Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

superangry2 t1_j0gu2hq wrote

Good. The government should stay out of regulating French delicacies. Focus on more important stuff, like regulating churro ladies.

187

Guypussy t1_j0gyjnq wrote

With everything there is to eat in this city we must not be denied foie gras on our plate. Amazing.

−2

mamiyaRZ67 t1_j0h7btg wrote

Replying to drpvn (#945,481)

Or any halal butcher. Shocking that NYC won't ban halal butchered meat, which prohibits stunning or sedation of the animal (the animal's throat must be slit while conscious).

Especially considering that gavage isn't in any way painful for birds, this seems like a double standard...šŸ¤·ā€ā™‚ļø

12

that_tom_ t1_j0h7skg wrote

I accept that the meat I eat comes from tortured animals and the produce picked by slaves.

16

Lost_sidhe t1_j0h8zap wrote

OK, it never went into effect - I was sure I've seen foie gras on a menu in NYC this year.

"...the city was barring the sale of a lawfully produced farm product "not for reasons of the health, safety or welfare of its citizens ā€” but to change animal husbandry practices occurring on farms outside its jurisdiction to which it objects."

They do have a point.

91

Lost_sidhe t1_j0hdide wrote

Replying to glemnar (#946,022)

Exactly. Battery house chickens are some of the most horribly treated meat animals in our country. People just seem to care less about chickens than any other factory farm nightmare - I don't know why.

Edit: probably chicken nuggets is why. :-/

48

Lost_sidhe t1_j0hdugy wrote

Replying to mamiyaRZ67 (#945,678)

it is a double standard, but probably not pursued because of cultural/racial issues attached to halal that foie gras doesn't have. I wouldn't eat halal, but religion is a helluva drug, Peter.

3

Curiosities t1_j0hf0b9 wrote

Replying to Lost_sidhe (#945,798)

>but to change animal husbandry practices occurring on farms outside its jurisdiction

No, the law wasn't trying to change how those people run their farms, it was simply saying we don't want what you produce, but they're free to sell it elsewhere.

Overreach by the state here.

11

Lost_sidhe t1_j0hfuza wrote

Replying to Curiosities (#946,162)

By that same argument, it's overreach of the city - did the people vote for it? I don't remember it ever being on a ballot. City making that decision for its people would also be overreach. Restaurants and customers can ban it as they see fit - and already do.

8

ElamHamishistheMan t1_j0hh54q wrote

GIVE ME BACK MY GODDAMN ANIMAL ABUSE PASTE. I WANT TO SPREAD IT ON BREAD AND EAT IT UNTIL I CANā€™T SPEAK.

FUCK GEESE.

−12

oreosfly t1_j0hi130 wrote

ā€œFoie gras is inhumaneā€ they say as they munch of the eggs of caged hens and meat of CAFO fed cows

32

_Maxolotl t1_j0hikao wrote

I'm not gonna eat foie. I don't think the way it's produced is ok.

But I live in huge cosmopolitan city with a wide variety of views about meat and animal rights, so I also don't think the government should be meddling in this question.

I'm glad the judge struck it down, but I also have some serious questions about why a small group of vocal and relatively privileged people managed to get a majority of city councilmembers to impose this ban.

It's a niche issue. It's not some huge priority. Why was it worth our lawmakers' time at all?

60

JuVondy t1_j0hjjzi wrote

I do admit foie gras is delicious, but should be banned.

−15

NetQuarterLatte t1_j0hju2k wrote

People should make their own choice on what they put in their bodies, rather than forcing their personal choice on others.

It's also particularly bad that banning this delicacy on such grounds seems to be targeting the cultural heritage of a minority.

2

RW3Bro t1_j0hlegh wrote

Replying to schwab002 (#946,071)

Yes, but at least this South Brooklyn treasure will be replaced by $3,500/mo studios made of particleboard and cheap veneers to be rented to Ohioans who will leave the city within five years of moving here. And maybe the developers will even give us a Walgreens or Blank Street!

