller than the number of creatures affected by feedlot practices.

Sorry...the previous comment should have pointed to the site where I pulled the quote... found here:

http://lawforfood.wordpress.com/2007/10/…

@24:

"Under human hegemony, animals typically live much improved, less obscene lives."

This claim is precisely the opposite of reality, you self-deluding scumbag.

"Animals for slaughter achieve much higher populations and may reproduce much more prodigiously under human care."

THAT'S BECAUSE THEY ARE BEING ARTIFICIALLY SUSTAINED AND REPRODUCED, YOU FUCKING MORON!!

You cite "higher populations" of exploited animals as though it's a benefit to animals??

You know what's worse than enslaving, exploiting, and murdering animals?

Answer: Enslaving, exploiting, and murdering MORE animals!!

I already addressed this in the first foie gras thread:

Compare this with animal exploitation industries. Here, humans artificially sustain populations of animals, reproduce them, and exploit and kill them ad infinitum. The harm inflicted on individual sentient beings is perpetual.

From Farm Forward into to factory farming (which "have come to produce more than 99 percent of the animals grown in the United States"):

Factory farms, also known as CAFOs (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations) or IFAP (Industrial Farm Animal Production) facilities, can house more than 125,000 animals under one roof and are designed to produce the highest possible output at the lowest possible cost to the operator. These farms and their associated industrial slaughterhouses produce “cheap” meat, eggs, and dairy by externalizing their costs. The costs to the public from the ecological damage and health problems created by factory farms are not considered any more than the law requires, and companies have often found it less expensive to pay fines than to alter their methods. For this reason, the true cost of meat is never reflected in the price consumers pay. Animal suffering is given no meaningful consideration except in a few idiosyncratic cases.

[...]

Farmed animals are remarkable creatures who experience pleasure (pasture-raised pigs, for instance, are known to jump for joy) and have complex social structures (cows develop friendships over time and will sometimes hold grudges against other animals who treat them badly).5 The cheap animal products churned out by factory farms come at a high cost to the animals themselves (many are confined so intensively that they cannot turn around or stretch a wing). The structure of factory farming ensures that even the animals’ most fundamental needs—clean air, sunshine, freedom from chronic pain and illness—are denied them.

People are dismissive of PETA for the same reasons they are dismissive of other flavors of religious fanatics.

@17

"Gaia is brutal, bloodthirsty, and cruel. Just ask the antelope torn to pieces by hyenas. Why should the human animal be any different? "

Because humans wield the faculties of compassion and free will.

Here is a more balanced perspective. Foie gras production does indeed result in diseased ducks, at least some of the time:

http://www.economist.com/node/21540983

What bugs me is that Bourdain doesn't really give a shit if foie gras production is cruel, because tradition and "it's so delicious!" and all that, and PETA doesn't give a shit if it's not cruel because "all killing of animals is inherently cruel", blah blah, etc. I can't take either of these sides. Living in this world ethically is way more complicated than either of these videos would have us believe.

@31, "Few of the other commenters in this thread have even made any claims of fact"

Well, you ignore facts when they are given to you so don't be surprised when people tire of repeating themselves.

Your arguments aren't really about foie gras, they are about eating animal products. Most factory farms use cruel methods that aren't necessary (including gavage), unless one wants mass production to increase profit. Focus on that and you'll get more traction in improving the lot of animals but demonizing meat eaters isn't going to get you very far.

@35 Stop screaming. No one is going to listen to you as long as you keep screaming like that.

@39:

>>"Well, you ignore facts when they are given to you so don't be surprised when people tire of repeating themselves."

Fuck your unsubstantiated and baseless ad hominem attack.

>>"Your arguments aren't really about foie gras, they are about eating animal products."

That's right.

Stop exploiting animals.

Come on, BRO, call me a faggot again.

Now I don't even want to eat foie gras so much as run into Ipso here on the street and wipe some on his clothes.

If you vegans want to debate foie gras, keep it to that topic. If you want to stop animal exploitation, you need to concede that one does not need to become vegan. You just need to find ethically raised meat and dairy.

Eating animals ≠ exploiting animals.

Don't you just love watching lipso factless whine and throw tantrums. Most fun I've had in awhile. Quite the show!

@41, I don't need to substantiate that arguments have been made over the last few days without your specifically addressing the points made. Your very answer to my post is evidence of that. Why don't you look up the definition for ad-hom while you're at it.

Good luck with getting people to not use ("exploit") animals for labor and diet but I'll bet you would think twice about your tactics when arguing with meat eaters rather than the few people who eat foie gras.

