Vegan restaurant gets Michelin star - Page 3

xjx388 · 9th February 2021, 05:27 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Best explanation I've heard so far is that we treat animals humanely not to affirm their humanity but to affirm ours.

Eh. I’m affirming my humanity by eating the lesser animals, lol.

More seriously, I get it. For me, I choose to get the best tasting meat and animal products I can find. Usually that means the animals were raised in what would be considered humane ways.

Foie gras was mentioned. The purveyors of the best foie I’ve ever tasted have, not coincidentally, been those farmers who run clean, free range, blah blah; e.g. humane operations (and to be clear, foie gras can be produced without torturing the ducks -there are a lot myths about gavage). Same goes for beef, poultry and pork.

Now, I can afford to get the best I can find. Many people cannot and I’m not about to judge those people for buying and enjoying animal products from larger, less expensive and less “humane” industrial farms. I guess that’s my larger point.

xjx388 · 9th February 2021, 05:36 PM

Originally Posted by dirtywick

i think it’s universally accepted that people should try to inflict as little unnecessary suffering on the world as possible.

but if that’s feel good nonsense, I think you could make good argument that telling someone they gave it a good life and humanely killed it would allow more people to enjoy the meal than telling them the animal was abused and killed in the most horrific manner they could think of.

But what is suffering? Being raised as a captive only to be killed for food in the prime of life might rank up there -IF we judge such things on human standards. But these are animals, they don’t feel or emote like we do. They live in a natural world where a predator will literally chase them down, fight them to the death, rip them apart and eat them raw.

And very few places, especially in the First World, kill animals in the most horrific way imaginable.

angrysoba · 9th February 2021, 05:37 PM

Originally Posted by xjx388

But foie gras is so delicious!

I find the idea that there is an ethical way to treat an animal that you going to end up killing so that you can sell its meat for profit to be a little...weird. Feel-good nonsense really.

“I gave it a good life before gently killing it it, slitting its neck from ear to ear (or cutting its head off), letting the blood drain out and butchering the carcass.”

They are food animals. If we are ok with killing them to eat them, what does the rest matter in the big scheme of things? Treat the animal in a way that makes it the best food animal it can be. That’s what I care about.

Nah! This is just silly. In some cultures it is okay to beat a dog to death because it is believed that the hormones released will make you strong if you eat it. It’s barbaric.

Cavemonster · 9th February 2021, 05:47 PM

Originally Posted by caveman1917

Tell that to the mostly third-world workers picking the vegan staple crops in horrible working conditions.

And yes, the working conditions in meat farming aren't any better, but then meat eaters at least aren't walking around pretending to be all morally pure and humane about it.

In my personal experience (anecdote, I know) the vegetarians, vegans, and people who attempt to eat less meat or more humane animal products (in my experience) are the most likely to also take human labor conditions into account.

I also have met zero vegetarians or vegans who consider themselves morally pure. Again, that's my anecdotal experience, but it's been so consistent, I would be surprised to find it's a common sentiment.

xjx388 · 9th February 2021, 06:01 PM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Nah! This is just silly. In some cultures it is okay to beat a dog to death because it is believed that the hormones released will make you strong if you eat it. It’s barbaric.

Sure, but that’s nowhere near the scale of what we are considering here.

And it’s also a bit -Paternalistic? Imperialistic? Condescending? I don’t know the right word but maybe you get the gist -in my view, to judge other cultures by the standards of our own culture.

dirtywick · 9th February 2021, 06:07 PM

Originally Posted by xjx388

But what is suffering? Being raised as a captive only to be killed for food in the prime of life might rank up there -IF we judge such things on human standards. But these are animals, they don’t feel or emote like we do. They live in a natural world where a predator will literally chase them down, fight them to the death, rip them apart and eat them raw.

And very few places, especially in the First World, kill animals in the most horrific way imaginable.

what is suffering? I think you’ll get different answers depending who you ask. some people do consider caging them to be suffering also, they pay extra for meat not treated in that manner. some people don’t eat meat at all. people have different views on the ethical treatment of animals. even if other animals would tear them apart in the wild.

I would have thought everyone could agree at least that unnecessary suffering is bad.

I’d agree that most first world countries don’t do that, because it’s unnecessary. I’m only telling you that because you wrote this which seems to indicate that since you can’t completely eliminate suffering any efforts to minimize it are nonsense. The just don’t agree with that sentiment

Quote:

I find the idea that there is an ethical way to treat an animal that you going to end up killing so that you can sell its meat for profit to be a little...weird. Feel-good nonsense really.

dirtywick · 9th February 2021, 06:08 PM

Originally Posted by Cavemonster

In my personal experience (anecdote, I know) the vegetarians, vegans, and people who attempt to eat less meat or more humane animal products (in my experience) are the most likely to also take human labor conditions into account.