0

Highplowp t1_j0hlsjn wrote

Rupert and Charlemagne II will be thrilled this season!! Hooray!

−1

mncs t1_j0hn09v wrote

Replying to mamiyaRZ67 (#945,678)

This is also true of kosher slaughter laws. The idea is actually that it's less suffering for the animal as opposed to hunting in the wild where you might shoot or spear the animal and it's in pain. It's not how I would want to go out personally, but do understand that there are reasons why people believe the things they do.

2

reignnyday t1_j0hn19q wrote

I visited Hudson valley farms in college primed to do a hit piece on ducks being tortured and all I saw were a bunch of ducks literally standing to get fed. Cracked me up in the moment.

Itā€™s inhumane but pretty much all animal protein raised in the US is inhumane so if your view of foie is to ban it, then it needs to be consistently applied equally to all animal meats

273

chusmeria t1_j0hpfo6 wrote

Replying to Lost_sidhe (#946,226)

> By that same argument, it's overreach of the city - did the people vote for it? I don't remember it ever being on a ballot. City making that decision for its people would also be overreach.

America is a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. Nothing you said makes any sense if you understand how American (and New York City) politics works.

4

oreosfly t1_j0hpi35 wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#946,202)

The way we treat cows, chickens, and pigs is not any better, yet there is no widespread call to ban eggs, chicken, beef, and pork.

Egg laying hens in cages have an average of 67 square inches of floor space. Thatā€™s less area than a sheet of copy paper. Whereā€™s the outrage from the City Council?

For the record, I donā€™t eat foie gras nor do I care to eat it, but Iā€™m sick of our massively hypocritical City Council thinking that they are holier than thou with these laws.

9

LittleKitty235 t1_j0hqw11 wrote

Replying to JuVondy (#946,456)

Banning it seems arbitrary when the average chicken in your grocery store was raised in worse conditions than many farms producing foie gras.

Never mind that banning things that have demand creates black markets, it won't stop the practice, or prevent it from being smuggled into the city.

13

ChrisFromLongIsland t1_j0hu7rl wrote

Replying to RW3Bro (#946,559)

Thanks for gatekeeping someone's experience of only wanting to be in NYC for a few years.

Please tell me how the quintessential NYC person should live. Do I have to be born there. If my parents and grandparents were am I out if luck? What are the acceptable places to move from? What are the acceptable jobs or stores to shop at? Do I have to have a specific political viewpoint? Please tell me what it needs to be to be a real person from NYC. What neighborhood should I live in. Also I don't want to be too rich or successful and shunned so what income should I have?

I don't want to be looked at with distain for coming from the wrong place and paying too much for the wrong apartment in the wrong neighborhood.

5

UnusualAd6529 t1_j0huwd6 wrote

Foie gras is delicious and it's ethics is number 5 billion on our list of issues to address

36

StrngBrew t1_j0hvv86 wrote

Replying to _Maxolotl (#946,389)

Technically a judge has not struck it down. A judge had put a stay on it while a lawsuit proceeds

Separate from that, is this story, in which the state Agriculture dept found that the NYC law violated state law, which has supremacy

So it looks dead at the moment either way, but a judge may also strike it down as well.

15

epicxownage t1_j0hxflt wrote

Replying to Lost_sidhe (#945,798)

With the news of the law banning the sale of puppies etc in shops, how would this logic not also apply there? Just curious about the broader applications, I do not have a horse in this race

6

Charismatic_Villain t1_j0i0u3o wrote

Ban that shit asap! This is a travesty. Everyone who flippantly doesnt care will be reincarnated as one of those poor animals!

−8

BraveSirZaphod t1_j0i0v2w wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#946,202)

The question is if wielding the hammer of government power is justifiable.

If there wasn't demand for foie gras, it wouldn't be produced. If enough people become convinced that it's some uniquely horrific ethical issue, they'll stop eating it and the issue resolves itself.