Man, I have convinced so many people of things by insulting them. It's such an effective rhetorical technique! I always vote for the candidate that throws the most histrionic tantrum.

@42:

That never happened and you know it.

In the previous thread, you declared "Geese LIKE being stuffed" (@32). I responded "I think you like getting stuffed" (@37) and later proffered that you might enjoy pegging (@41) (as performed by a woman).

I didn't call you "faggot", as you well know. I simply used your own language of callous insensitivity and applied it against you.

Stop lying. Your mendacious allegation of homophobia in an attempt to discredit me is truly ignominious.

Scum.

@45:

Do you see what substantiating a claim looks like (see above)? It involves providing accurate quotes and references, and citing third party reportage (as in my posts here and here).

It requires a little more effort than simply talking out of your ass, as you have done exclusively here.

Don't wanna back up your claims? Then your claims are worthless.

Fuck off.

@43:

>>"If you want to stop animal exploitation, you need to concede that one does not need to become vegan. You just need to find ethically raised meat and dairy."

False. There is no such thing as "ethical slaughter"*.

(Ah, ah, ahh! Killing an animal for the purpose of consuming it is not the same as euthanasia (if and when that is ever a moral practice)!)

Buying exclusively organic, non-factory farmed animal products is less wrong than buying products of factory farmed torture.

But it still ain't right.

Eating animals is THE QUINTESSENCE of exploiting animals!

*And I probably have to add this to ward off further moral equivalence blather: ...at this moment of history when there is ample vegetable nutrition to sustain humans at optimal health.

@ 48, links to PETA aren't valid because they're an ax-grinding organization with no interest in being fair to the other side. One might as well cite a study undertaken by the American Beef Council, since it's coming with the same sense of promoting an interested point of view rather than engaging in fair debate.

The Stanford study is fine, although it doesn't address whether force-feeding geese makes them suffer. As such, it's a bit beside the point. But the fact that animals can suffer doesn't mean that killing and eating them is wrong. It DOES mean that they should be humanely raised and slaughtered, but not that they shouldn't be raised and slaughtered at all.

Hmmm...Slipso Factless makes such a histrionic and shrill argument that I suspect dirty tricks! No on could be that bad at arguing while being that much of an asshole. I think he must be a plant from BIG FOIE GRAS to make vegans look bad!

@47, tell you what: I'll make you a deal.

You keep ranting about whatever the fuck you want in this thread, and I'll go eat some delicious foie gras and continue to pretend you don't exist.

Deal?

@25

So your argument that you're not just trolling consists of "you commented and called me a troll, so how could I be a troll?" That's one persuasive Chewbacca defense.

No Pulitzer for you, hack.

@6

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/…

(Because if somebody bad says it then I have to act the opposite because that would prove to the whole world that I'M A FUCKING TOOL.)

I don't see how eating foie gras is any worse than eating chicken. You've seen how farmed chickens are treated, right?

In fact, it's much better to eat foie gras than it is to eat chicken, but here I'm mainly talking about the taste.

I only eat duck foie gras, because ducks are assholes. Fortunately, 90+ percent of foie gras is from ducks, not geese. It never mentions which it is on a menu, which is weird because the taste is quite different.

H. Heinrich Höper sez:

ENJOY!

http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/1555/sc…

@50:

>>"One might as well cite a study undertaken by the American Beef Council, since it's coming with the same sense of promoting an interested point of view rather than engaging in fair debate."

Do you not recognize a difference between an organization whose raison d'être is to make rich people richer by promoting the sale of their products, and an organization whose mission it is to educate the public about ethical, health, and environmental issues?

The National Cattlemen's Beef Association (and the like) is motivated by profit. Its constituents become richer when they convince you of their position. Any doubt? Their own website declares "We work every day to increase profit opportunities for cattle and beef producers".

PETA, on the other hand, is a non-profit organization driven by an ethical imperative.

This distinction should give you a clue as to the veracity of the claims of each group. In any case, all you have to do is examine the claims and evidence for yourself.

For instance, in the Kate Winslet foie gras video, we see undercover footage inside a foie gras "farm" of dozens of birds locked into tiny wire cages so cramped they are effectively paralyzed. To my eyes, that is unequivocal evidence of cruelty to animals perpetrated in the production of foie gras.

Footage of animals running freely does not prove that those animals nor other animals at the same facility were never abused. Conversely, footage of animals being abused does prove that abuse was perpetrated.

