# Meet Your Meat



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Don't beat it.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Bertie, Modern factory farming is obviously a horrid nightmare without such an esteemed spokesman as the ever calm Mr Baldwin to enlighten us. But is it no less horrid than factory ranching with miles of soil assaulted with chemicals, genetic engineering, artificial fertilisers and ever fewer people tending to the land? Does Mr Balwin acknowledge the screams of a carrot being raped from the earth, or does he merely yell at it to "Shape the f up young lady?" And what of the very termitoriums we once called cities where people live ever more removed from the natural world? The problem with such exposee's is they fail to expose the underlieing causes, including the Hubris of the myopic spokesmen blinded by the (usually) sun off the Malibu Coast.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

What do you draw from this video Bertie? What solutions would you put forth?


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

And here I thought all farms were as bucolic as the farm at Versailles where Marie Antoinette dressed up in peasant clothes and played in the fields with all the cute animals.

If we don't care about inner city schools, why should we care about chickens?

:devil:


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> What do you draw from this video Bertie? What solutions would you put forth?


What do I draw from it?

The same stuff this guy did:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hieronymus_Bosch

My solution? I don't eat any meat and haven't since 1994.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BertieW said:


> What do I draw from it?
> 
> My solution? I don't eat any meat and haven't since 1994.


And do you feel this is a viable solution for the world's population? The US? Even just the people that might read this post?


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> And do you feel this is a viable solution for the world's population? The US? Even just the people that might read this post?


It's a viable solution for me, and I suspect for most members of this forum who are able to obtain protein from sources other than those in factory farms.

One might make an argument for traditional ranching (not the ecological disaster that is modern ranching and commercial farming), though I'd personally choose still not to eat meat. But I find it impossible to reconcile with decent human behaviour the mechanised slaughter that occurs in factory farms, whether in the U.S. or elsewhere.

I find this maltreatment of animals utterly alien and completely devoid of compassion.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BertieW said:


> It's a viable solution for me, and I suspect for most members of this forum who are able to obtain protein from sources other than those in factory farms.
> 
> One might make an argument for traditional ranching (not the ecological disaster that is modern ranching and commercial farming), though I'd personally choose still not to eat meat. But I find it impossible to reconcile with decent human behaviour the mechanised slaughter that occurs in factory farms, whether in the U.S. or elsewhere.
> 
> I find this maltreatment of animals utterly alien and completely devoid of compassion.


Would you, if you had the power, destroy entire cultures based on animal husbandry, such as the Mongol descendants that still wander the Steppes or African tribes the drink the blood of the cattle they tend?


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Would you, if you had the power, destroy entire cultures based on animal husbandry, such as the Mongol descendants that still wander the Steppes or African tribes the drink the blood of the cattle they tend?


I don't find it palatable to destroy a single chicken for my lunch, so I certainly wouldn't destory an entire culture.

You actually suggest an important distinction, between those classic tribes whose animal husbandry is rooted in smaller-scale and more personal relationships with animals (I don't they went in for the debeaking of birds or crammed pens full to brimming with pigs or chickens), and between modern, mass forms of killing where the creatures suffer a horrible existence, including disease and disfigurement, before they die.

I think the difference in scale, treatment and technique all have moral dimensions worth considering.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

I didn't watch almost any of the video. Not interested in seeing how some people treat animals. No doubt some people should be punnished. On the other hand not everything that is said against some of the methods to handle animals is right either. What animals will do to humans for no reason can be deadly to the human and the animal knows that.

The best way to buy meat is to find decent farmers and ranchers and butchers.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BertieW said:


> I don't find it palatable to destroy a single chicken for my lunch, so I certainly wouldn't destory an entire culture.
> 
> You actually suggest an important distinction, between those classic tribes whose animal husbandry is rooted in smaller-scale and more personal relationships with animals (I don't they went in for the debeaking of birds or crammed pens full to brimming with pigs or chickens), and between modern, mass forms of killing where the creatures suffer a horrible existence, including disease and disfigurement, before they die.
> 
> I think the difference in scale, treatment and technique all have moral dimensions worth considering.