I also have met zero vegetarians or vegans who consider themselves morally pure. Again, that's my anecdotal experience, but it's been so consistent, I would be surprised to find it's a common sentiment.

We can all imagine what the Venn diagram of vegans and people concerned with the treatment of migrants looks like

arthwollipot · 9th February 2021, 06:19 PM

Originally Posted by dirtywick

what is suffering? I think you’ll get different answers depending who you ask. some people do consider caging them to be suffering also, they pay extra for meat not treated in that manner. some people don’t eat meat at all. people have different views on the ethical treatment of animals. even if other animals would tear them apart in the wild.

True story: I once, for a podcast, attended a talk by an animal psychic and animal activist, who once went to France and communicated telepathically with cows. I asked her if the cows knew that they'd been bred for captivity. She said that she didn't think that was true. She was a husbandry denier.

I also told her that if you don't milk a dairy cow on a daily basis it runs a risk of developing mastitis and dying. She denied that, too, and every other person in the room (who wasn't with me) agreed with her. I was really popular at that meeting.

I guess my point is that for some people, there is no such thing as the ethical treatment of animals. All treatment of animals (except I suppose via telepathy) is unethical.

dirtywick · 9th February 2021, 06:39 PM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

True story: I once, for a podcast, attended a talk by an animal psychic and animal activist, who once went to France and communicated telepathically with cows. I asked her if the cows knew that they'd been bred for captivity. She said that she didn't think that was true. She was a husbandry denier.

I also told her that if you don't milk a dairy cow on a daily basis it runs a risk of developing mastitis and dying. She denied that, too, and every other person in the room (who wasn't with me) agreed with her. I was really popular at that meeting.

I guess my point is that for some people, there is no such thing as the ethical treatment of animals. All treatment of animals (except I suppose via telepathy) is unethical.

Yeah, I can imagine people are like that out there. I think it was my mom who said she knew somebody that wore bells on their pants so bugs could hear her coming and move out of the way so she didn't step on them.

All I'm trying to say is that the idea that suffering is bad and we should try and minimize suffering a pretty universal sentiment. Applying that idea to animals is pretty reasonable and people have different ideas on how to do that in practice, which is fine and you get people who take it to an unreasonable extreme.

Cavemonster · 9th February 2021, 07:00 PM

Originally Posted by dirtywick

We can all imagine what the Venn diagram of vegans and people concerned with the treatment of migrants looks like

Caveman seems to be imagining it differently for some reason.

dirtywick · 9th February 2021, 07:02 PM

Originally Posted by Cavemonster

Caveman seems to be imagining it differently for some reason.

Yeah, but maybe he'll change his mind lol

angrysoba · 9th February 2021, 07:17 PM

Originally Posted by xjx388

Sure, but that’s nowhere near the scale of what we are considering here.

Why? Your moral proposition is that if an animal is to be eaten then there ought to be no consideration to how it is raised an slaughered.

I think that is just downright bad ethics. If you kill and eat an animal, then indeed it is not a good outcome for the animal, but if you torture it all its life first then you compound the harm.

Originally Posted by xjx388

And it’s also a bit -Paternalistic? Imperialistic? Condescending? I don’t know the right word but maybe you get the gist -in my view, to judge other cultures by the standards of our own culture.

No, it isn't. I am not a normative moral relativist. If it hurts to beat a dog to death then it hurts regardless of some cultural woo that gets attached to it.

In my view, culturally-backed woo is a kind of brain fog that makes people stop thinking clearly.

"But in our culture, it is fine to sacrifice virgins to the volcano god."

"Then your culture ****** up. Please change!"

theprestige · 9th February 2021, 07:22 PM

There's a story about a British officer's reaction, when he encountered the practice of suttee.

angrysoba · 9th February 2021, 07:27 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

There's a story about a British officer's reaction, when he encountered the practice of suttee.

That was a sick burn! (Sikh burn? - No, it was a Hindu practice.)