2

chusmeria t1_j0i1ebh wrote

Replying to arsenalfc1987 (#947,370)

The city council created it. Don't make up random shit. Christ, fuckin liars and idiots responding to me: https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/new-york-city-bans-the-sale-of-foie-gras-will-punish-businesses-offering-food-from-force-fed-animals/

> "We want to be a city that is judged of course about how we treat our fellow people, but also we want to be judged by how we treat animals and the evolution of how we come to care for animals," City Council Speaker Corey Johnson said.

> The council also overwhelmingly passed the Carriage Horse Heat Relief Act, keeping horses from working when temperatures go above 90.

5

BigPussysGabagool t1_j0i2d7a wrote

I don't have much knoedge on how it's produced other than the force feeding, but I honestly don't think it should be banned. It's up to the consumers to speak with their wallets. If it ever becomes unprofitable, it will stop. I don't like the idea of government getting so involved in personal choices for people, and then people applauding said overreaches until the overreach affects them.

I've tried foie gras once, and honestly it isn't for me. But if you enjoy it more power to you.

5

RW3Bro t1_j0i3hwf wrote

Replying to schwab002 (#947,394)

That could be nice, but Iā€™m not sure hanging out directly on the Gowanus Canal would be too pleasant without the smell of smoked meats diluting the canal stench.

2

JellyfishConscious t1_j0i73ih wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#947,716)

Iā€™m not talking about scale tho, the article is talking about this one particular topic. The comment I replied to is talking about industrial farmed meat. Both foi gras and industrial farmed meat are unethically produced.

No need to point out that there are other issues, yes there will always be other issues. Thatā€™s diverting from the current topic.

0

RW3Bro t1_j0i7flg wrote

Replying to ChrisFromLongIsland (#947,050)

My issue isnā€™t with the Midwesterners who want to move to one of the crown jewels of humanity. As long as NYC is what it is, that demand will always exist on an enormous scale.

My issue is the developers that would in an instant, no matter the objections of the community and their elected representatives, build over everything that makes this city great and slap up yet another cheaply-constructed building if itā€™d make them a quick buck.

Tearing down neighborhoods to put up grossly overpriced gentrification buildings with a small allocation for ā€œaffordableā€ housing will never put a dent in this cityā€™s housing supply-demand dynamic, much in the same way that building another lane on the highway doesnā€™t reduce traffic.

So yeah, I donā€™t blame the people who want to move here, I blame the developers whoā€™ve bribed our past two mayors to the point of wholly owning them and shown nothing but scorn for the people who actually already live in Brooklyn, Harlem, and Queens.

1

NKR1978 t1_j0i7mua wrote

This was the dumbest law that no one was asking for and was actively hurting NYS farmers. We have the best ducks and foie in the world, arguably better than France, and we were banning their best product.

15

Lost_sidhe t1_j0i8r10 wrote

Replying to SortaRican4 (#946,997)

It really is delicious. Takishi over in West Village (RIP) had the option to get a slab on top of your beef ramen (only served at midnight on Friday and Saturday) - it was crazy delicious!

7

AnacharsisIV t1_j0iauhe wrote

Looks like foie is back on the menu, boys!

10

manticore16 t1_j0iers1 wrote

I am also asking for the ban to be dropped, but thatā€™s because I have a long-standing vendetta with geese involving pepperoni pizza at Roslyn Pond Park

39

freeradicalx t1_j0ih5yo wrote

NY state on Bloomberg's big soda ban: I sleep

NY state on NYC banning cruelty-sourced food: NO, it's illegal to stop the duck tube force-feeding.

−2

freeradicalx t1_j0ihdib wrote

Replying to Lost_sidhe (#946,063)

Everybody should pay a visit to a battery house at some point in their lives, without it being dressed up by the farmer ahead of time to not look how it normally does.

But we can't, because their industry literally lobbies to get laws passed that makes investigating them illegal. They have nothing to hide, and no you can't see it.