I would wish we had a more personal approach to raising animals. It is also beneficial in that it roots people in the cycle of life, death is "okay", it happen, it is natural. IMO, it is part of the heavy medical litigation in the US, the complete divorce between consuming animals and their killing. However, I will not veer off on that tangent.

The practical problem is feeding 6+ billion people. I think it would call for a huge decrease in world population and probably a roll back in the level of society for all animal products to come from smaller scale production. Not sure, just an educated hunch.

In the mean time, I continue to enjoy my foie gras without apology.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> I would wish we had a more personal approach to raising animals. It is also beneficial in that it roots people in the cycle of life, death is "okay", it happen, it is natural. IMO, it is part of the heavy medical litigation in the US, the complete divorce between consuming animals and their killing. However, I will not veer off on that tangent.
> 
> The practical problem is feeding 6+ billion people. I think it would call for a huge decrease in world population and probably a roll back in the level of society for all animal products to come from smaller scale production. Not sure, just an educated hunch.
> 
> In the mean time, I continue to enjoy my foie gras without apology.


There's always the danger of imagining a bucolic future "if only we didn't have so many people". A complex society needs a large population to provide the goods and services we would sorely miss if there weren't people to perform or make them. The agrarian dream, harkening back to a "simpler time" too often forgets that that time was rife with disease, hardship and cruelty of a type unimaginable by most moderns.
Reminds me of a quote- something about life being "nasty, brutish and short".


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

yachtie said:


> ...life being "nasty, brutish and short".


Or in other words, life without foie gras


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

I stopped playing when it said "to have their throats slit, often while still conscious." Um...if God ordained it (see Kosher and Halal), I don't see what the problem is (and when done properly, slitting the throat results in instant death)?


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

This thread is making me hungry for a nice rack of lamb...maybe a Porterhouse (medium rare, of course).:icon_smile_big:


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Bertie, posting this you could almost predict the 'I love animals- they taste good' bumpersticker replies. I think most semi enlightened people are aware of factory farminig and it's abuses to the animals, the environment and eventually the consumer. We all make conscious choices in many lifestyle aspects. And we are all guilty of some measure of hypocrisy. Are you familiar with the Jains of India? They walk with a broom sweeping the ground before them lest they inadvertently step on life. I'm sorry, but I cannot become a Jain. Your ethical choices are admirable. But sometimes the best way to win a war is in small, incremental victories.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Kav said:


> Bertie, posting this you could almost predict the 'I love animals- they taste good' bumpersticker replies. I think most semi enlightened people are aware of factory farminig and it's abuses to the animals, the environment and eventually the consumer. We all make conscious choices in many lifestyle aspects. And we are all guilty of some measure of hypocrisy. Are you familiar with the Jains of India? They walk with a broom sweeping the ground before them lest they inadvertently step on life. I'm sorry, but I cannot become a Jain. Your ethical choices are admirable. But sometimes the best way to win a war is in small, incremental victories.


Kav, thanks for your reply. I suspect we would find a good deal to agree on, particularly on environmental matters, part of the reason I gave up meat in the first place.

I am quite familiar with Jainism and have friends who are practitioners. I would just say that the dichotomy you seem to suggest here (either embrace factory farming's butchery or else adhere to Jainism) leaves out a vast stretch of other possibilities worth investigating. Your point about conscious choice is good too. Would that more people seemed conscious of the implications of their choices. I wonder...but of course can't get inside their heads. To me, it is impossible to see the animal abuses and continue participating in that way of life simply for my own gratification. I suppose others must have an easier time bracketing things out and ignoring what are, to me, some massively brutal realities.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Bertie to see other possibilities, people need to be receptive. In an old thread I described eating a portion of umluk, or whale blubber offered by Inuit at Point Barrow. I accepted, knowing how sacred food as a bond is in so many cultures. My party all reclined in horror ( We were after all a bunch of 'save the whale' activists.) The Inuit refused to even speak with anybody but me. I have long observed meatless days, now translated into a schedule of formal orthodox fast observances. I have often suprised people who see me consume a buffalo burger one day and then refuse factory pig meat or meat as a whole on another. I'm not telling you to eat a serving of road kill ( there is a cookbook for it's 'gleaning' preparation and cooking- honest.) But you need to have options for people in that vast area of possibilities when you mention this passion. Can you tell people the many advantages and ethical arguments for american bison?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