Also unequivocal: The radiant, vital beauty of vegetarian Kate Winslet contrasted with the sullen, flabby countenance of corpse-eater Anthony Bourdain.

Perhaps I was a little yelly in @35, but I stand by the points I made.

@38:

>> "Living in this world ethically is way more complicated than either of these videos would have us believe."


In fact this issue couldn't be simpler:

In our modern world, killing an animal so that you may consume it is wrong. Abusive, cruel, and torturous treatment makes it even worse.

Your link was helpful. Not for the article (which erroneously asserts that if a slaughtered duck has a "healthy" liver, then it was treated ethically), but rather for the informative comments in the discussion thread.

This comment was particularly compelling:

Interestingly, if you read-up on the neuroscience you are likely to find the results of a new study that researchers say point to a link between foie-gras consumption and the development of amyloidogenic diseases, like Alzheimer’s, variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD), tuberculosis, diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis. But then, anyone who would care so little about the brutal agony of another sentient creature would probably never bother to ever read-up on neuroscience.

http://neurophilosophy.wordpress.com/200…...

"Discounting the consumption of infected brain tissue (during, for example, the ritual of mortuary cannibalism), this is the first time that a dietary component has been implicated in the amyloidogenic diseases."

As was this one:

All these birds were mistreated in the same way. Some of their livers were unhealthy, some weren't. What exactly is your point? You seem to be trying to conclude that 'well-treated birds = healthy birds = tasty birds', but the findings don't show that. The findings show that some birds can be mistreated without getting liver disease, and some can't. Bravo.

And this one:

In matters not that the animal suffered necessarily, rather that the animal was coerced at all. Suffer is relative, indeterminate, and arguable. Coercion is, more ofter, easier to identify with a degree of consensus.

@Ipso Facto in 47, 48 etc...

First:
Before PETA can be called ethical it needs to stop doing various unethical (and actually felony level illegal) things like throwing paint on people wearing leather or furs. This is actually called Assault and Battery and if the little old lady keels over from a heart attack and dies it is called manslaughter or even (in some jurisdictions) murder. Besides if they are so against wearing fur or leather that they throw paint on old ladies why don't they try with the average biker? Oh yeah, I forgot, the biker will be able to beat the crap out of the PETA activist while the old lady can't even catch up with the (dare I say it... yes I dare since it is a statement of fact) terrorist who just threw paint on them.

Please let PETA know I said that so I can hope for a libel suit from them that would allow me a multi-million dollar counter-suit that I would oh so totally win.

Second:
If the pain and suffering of the animals is an issue with you then you MUST stop eating plants. Plants can suffer and feel pain too you know. Those bamboo shoots you probably eat were traumatically ripped from the bamboo plant while it was still growing. Adding insult to injury, they allowed it to grow more shoots so that those could be ripped from it also. At least us meat eaters aren't encouraging people to carve a chunk out of a cow and then allow it to heal up so that he(or she) can carve another chunk out of the poor cow like you encourage people to do with that poor bamboo. Lets not discuss those poor bean plant fetuses you encourage people to eat. At least your (Monsanto) corn is genetically sterile and can't develop into full grown adult corn plants.

Third:
If you are that die hard of a vegan then you shouldn't use animal based products either. This means you can't use a car as gasoline is a millions of years dead bunch of animals (and plants also). Oh and don't grab a bike as it uses grease and plastics, both of which are from petroleum. Just so you know... artificial fibers in clothing and such is made of plastics, even nylon. This means your clothing and bedding are pretty much limited to cotton. Can't use wool as it is an animal product. But don't fret... Cotton mattresses and pillows stuffed with grass are quite comfortable. A little lumpy perhaps but still comfortable. Hemp based fibers work also but they have to be imported using LOTS of petroleum based products. And just as a side note you have to find someone to make the threads and weave the cloth by hand as modern machines use grease (petroleum) and electricity (plastic insulation on the wires is just the start of the animal based products used in electrical production). Good luck.