13

uncle_troy_fall_97 t1_j0ihqtn wrote

Replying to Lost_sidhe (#947,796)

The selling-puppies-in-pet-shops ban is a state law, signed by the governor after some changes were made (like having it take effect in 2024 rather than immediately, for instance). So it is not analogous to this.

5

freeradicalx t1_j0ihuol wrote

Replying to _Maxolotl (#946,389)

We usually agree wholeheartedly when the government bans certain inhumane practices. Why is this any different? Harboring a wide variety of views is one thing and that's just fine. That is very different from allowing actual suffering to carry on.

2

freeradicalx t1_j0iiba3 wrote

Replying to oreosfly (#946,799)

> The way we treat cows, chickens, and pigs is not any better, yet there is no widespread call to ban eggs, chicken, beef, and pork.

There should be. The only difference is that people would push back harder against that than they do against foie gras.

1

Lost_sidhe t1_j0iii3d wrote

Replying to freeradicalx (#948,399)

If more people really cared to look under the plastic wrappers at where their food came from, it would be quite telling on how much their personal food choices would change, or how much pressure could/might be put on regulations and producers. I am not overly optimistic that the average person would care, even looking it plain in the face. Afterall, none of this is a secret, most people are just making an active decision NOT to look behind the curtain.

5

SweetRanma2008 t1_j0ik2a7 wrote

From afar, I thought someone was cutting a penis šŸ˜¬šŸ˜¬šŸ˜¬

1

deltamental t1_j0it3mr wrote

Replying to freeradicalx (#948,430)

Yeah like, "there are a diverse set of views on child labor". Doesn't mean we shrug our shoulders: there's still an objective right and wrong in this situation because it's an objective fact that individuals are suffering unnecessarily. The avoidable suffering of anyone should be the concern of everyone.

Unfortunately, many people view the purpose of society as just a pragmatic tool to further their own desires. If the government gets in the way of their Nikes or their foie gras because the exploitation involved in those industries, suddenly it's overreach. But that same government putting people in cages on Rikers for over a year without a trial is A-OK because it doesn't affect them.

−4

LibertyNachos t1_j0izf4t wrote

Replying to njmids (#949,476)

Itā€™s not altogether great for the bird:

Force-feeding

Force-feeding is used to produce the size and fat content that qualifies a liver as ā€œfoie grasā€ (1). Ducks do not have a crop as most other avian species, but have a large esophagus, the capacity of which can be further increased with repeated filling. During the fattening period, a 15 to 25 cm long tube is inserted into the esophagus, dispensing up to 450 g per meal, typically with 2 or 3 meals per day. The volume of feed the birds receive is significantly in excess of what would be their voluntary intake. The repeated capture, restraint, and rapid insertion of the feeding tube and expansion of the distal esophagus can cause aversion and discomfort during force-feeding and immediately afterward while the esophagus is distended. This is a risk factor for esophageal injury and associated pain (2,3). Because geese and ducks do not have a crop, the increasing amount of feed given prior to force-feeding, and the force-feeding itself cause anatomical and physiological adaptation including expansion of the lower part of the esophagus, increased heat production, panting, and production of semi-liquid feces (4). The risk of damage to stretched tissue is greater than that of normal tissue, but it is not known how great this risk is in force-fed ducks (4).

Force-feeding overrides animal preference and homeostasis. Although ducks may, under some conditions, voluntarily consume large amounts of feed, if force-feeding is interrupted in experimental conditions of foie gras production, drakes will voluntarily fast for a period of 3 days or longer, suggesting that the individual animals have been fed past the point of satiety (5).

Animal welfare of foie gras

19

LittleKitty235 t1_j0izwlz wrote

Replying to yieldsjuni (#948,901)

Not a bad-faith argument. Factory farming conditions for livestock should be improved, of course, but nothing about raising animals for food or foie gras specifically is a reason to ban it.

1

ChrisFromLongIsland t1_j0izxe5 wrote

Replying to RW3Bro (#947,781)

I do appreciate your detailed response.