BertieW said:


> ...To me, it is impossible to see the animal abuses and continue participating in that way of life simply for my own gratification. I suppose others must have an easier time bracketing things out and ignoring what are, to me, some massively brutal realities.


Watching the video was unpleasant...the directed cruelty towands animals was palpable. Though, in all probability, I will continue to eat meat...and perhaps feel somewhat less satisfied with the experience. However before "crying a river" over man's treatment of animals, I find myself wondering how many of us ever really consider our widespread mistreatment of our fellow man. Visit some of the lower end nursing homes, senior centers or youth homes. Take a moment to consider the consistent harassment and brutilization of those less fortunate in our schools, that lead to events such as Columbine. Sadly, we frequently seem to treat our fellow human beings with the same callous disregard, that is demonstrated in the video of meat production you referrenced. That thought does bring tears to my eyes!


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BertieW said:


> I wonder...but of course can't get inside their heads. To me, it is impossible to see the animal abuses and continue participating in that way of life simply for my own gratification.* I suppose others must have an easier time bracketing things out and ignoring what are, to me, some massively brutal realities.*


Come walk a week in my shoes if you want to see some first hand, massively brutal reality. And it will all deal with people, not animals. I think Bertie, even you are able to "bracket things out" to one extent or another.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Come walk a week in my shoes if you want to see some first hand, massively brutal reality. And it will all deal with people, not animals. I think Bertie, even you are able to "bracket things out" to one extent or another.


Guys, I hear you on the "man's inhumanity to man" point. Loud and clear. And I agree that this too is an abomination, one that troubles me greatly. But I don't see how this is any real arguement to justify animal cruelty. I think all forms of cruelty deserve our attention and that the best chance of making our world a better place is through developing a sense of compassion for our fellow creatures, regardless of how many legs they have.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BertieW said:


> Guys, I hear you on the "man's inhumanity to man" point. Loud and clear. And I agree that this too is an abomination, one that troubles me greatly. But I don't see how this is any real arguement to justify animal cruelty. I think all forms of cruelty deserve our attention and that the best chance of making our world a better place is through developing a sense of compassion for our fellow creatures, regardless of how many legs they have.


Bertie:

I was not attempting to justify anything, in some form of tu quoque or quid pro quo. You accused us meat eaters of being able to "bracket things out" and I was merely suggesting that this extends even to ethical vegetarians.


----------



## tabasco (Jul 17, 2006)

I didn't watch the entire video either, so I'm not sure about the "directed cruelty toward animals" part. I do know that many, many people have no clue as to how their food arrives on the plate. 

Long ago, in another "back-to-the-land" life we raised rabbits, chickens, gees, & pigs. We ate them, and in some self-righteous rant (persists, I'm afraid), I noted the moral superiority of those who work on commission or meet a payroll AND slaughter & butcher their own meat. I learned much of life, death and anatomy in the warm guts of my animals, requiste knowledge for every meat-eating public-employee .

Far fewer people have any connection to the land, either for hunting or food production of any form, and they are the poorer or it. 

Now I'm an urban working rural dwelling omnivore, fortunate & grateful to be able to enjoy venison from my own land, chickens from neighbors. 

-blooded


----------



## GWhite (Aug 25, 2007)

BertieW said:


> What do I draw from it?
> 
> The same stuff this guy did:
> 
> ...