Fourth:
Do you have any conceivable idea of how much land would be needed to feed all 7 billion plus people currently on this planet if you didn't have fertilizers (be they manure or petroleum based ones) to use on the land? Add in the additional land required for everyone to eat nothing but plants and you are wiping out HUGE chunks of arable land. At least everyone on earth is employed at this point. Of course all they are employed at is farming since we can't use animal based labor or products. Hope you have some really strong friends that will pull that plow for you. I do recommend that you stoop to exploiting your own family and the families of your friends (presuming you and your strong friends are doing communal farming) and process your waste products by draining off the liquids and keeping the solids to use as a cut-rate fertilizer. It cuts the down time of a plot of land so that you don't have to let some lie fallow with just clover growing as often. Since your friends are doing the work of oxen you should just go ahead and do that stinky job for all of you. On top of that all of you (and your families) will be working sunup to sundown on the weeding and such. I highly recommend that you find out what the most favorite food in the whole wide world is of your local blacksmith and being the only one to grow it so you get a discount on the cost of your axe (firewood and building materials) and plow. Otherwise it will probably be the dubious virtue of your oldest (or maybe younger since you won't be in a position to quibble) daughter or son for a few nights as he (possibly she) will have all the beans and potatoes he (or she) could possibly eat from the people that made deals before you tramped into town. Don't look to the sheriff to put a stop to those sorts of deals. IF your community has the surplus to afford a sheriff then that sheriff is not about to offend the blacksmith (who made that nice state of the art breach loading shotgun for him) by even suggesting he (or again she) not make those sorts of deals.

On the plus side:
You won't have to worry about high paid CEO's or bankers. They will be busy just like everyone else trying to farm enough food for their families to make it thru the winter till the next harvest. Won't be any crooked politicians for the same reasons. Of course there won't be any honest politicians (is there such a thing?) either. There will be bandits and thieves still around tho so make your plans accordingly. Not to mention what the deer and geese can do to destroy your farm by eating the young shoots. After a couple of seasons of watching geese and deer eat a third of your farm you will be begging the blacksmith for one of those nice shotguns or heck you would be happy with a muzzle loader at that point. And of course he won't make you one since that would be killing an animal and we don't do that sort of thing any more. You might say it is to protect your crops but how does he know that you aren't going to eat that deer? Oh you are just going to shoot over their heads and scare them? Yeah right. When he gets back up from falling down laughing at you being able to say that with a straight face he will still tell you no. Besides it doesn't take long for that to stop working anyway. At some point you will end up killing an animal to protect your crops so your family doesn't starve. At that time the sheriff will arrest you for killing an animal and for animal cruelty perpetuated on the herd of deer that are eating your crops. That sort of thing just isn't allowed you know. At least you know your 13 yr old will be ok... She is headed to the blacksmith to make a deal for food and a warm place to live...

I like the way Winslet says foie gras, but foie gras itself looks absolutely gross. And the people who eat it sound gross too.

If PETA's statement is true, I have no problem with banning foie gras. There is no reason to brutalize animals for a so-called "delicacy".

Let's make a deal: For every comment Ipso Facto adds to this thread, I will eat another serving of Foie Gras.

Therefore, if Ipso Facto makes any further comments, he/she will, ipso facto, be contributing to the suffering of animals. How does that weigh on your conscience, bud?

Ipso Facto:

Why don't you ever respond to the idea people keep bringing up about almost every modern invention you use containing animal products? This includes whatever device you are posting on the internet from.

If you were truly a dedicated vegan, you would have to stop using synthetic fabrics, electronics, or anything with plastic in it, basically. Hell, even the construction materials in the building you live in. Ever taken medicines, or gotten an immunization? Almost all of them were derived through animal testing AND contain animal products. You are not actually a vegan you know.

Is your dedication to veganism not as strong as your desire to brag about veganism online?

And Peta is a lying, terrorist-supporting organization built on hypocrisy. No one with a brain listens to them anymore.

I never tried Foie Gras until I read about all the self righteous vegan fuss over it. I even found a local restaurant that serves it from an anti-Foie Gras website. It is quite amazing. (I also find it interesting that so many vegans are pro-choice. Killing a human fetus for convenience sake is apparently okay, but killing a duck for food is somehow murder. I'm pro-choice, but I also consider myself a top of the food chain omnivore.)

@64:

Your point is dumb. You've attempted to hock it here on SLOG before and it was debunked then (remember? -- in the thread where you claimed that corn plants were "conscious"):

It's true that many manufacturers unnecessarily use animal products in their processes (such as bone char used to filter sugar, gelatin used to clarify alcoholic beverages) when non-animal substitutes would suffice. The informed vegan will make an attempt to choose products that don't exploit animals at any stage of production. Unfortunately there are times it can't be avoided.

This does not annul one's status as a vegan. (You, sir, are no arbiter of veganism.) A vegan is someone who makes a reasonable effort to not purchase or consume products that involve the exploitation of animals.