9th February 2021, 05:27 PM	#81
xjx388 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 9,160	Originally Posted by theprestige Best explanation I've heard so far is that we treat animals humanely not to affirm their humanity but to affirm ours. Eh. I’m affirming my humanity by eating the lesser animals, lol. More seriously, I get it. For me, I choose to get the best tasting meat and animal products I can find. Usually that means the animals were raised in what would be considered humane ways. Foie gras was mentioned. The purveyors of the best foie I’ve ever tasted have, not coincidentally, been those farmers who run clean, free range, blah blah; e.g. humane operations (and to be clear, foie gras can be produced without torturing the ducks -there are a lot myths about gavage). Same goes for beef, poultry and pork. Now, I can afford to get the best I can find. Many people cannot and I’m not about to judge those people for buying and enjoying animal products from larger, less expensive and less “humane” industrial farms. I guess that’s my larger point.
xjx388 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 9,160	__________________ Hello.

9th February 2021, 05:36 PM	#82
xjx388 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 9,160	Originally Posted by dirtywick i think it’s universally accepted that people should try to inflict as little unnecessary suffering on the world as possible. but if that’s feel good nonsense, I think you could make good argument that telling someone they gave it a good life and humanely killed it would allow more people to enjoy the meal than telling them the animal was abused and killed in the most horrific manner they could think of. But what is suffering? Being raised as a captive only to be killed for food in the prime of life might rank up there -IF we judge such things on human standards. But these are animals, they don’t feel or emote like we do. They live in a natural world where a predator will literally chase them down, fight them to the death, rip them apart and eat them raw. And very few places, especially in the First World, kill animals in the most horrific way imaginable.
xjx388 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 9,160	__________________ Hello.

9th February 2021, 05:37 PM	#83
angrysoba Philosophile Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 29,395	Originally Posted by xjx388 But foie gras is so delicious! I find the idea that there is an ethical way to treat an animal that you going to end up killing so that you can sell its meat for profit to be a little...weird. Feel-good nonsense really. “I gave it a good life before gently killing it it, slitting its neck from ear to ear (or cutting its head off), letting the blood drain out and butchering the carcass.” They are food animals. If we are ok with killing them to eat them, what does the rest matter in the big scheme of things? Treat the animal in a way that makes it the best food animal it can be. That’s what I care about. Nah! This is just silly. In some cultures it is okay to beat a dog to death because it is believed that the hormones released will make you strong if you eat it. It’s barbaric.
	__________________ "The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before." "Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)

9th February 2021, 05:47 PM	#84
Cavemonster Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 6,534	Originally Posted by caveman1917 Tell that to the mostly third-world workers picking the vegan staple crops in horrible working conditions. And yes, the working conditions in meat farming aren't any better, but then meat eaters at least aren't walking around pretending to be all morally pure and humane about it. In my personal experience (anecdote, I know) the vegetarians, vegans, and people who attempt to eat less meat or more humane animal products (in my experience) are the most likely to also take human labor conditions into account. I also have met zero vegetarians or vegans who consider themselves morally pure. Again, that's my anecdotal experience, but it's been so consistent, I would be surprised to find it's a common sentiment.
Cavemonster Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 6,534	__________________ The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon. -G.K. CHESTERTON

9th February 2021, 06:01 PM	#85
xjx388 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 9,160	Originally Posted by angrysoba Nah! This is just silly. In some cultures it is okay to beat a dog to death because it is believed that the hormones released will make you strong if you eat it. It’s barbaric. Sure, but that’s nowhere near the scale of what we are considering here. And it’s also a bit -Paternalistic? Imperialistic? Condescending? I don’t know the right word but maybe you get the gist -in my view, to judge other cultures by the standards of our own culture.
xjx388 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 9,160	__________________ Hello.

9th February 2021, 06:07 PM	#86
dirtywick Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 3,130	Originally Posted by xjx388 But what is suffering? Being raised as a captive only to be killed for food in the prime of life might rank up there -IF we judge such things on human standards. But these are animals, they don’t feel or emote like we do. They live in a natural world where a predator will literally chase them down, fight them to the death, rip them apart and eat them raw. And very few places, especially in the First World, kill animals in the most horrific way imaginable. what is suffering? I think you’ll get different answers depending who you ask. some people do consider caging them to be suffering also, they pay extra for meat not treated in that manner. some people don’t eat meat at all. people have different views on the ethical treatment of animals. even if other animals would tear them apart in the wild. I would have thought everyone could agree at least that unnecessary suffering is bad. I’d agree that most first world countries don’t do that, because it’s unnecessary. I’m only telling you that because you wrote this which seems to indicate that since you can’t completely eliminate suffering any efforts to minimize it are nonsense. The just don’t agree with that sentiment Quote: I find the idea that there is an ethical way to treat an animal that you going to end up killing so that you can sell its meat for profit to be a little...weird. Feel-good nonsense really.
dirtywick Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 3,130