I don't really agree with it. Very little had been built over the past 30 years especially when you compare it to the period from 1800 to about 1950. In the 90s and early 2000 most of the development was rehabbing what was burnt out or run down from the decay of the 70s and 80s.

It sounds like you want to basically stop all development. If you stop development prices will go no where but up. It's an issue the country has been grappling with amd especially CA and the northeast for 40 years. Do we move past what has been built and build up or keep the neighborhoods as they are. By and large they have been left alone but prices have zoomed higher.

3

utahnow t1_j0j8ca6 wrote

if you donā€™t like foie gras - donā€™t eat it. Simple as that. This is an example of government overreach to ponder to a small group of nut jobs. As if the city has run out of other problems to solve šŸ™„

6

freeradicalx t1_j0jbju4 wrote

Replying to _Maxolotl (#950,067)

Geese not being equivalent to children doesn't mean they don't suffer, and you already know that so you shouldn't be pretending like you don't just to be snappy on the internet.

−1

the_lamou t1_j0jh29v wrote

Replying to LibertyNachos (#949,586)

>Itā€™s not altogether great for the bird:

Is worrying about the (very short term) health problems of a bird that is being raised specifically to be murdered really that important?

By the time the force-feeding starts, most farm fowl only have a week to a month of life left.

2

LibertyNachos t1_j0jhp9b wrote

Replying to LittleKitty235 (#949,612)

the force feeding of the ducks for the last few weeks of their lives makes it a little bit more cruel and painful and thatā€™s why it has become an issue. factory farming holds animals in captivity in restrictively small housing but there is not enough political will or popular opposition that will end it anytime soon. ending the sale and production of foie gras is an incremental step that is much more achievable since the average person rarely consumes it. itā€™s more of a symbolic gesture towards improving the lives of animals harvested for meat.

0

LibertyNachos t1_j0ji391 wrote

Replying to the_lamou (#950,544)

thatā€™s a good philosophical question and hard to answer objectively. I can only state my opinion that the suffering that the bird goes through is unnecessarily cruel. the animal would suffer less if it was permitted to eat food in a more natural manner before it is slaughtered. the end result is the same but the journey to the end is not, and that to me is deserving of reconsideration.

14

yobemot t1_j0jms3w wrote

Iā€™m sure Tony is smiling from the beyond

2

LibertyNachos t1_j0jr273 wrote

Replying to spahlo (#950,982)

I donā€™t disagree with you there but banning excessive cruelty before slaughter is more achievable than banning meat altogether. Just because it ends up dead either way isnā€™t a good excuse to tolerate unnecessary cruelty before the end.

16

NetQuarterLatte t1_j0jrb65 wrote

Replying to freeradicalx (#948,430)

When talk about foie gras with such radicalism as if it's on the same level of child exploitation or slavery (as you did more explicitly in other comments), I don't think you'll get much positive response.

I'd be surprised if such rhetoric even helps your cause, to be honest.

5

deltamental t1_j0jrorj wrote

Replying to freeradicalx (#950,275)

Exactly, I'm trying to point out that reasoning from "people have differing views on this issue" to "we shouldn't try to address this issue" is fallacious.

Generally speaking, the easiest way to demonstrate that a kind of reasoning is flawed is to apply that flawed reasoning to a situation in which where it obviously fails. If you tell me "I can eat any pepper, no matter how spicy", I'm testing that by giving you a Carolina Reaper, not a JalepeƱo.

If you tell me, "I don't think the government should be getting involved in moral issues for which there are a diversity of different views about it", I'm going to bring up child labor precisely because it's something the government obviously should do something about, and for which there have historically been differing views on (from parents pulling their kids out of school at age 12 to work the farm, to Hollywood execs arguing child actors should be exempt from the usual rules, etc.).

To make another analogy, if some hippie said "I don't vaccinate my kids because vaccines are made in labs, not by nature", I could respond rhetorically "I don't cook for my kids because metal pans are made in factories, not forests".