And I assume you don't wear any leather, either.... Right?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

GWHITE, Bertie has never disgraced the forum with shrill, PETA catchphrases or condemnations. His posts have in fact been thoughtull and presented in grace. The tit for tat attacks about leather shoes or other seeming hypocrisies reminds me of such an encounter. I was on Sea Shepherd when a 'writer' for a publication came on board to interview captain Paul Watson. Her 'interview' became a inquisition about the use of marine deisal fuel to power the ship, contributing to pollution. The exasperated captain explained sailing ships were to difficult to acquire,to slow and only ex coasties and yachtsmen had a clue how to man them. She continued on this 'angels on a needle' moral debate until this real clumsy, ex coastie,10%er who didn't get the word on non violence sort of bumped into her, sending the perfectly coifed MZ journalist overboard into the water.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I have to agree with Kav about Bertie. He presents most of his positions in a very non-confrontational manner. Honest, thought provoking posts are hard to come by, and while I rarely am in complete agreement with Bertie, I enjoy his posts.


----------



## GWhite (Aug 25, 2007)

Kav said:


> GWHITE, Bertie has never disgraced the forum with shrill, PETA catchphrases or condemnations. His posts have in fact been thoughtull and presented in grace. The tit for tat attacks about leather shoes or other seeming hypocrisies reminds me of such an encounter. I was on Sea Shepherd when a 'writer' for a publication came on board to interview captain Paul Watson. Her 'interview' became a inquisition about the use of marine deisal fuel to power the ship, contributing to pollution. The exasperated captain explained sailing ships were to difficult to acquire,to slow and only ex coasties and yachtsmen had a clue how to man them. She continued on this 'angels on a needle' moral debate until this real clumsy, ex coastie,10%er who didn't get the word on non violence sort of bumped into her, sending the perfectly coifed MZ journalist overboard into the water.


KAV, I fail to see how my inquiry is in any way similar to the insistent inquisition you describe, or how it rises to the level of a "tit for tat attack". I wholeheartedly agree that Bertie's level of discourse is civil and thoughtful. Perhaps I should have phrased the question more carefully, as I do not wish to be ungentlemanly enough to accuse anyone of hypocrisy.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

No Problemo. Thats mexican for PAX


----------



## GWhite (Aug 25, 2007)

Kav said:


> No Problemo. Thats mexican for PAX


Maybe the internet (at least this little corner) is for gentlemen, after all. PAX indeed.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Sorry guys I just couldn't watch much of that video anymore,too gruesome for me.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

GWhite said:


> And I assume you don't wear any leather, either.... Right?


I order from here:

https://www.mooshoes.com/


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

*compromise*

As the lama in Kipling's Kim said, "the world is a great and terrible place." The realities underlying much of life can be pretty grim. Sausage making and politics are both nasty business.

I eat meat, knowing from first hand experience what is involved in getting Bossy, Bambi or Thumper ready to cook. I think about the animals I am eating and try to be respectful of their existance by preparing their flesh properly (beef very rare), and not wasting food.

Likewise, politics is unpleasant, corrupt in one way or another, and far from what secondary school civics class describes. I presume many of the individuals who post here are aware of the sausage-nature of politics, but continue, nonetheless, to care about it, entertain hopes, maintain principles.

Almost any area of human endeavor has unseemly dimensions. The trick is, I believe to strike a balance between one's ideals and reality. There were many communists who clung to Marxist ideals, even though they knew about all the dead bodies, out of a belief that the horrer was worth it in the long run. (FWIW, I was not one of them.) Believers in the "market" (I'm not one of them, either.) think that the suffering of individuals as a consequence of globalization is a small price to pay for the alleged long-term benefits of of economic rationalization. Believers have to contend with unpleasant realities. You can deny or you can confront. Whatever the particular issue or reality, one is better off facing the underlying reality.

Regards,
Gurdon

PS: I highly recommend Cultural Amnesia by Clive James.


----------