9th February 2021, 06:08 PM	#87
dirtywick Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 3,130	Originally Posted by Cavemonster In my personal experience (anecdote, I know) the vegetarians, vegans, and people who attempt to eat less meat or more humane animal products (in my experience) are the most likely to also take human labor conditions into account. I also have met zero vegetarians or vegans who consider themselves morally pure. Again, that's my anecdotal experience, but it's been so consistent, I would be surprised to find it's a common sentiment. We can all imagine what the Venn diagram of vegans and people concerned with the treatment of migrants looks like
dirtywick Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 3,130

9th February 2021, 06:19 PM	#88
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Ngunnawal Country Posts: 70,273	Originally Posted by dirtywick what is suffering? I think you’ll get different answers depending who you ask. some people do consider caging them to be suffering also, they pay extra for meat not treated in that manner. some people don’t eat meat at all. people have different views on the ethical treatment of animals. even if other animals would tear them apart in the wild. True story: I once, for a podcast, attended a talk by an animal psychic and animal activist, who once went to France and communicated telepathically with cows. I asked her if the cows knew that they'd been bred for captivity. She said that she didn't think that was true. She was a husbandry denier. I also told her that if you don't milk a dairy cow on a daily basis it runs a risk of developing mastitis and dying. She denied that, too, and every other person in the room (who wasn't with me) agreed with her. I was really popular at that meeting. I guess my point is that for some people, there is no such thing as the ethical treatment of animals. All treatment of animals (except I suppose via telepathy) is unethical.
	__________________ Please scream inside your heart.

9th February 2021, 06:39 PM	#89
dirtywick Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 3,130	Originally Posted by arthwollipot True story: I once, for a podcast, attended a talk by an animal psychic and animal activist, who once went to France and communicated telepathically with cows. I asked her if the cows knew that they'd been bred for captivity. She said that she didn't think that was true. She was a husbandry denier. I also told her that if you don't milk a dairy cow on a daily basis it runs a risk of developing mastitis and dying. She denied that, too, and every other person in the room (who wasn't with me) agreed with her. I was really popular at that meeting. I guess my point is that for some people, there is no such thing as the ethical treatment of animals. All treatment of animals (except I suppose via telepathy) is unethical. Yeah, I can imagine people are like that out there. I think it was my mom who said she knew somebody that wore bells on their pants so bugs could hear her coming and move out of the way so she didn't step on them. All I'm trying to say is that the idea that suffering is bad and we should try and minimize suffering a pretty universal sentiment. Applying that idea to animals is pretty reasonable and people have different ideas on how to do that in practice, which is fine and you get people who take it to an unreasonable extreme.
dirtywick Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 3,130

9th February 2021, 07:00 PM	#90
Cavemonster Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 6,534	Originally Posted by dirtywick We can all imagine what the Venn diagram of vegans and people concerned with the treatment of migrants looks like Caveman seems to be imagining it differently for some reason.
Cavemonster Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 6,534	__________________ The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon. -G.K. CHESTERTON

9th February 2021, 07:02 PM	#91
dirtywick Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 3,130	Originally Posted by Cavemonster Caveman seems to be imagining it differently for some reason. Yeah, but maybe he'll change his mind lol
dirtywick Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 3,130

9th February 2021, 07:17 PM	#92
angrysoba Philosophile Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 29,395	Originally Posted by xjx388 Sure, but that’s nowhere near the scale of what we are considering here. Why? Your moral proposition is that if an animal is to be eaten then there ought to be no consideration to how it is raised an slaughered. I think that is just downright bad ethics. If you kill and eat an animal, then indeed it is not a good outcome for the animal, but if you torture it all its life first then you compound the harm. Originally Posted by xjx388 And it’s also a bit -Paternalistic? Imperialistic? Condescending? I don’t know the right word but maybe you get the gist -in my view, to judge other cultures by the standards of our own culture. No, it isn't. I am not a normative moral relativist. If it hurts to beat a dog to death then it hurts regardless of some cultural woo that gets attached to it. In my view, culturally-backed woo is a kind of brain fog that makes people stop thinking clearly. "But in our culture, it is fine to sacrifice virgins to the volcano god." "Then your culture ****** up. Please change!"
	__________________ "The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before." "Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)

9th February 2021, 07:22 PM	#93
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 49,665	There's a story about a British officer's reaction, when he encountered the practice of suttee.

9th February 2021, 07:27 PM	#94
angrysoba Philosophile Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 29,395	Originally Posted by theprestige There's a story about a British officer's reaction, when he encountered the practice of suttee. That was a sick burn! (Sikh burn? - No, it was a Hindu practice.)
	__________________ "The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before." "Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893) Last edited by angrysoba; 9th February 2021 at 07:29 PM.