If the hippie responds back, "Are you seriously comparing starving your kids with keeping them away from experimental injections?", then clearly they either (1) missed the point of my rhetorical response, or (2) understood it, but just don't want to think about or address the shaky foundation of their stated reasoning. Obviously I'm not trying to tell the hippie that not vaccinating your kids is abuse on the same level as starving them to death, and I can clearly see a distinction. I'm trying to tell them that "natural is better" reasoning is unreliable, so they shouldn't use it to make major health decisions.

In general, people use nice-sounding reasoning like "I don't want to legislate moral issues" or "I prefer natural solutions" to avoid actually addressing the issue at hand. I know they don't apply that kind of reasoning universally, so what's the actual reason they believe what they believe? Like, this isn't an awkward dinner with overly-religious relatives where we have to pretend to pray. This is public policy that has impact, and we're explicitly debating that policy, not trying to be polite and avoid rocking the boat.

2

GettingPhysicl t1_j0jzz8q wrote

Replying to Lost_sidhe (#945,798)

We can also ban products made with slave labor if the slaves arenā€™t in nyc

And if we canā€™t, change the law thatā€™s fucked up

To be clear I donā€™t care about the geese liver thing but the idea you can sell whatever as long as it is produced outside of the jurisdiction and that jurisdiction can set no rules sucks

2

spahlo t1_j0k204u wrote

Replying to LibertyNachos (#951,025)

Of course, but it can be made without cruelty and it is currently being done so whereā€™s the issue? Hudson valley farms is a prime example of this and other ethical sources exist as well. Too many people pointing to past practices as if they are the common standard of today for their justification behind banning foie.

3

freeradicalx t1_j0kggpb wrote

Replying to NetQuarterLatte (#951,410)

I think that the majority of defensive reactions to animal activism can be explained as a protective mechanism against existing unexamined guilt or shame. But I could be biased because yes, I did go vegan as consequence of a crisis of guilt and shame. No, aggravating guilt or shame in others is not necessarily something I'd want to do as advocacy. Maybe if someone is right on the cusp of coming around, but not someone happily entrenched in animal exploitation through their normative culture, diet, identity, etc. Where exactly do you think I might have "poked the bear" a bit too hard, and how might I have done so better?

3

lotsofdeadkittens t1_j0khbhj wrote

Replying to chusmeria (#946,795)

representative democracy have checks and balances to stop "tyranny"," ie. local unelected officials or just officials from other districts going against constitutions and non-representative chouices that voters did not vote on. No one voted for city council expecting them to start banning nYS agriculture. This is how representative democracy works. since voters dont vote on every policy present there needs to be a checking system for the sake of avoiding minority law changes being passed

4

lotsofdeadkittens t1_j0khgah wrote

Replying to freeradicalx (#948,430)

I dont think foi gras is even remotly more inhumane than murdering animals. I eat meat and do see animal cruelty as an issue with meat consumption but outright banning torture of animals but being ok with murdering them is moral gymnastics

1

lotsofdeadkittens t1_j0khl9a wrote

Replying to StrngBrew (#947,171)

Had fried foi gras at a 2 michelin restaurant with low expectations (cavier generally lets me down its just good flavor,) and it is incredible. Idk its kind of insane

eating it removed any care about the animals

3

blacktongue t1_j0kwqm0 wrote

Replying to LibertyNachos (#948,249)

Yeah but they donā€™t have a gag reflex, you just kinda feed them right into their stomach. They get fatter than they would on their own, but again, itā€™s animal agriculture, none of it is ā€˜naturalā€™

2

Lost_sidhe t1_j0kz2v1 wrote

Replying to GettingPhysicl (#951,514)

Well, except that the reason it was shot down by the state was that it was a legally ok product. Slave labor is illegal, so should automatically be banned everywhere. Realistically, we don't, internationally; because we still sell things like designer sneakers, and pre-peeled garlic. We shouldn't, but that should be federal bans.