Also, the use of animal "byproducts" in manufacturing processes does not create nearly the economic pull for animal exploitation that consuming animal-based food and clothing does.

When people stop consuming animals for food and clothing, the cost of animal byproducts will skyrocket and manufacturers will be forced to use vegan alternatives.

Further, while many products on the market sadly contain some kind of animal byproduct, they are not nearly as prevalent as you claim.

The one thing you corpse-eating whack jobs seem to have in common is an absolute disregard for substantiating evidence. You spew post after post of nonsensical bullshit with nary a supporting reference in sight.

Clearly you're not concerned with your own credibility.

@60

Thank you for demonstrating the cognitive contortions some people are willing perform in an attempt to hide from the wrongfulness of their actions.

The foolishness of your screed is immediately obvious, and you provide zilch in the way of substantiating evidence or references for your claims.

Funny read though :)!

@65:

Hey, your funeral! (And we don't have to guess where you're headed after that).

Check out my post @59 for the newly discovered link between foie gras consumption and neurodegenerative diseases.

The "newly discovered link" between foie gras consumption and neurodegenerative diseases comment you included is from 2007. Do you have anything more current, or less specious?

Oh and you absolutely used pegging as a slur against Fnarf. The implication being that anal penetration is something to be embarrassed over, that it is shameful, and that those who enjoy it are less than. Gay people enjoy anal penetration and by your logic you consider them as less than. Deny it to you heart's content. You have given yourself away.

@69:

>>"Do you have anything more current, or less specious?"

Specious, you say? I would be very interested in hearing your learned criticism of these findings by researchers at the University of Tennessee Graduate School of Medicine and Uppsala University in Sweden, as published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences:

Amyloidogenic potential of foie gras

Oh, but you would like a more current discussion of the topic? Certainly! From an article posted at www.onegreenplanet.org on October 25, 2011 by one Dr Michael Greger:

Last week, the New York Times ran a story on the upcoming foie gras ban in California. July 1, 2012, the Golden State will join over a dozen nations that have prohibited the production of foie gras, the enlarged liver of a duck or goose produced through force-feeding. Arguments against the production practice have focused on animal welfare concerns, but have largely ignored the human health implications. As I detail in my International Journal of Food Safety, Nutrition and Public Health paper, microscopic infectious protein fibers in foie gras may trigger and accelerate a variety of serious human diseases in susceptible individuals via a “mad cow disease”-like mechanism.

[...]

What other meat may be contaminated? While ducks under stress deposit amyloid throughout their internal organs, chickens tend to localize amyloid deposits in their joints. The way laying hens are processed, however, means that amyloid deposits found in joints could still end up in certain chicken products.

[...]

Dr. Erik Gruys, the former chair of Domestic Animal Pathology at Utrecht University, and colleagues wrote that amyloid deposits in the tissues of food animals such as foie gras and chicken by-products could have “tremendous food safety implications.” “Like prions,” they conclude, “this pathological material should be banned for risk groups of consumers.” The new law in California may therefore safeguard the welfare of both animals and the public.

Any other questions on that subject?

>>Gay people enjoy anal penetration and by your logic you consider them as less than. Deny it to you heart's content. You have given yourself away.

Sorry, my comments in @47 remain accurate:

In the previous thread, you declared "Geese LIKE being stuffed" (@32). I responded "I think you like getting stuffed" (@37) and later proffered that you might enjoy pegging (@41) (as performed by a woman).

I didn't call you "faggot", as you well know. I simply used your own language of callous insensitivity and applied it against you.

Ban the shit and get back to giving us the scoop on, you know, actual problems.

@70. I don't have to make the case for or against the findings. I am not the one attempting to stand by them regarding any measure of accuracy. Furthermore, I am familiar with the wildly unsubstantiated and mostly discredited work of "Doctor" Michael Greger. Certainly that blog post is from October 2011 but the linked article is dated 2008. Try again. You cannot find agendaless documentation to support any of your piggy-backing on bunk science. Anyway why should we be bothered with the claims of a hateful homophobe?

If you really need me to point you to a reference for petroleum being partly made up of dead dinosaurs then do not ever compete on "Are You Smarter than a Fifth Grader" as you obviously failed 4th grade science. Heck that is the entire reason for Sinclair Oil to have a Dinosaur as a mascot/logo. But to give you a start... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum should be a good place.

If you wish to argue that plastics can be made out of bio sources I will agree with you but note that while they can be made that way they ARE NOT made that way at this time. It is much cheaper to make petroleum based plastics than it is to make bio-plastics.