2

NetQuarterLatte t1_j0lb83o wrote

Replying to freeradicalx (#952,196)

Thank you for sharing.

For many people itā€™ll be obvious that the mention of slavery and child exploitation is just an exaggeration to try to make a point and they would be able to understand. However, for many others it may appear to be making those grave issues more trivial and thatā€™s going to turn people away.

There will be the people who wonā€™t think itā€™s an exaggeration and literally agree, but thatā€™s just preaching to the choir.

I myself see a lot of issues with animal diets, for my own health, for the environment and for the treatment of the animals (in this exact order). But while they influence me into being more mindful about my diet, I admit Iā€™m very far from the cusp of becoming vegan.

1

DadBodofanAmerican t1_j0lxlxi wrote

Replying to Curiosities (#946,162)

Nope. Overreach by the city. The state agricultural law prohibits any municipality from passing laws that will adversely affect the agricultural industry of another municipality. This way the state government, with representatives from both areas, can come in and make a decision where both areas have an equal say.

2

DadBodofanAmerican t1_j0lyt00 wrote

Replying to freeradicalx (#948,430)

If the city wanted to ban the production of Foie Gras inside NYC then they are more than welcome to. They didn't. They banned the sale at restaurants. The farmers that this hurts aren't city residents so they have no voice in the process. But they are state residents so Albany stepped in to protect them.

2

fafalone t1_j0lzdac wrote

Replying to spahlo (#950,982)

"We can torture animals however we want so long as they're food animals."

No, being raised for food doesn't confer an inherent right to torture.

It's like suggesting it would be ok to beat death row inmates every day, because we're going to kill them anyway.

Torture and killing for a specific purpose are not ethically the same.

3

spahlo t1_j0ms69u wrote

Replying to fafalone (#955,083)

Nobodyā€™s torturing the animals in this case. People are anthropomorphizing them and assume that the ducks must dislike the force feeding in the same way a human would.

0

GettingPhysicl t1_j0mtogw wrote

Replying to Lost_sidhe (#952,936)

it is legally ok in all of the areas outside the jurisdiction. why can't we decide our own. NYC has more people than a lot of states do. sell it elsewhere. Again. nothing for or against goose liver bans.

1

Darrackodrama t1_j0n3c1l wrote

Replying to njmids (#949,476)

The same way a human being might ā€œnot mindā€ being force fed sweets and other Shit by a higher intelligent being right?

Any lack of consent being forced on animals without absolute necessity for society is inhumane. Anything that can be feasibly done to mitigate animal abuse should be done

2

freeradicalx t1_j0n61jq wrote

Replying to NetQuarterLatte (#953,657)

Thanks, that point about comparisons between animals and human suffering is actually helpful. I had a feeling that was the primary complaint, and I really do think that suffering is the same no matter who is experiencing it, but it'll be good to remember going into that analogy in the future to be explicit that I am just comparing suffering, and not the lived experiences of a person and the people they affect vs eg an animal on a farm. Or maybe just take mention of the species (Humans or animals) out of it entirely.

0

LibertyNachos t1_j0n6nij wrote

Replying to lotsofdeadkittens (#952,219)

drawing lines like this is silly how? the point of animal welfare is to incentivize more humane treatment of these creatures before they are killed so they donā€™t suffer as much for their lives

−1

jae34 t1_j0oovnd wrote

Foie is such a niche thing, just don't eat it. How about improving conditions of factory farms instead.

1

GambitGamer t1_j14797g wrote

Replying to NetQuarterLatte (#953,657)

Those who think itā€™s obvious that a comparison to slavery or child exploitation is an exaggeration ought to re-examine their moral understanding of the world. Farmed animal suffering is one of the worst scourges of all time. Most people donā€™t think so, but most people also didnā€™t think so of slavery or child exploitation for the vast majority of history. Thatā€™s fine, itā€™s the nature of moral progress, and weā€™ll see how popular opinion changes in the long arc of the moral universe.