Plants do seem to perceive things on a least a cellular level http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_perce…) and since plants are known to send out chemical signals that tell other plants of that type they have to perceive that wound somehow. My personal signal is to say ouch while a tomato plants sends a chemical message.

Going into land usage... at an estimated 4000 sq ft per person for a years supply of food (as noted here http://gardening.about.com/od/vegetable1… ) times 7 BILLION people gives a nice little number of 28 trillion sq ft of space required. Or to put it another way, 1004362 square miles of land (rounded to the nearest square mile). More than doubling the current total land use just for edible crops (assuming no pests eat a chunk of the food you have in storage). This does not take into account any land used to grow crops for the various bio-whatever that will be needed. Including but not limited to bio-fuels and bio-plastics. Having experience with a truck garden in the 4000 sq ft class I would recommend going to 6000 sq ft per person if you plan to live off of it. Figuring (conservatively) that you will need to convert all current pastureland (well if we aren't raising animals for food they don't need the pastures) and probably double it so as to have space for the bio-sources then we are going to be using about 80 percent of the arable land on the planet. Hope you like living in non-arable areas. The Mojave and the Sahara are good examples of non-arable. So is the Antarctic.

The comment about everyone being employed in agriculture was hyperbole obviously as someone will be employed making plastics, fuel, and at least some transportation. There just won't be that many doing that as there are today in various industries. Basic bio-conversion (at least the first step) is easy to do as it is basically cooking the bio-matter in a still. Sell the sludge that results to the plastic people and keep most of the alcohol for use as a fuel around the farm.

And for the record. I don't see anything wrong with me being a conscious omnivore who enjoys a good steak. Therefor I am not trying to hide the wrongness of my stance since there isn't anything wrong with it. That you find it to be wrong does not automatically mean that everyone else does. I like being an Alpha Predator with the response it gets me from animals when I go on a hike. Unlike Vegans I seldom have to worry about a mountain lion attacking me unless I start peeing on trees in it's territory. This would be considered marking the territory as mine and That would get it willing to take on another alpha predator that is in it's weight and size class. You on the other hand smell like prey. Enjoy your hike. I smell like a meat eater... You smell like meat. Guess who gets to be dinner.

Also my first paragraph where I noted that PETA throws paint on little old ladies should not require anything from me to prove. Doing just that made enough news shows and newspaper articles that you should be able to find that in under a second on Google. And out of those thousands of articles you won't find a one where they threw paint on a biker who was wearing leather. Feel like responding to that part? Or maybe you can explain how causing terror in little old ladies (and some not so old) isn't actually an act of terrorism? That might be a little difficult to do since the definition of terrorism merely requires you to cause terror in people.

ipso facto - typical hypocrite. Peta is essentially a terrorist organization whose members practice the mantra of the ends justifies the means. im glad you keep posting all your blathering foolishess as you are just galvanizing moderate viewpoints to defend against your attacks and further and truly destroying your own cause by personally attacking those who are utlizing their right to free speech. you are the typica pseudo intellectual who puts animals above people in your condescending judgments- to put it in your terms i feel like im being force fed a lot of crap i dont want to eat but im not sure i should try and make it illegal. if you truly want to assist the world why dont you help build irrigation systems in third world countries so people can grow crops, but i forget you hate people so i guess you are better off defending poultry from your laptop at starbucks

ipso facto - typical hypocrite. Peta is essentially a terrorist organization whose members practice the mantra of the ends justifies the means. im glad you keep posting all your blathering foolishess as you are just galvanizing moderate viewpoints to defend against your attacks and further and truly destroying your own cause by personally attacking those who are utlizing their right to free speech. you are the typica pseudo intellectual who puts animals above people in your condescending judgments- to put it in your terms i feel like im being force fed a lot of crap i dont want to eat but im not sure i should try and make it illegal. if you truly want to assist the world why dont you help build irrigation systems in third world countries so people can grow crops, but i forget you hate people so i guess you are better off defending poultry from your laptop at starbucks

eating meat is like homosexuality. you can't deny it, that its been there and its here to stay regardless. cruel or not. tolerate and accept if you may. life goes on...

Fois gras mmmm nom nom nom like meat butter mmmm get in my belly.

The truth is that the ducks would prefer not having a tube jammed down their throat. And they would prefer not being killed too. But we are going to kill them, so it's just a little more suffering along the way. Until we can grow fois gras outside of the duck, this will be the norm. Unlessss...

http://www.theolivepress.es/spain-news/2…