1

NetQuarterLatte t1_j14fezh wrote

Replying to GambitGamer (#995,588)

That is an interesting thing to reflect upon.

I think almost anything can be found to be morally equivalent to anything else if one adopts a sufficiently reductive view.

On a wider perspective though, the arcs of the dominant opinions in the moral universe mostly flap around on the winds of the economic universe. Slavery and many other atrocities rose and fell over time because of the economics, and the moral universe (including religious morality and such) served most of the time as an after-the-fact rationalization.

I expect the same to happen with animal protein. The economics of raising animals in farms are inefficient and bad in many ways, but that's the best we have today. Once that can be genuinely replaced by superior economic processes (lab grown meat?), I bet will see the moral winds shift rather quickly.

2

GambitGamer t1_j14kezg wrote

Replying to NetQuarterLatte (#996,169)

I used to think so too, but the predominant scholarly opinion is that the abolition of slavery was very much a moral/cultural movement.

See What We Owe The Future for a recent discussion.

> In the book, he argues that what people value is far more fragile and historically contingent than it might first seem. For instance, today it feels like the abolition of slavery was an inevitable part of the arc of history. But Will lays out that the best research on the topic suggests otherwise.

> For thousands of years, almost everyone ā€” from philosophers to slaves themselves ā€” regarded slavery as acceptable in principle. At the time the British Empire ended its participation in the slave trade, the industry was booming and earning enormous profits. Itā€™s estimated that abolition cost Britain 2% of its GDP for 50 years.

> So why did it happen? The global abolition movement seems to have originated within the peculiar culture of the Quakers, who were the first to argue slavery was unacceptable in all cases and campaign for its elimination, gradually convincing those around them with both Enlightenment and Christian arguments. If a few such moral pioneers had fallen off their horses at the wrong time, maybe the abolition movement never would have gotten off the ground and slavery would remain widespread today.

and

> Will MacAskill: The example that I focus on most in the book is the abolition of slavery. I go deepest into this because, firstly, itā€™s just the most important moral change that I know of ā€” certainly among the most important moral changes in all history. And secondly, I think the case for it being, in some important way, contingent ā€” that is, it could have gone either way, such that we could have current levels of technology and very widespread slavery ā€” is much stronger than one might think.

> Will MacAskill: We certainly shouldnā€™t be very confident that current levels of technological development would lead to a society that had banned slavery. Maybe one thinks itā€™s 50/50. Maybe actually you think itā€™s more likely than not that we didnā€™t. And we talked about this more in the last podcast. I go deep into it in the book. One thing I should say is Iā€™m not some philosopher, imperialistically going into history and then making all sorts of pontifications.

> Rob Wiblin: This was the view among people whoā€™ve studied it?

> Will MacAskill: Yeah. I couldnā€™t say definitively whatā€™s the median view among academic historians, but certainly the idea that the abolition of slavery was economically determined is very, very out of fashion among historians now.

> Rob Wiblin: I see.

> Will MacAskill: The general view is that it was a cultural change primarily. And then thereā€™s a question of, why did that cultural change happen? Was it actually just really quite a contingent particular thing? Thereā€™s some real evidence for this. The fact that you really donā€™t see abolitionist campaigns occurring outside of Britain. Abolitionist sentiment, you donā€™t really see outside of Britain and France, and the United States as well.

> Will MacAskill: You look at the Netherlands, which in some sense was the first modern economy, and they had these petition campaigns that got almost no signatures. There was almost no abolitionist sentiment, almost no movement there. The Industrial Revolution could easily have happened in the Netherlands. It could have resulted in a very different kind of moral landscape.

from https://80000hours.org/podcast/episodes/will-macAskill-what-we-owe-the-future/

That being said, I agree that if we make better moral choices easier for people, theyā€™ll make those choices moreā€¦ as is the case with any choice with an easy option. So I am emphatically in favor of cultivated meat.

1