• 91 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by alternate (2707 posts) -

I can sympathise in that I don't think a nanny state (literally in this case) should go about banning things, much better to educate people and let them make their own choices ...

but, you should seriously find another cause to get behind. The way they farm this stuff is fucking disgusting.

#2 Edited by alternate (2707 posts) -

oops - should be in off-topic and now not letting me delete it. If a mod could move ...

thx

also : can't spell Foie Gras.

#3 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18955 posts) -

Why should I google Fois Gras to understand what you're talking about?

#4 Posted by NicksCorner (416 posts) -

I never had it, must be a horrible life for those poor birds. But then again, I have often eaten really cheap chicken. I guess they arent much better off.

#5 Posted by mosespippy (4185 posts) -

There is apparently a loophole. The Presidio Social Club claims to be exempt because it is located on federal land.

http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2012/07/presidio-restaurant-gets-around-state-foie-gras-ban

@AhmadMetallic: It's fatty goose liver I believe. It was banned in California effective July 1st (even though the law banning it was signed 8 years ago). I absolutely disagree with altering laws and setting their start date to be so far down the road that the government can't be held accountable but that's a different issue. The issue with foie gras is that animal rights activists believe growing it is painful for the animal due to the liver problems they get.

#6 Posted by scalpel (314 posts) -

@AhmadMetallic said:

Why should I google Fois Gras to understand what you're talking about?

Do you need a babysitter for every thread?

#7 Edited by alternate (2707 posts) -

@AhmadMetallic said:

Why should I google Fois Gras to understand what you're talking about?

If that is a zinger on my misspelling, then nice one.

If you are genuinely interested, it involves California banning the sale of goose/duck livers due to concerns about how animals are cruelly force fed in it's production.

#8 Posted by Arbie (1449 posts) -

It takes like two seconds to google 'Fois Gras California' and the top link is a news article . . .

I agree with it being banned. It's disgusting, like you said. I like the idea of educating people on how something is farmed and then letting them make their own choice, but I can't help but feel anyone who still decides to eat it then deserves this to happen to them:

"I'd like to sit all 100 of them down and have duck and goose fat - better yet, dry oatmeal - shoved down their throats over and over and over again," he told the San Francisco Chronicle in April.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/executive-style/culture/lawsuit-challenges-us-foie-gras-ban-20120710-21t0t.html#ixzz20Dz7AYb2

#9 Posted by Vodun (2370 posts) -

Not really a nanny state when it's protecting someone who can't protect themselves. Sorta like claiming it's a nanny state that you want the police to protect you from criminals.

#10 Posted by alternate (2707 posts) -

Like I say, I am no PETA lover but the liberals need to find a better poster child. Something everyone can get behind.

It is like defending free speech - which I believe in and wish my country had - by championing the cause of racists.

#11 Posted by Mageman (351 posts) -

So why was it banned ?

#12 Posted by ZeForgotten (10397 posts) -

Butthurt Californians?.. Breaking news!

#13 Posted by believer258 (11914 posts) -

@Mageman said:

So why was it banned ?

Apparently, it hurts the animals.

We'll next see them banning the practice of making steers.

#14 Posted by LTSmash (626 posts) -

They tried that in Chicago but then everyone realized we would be denied stuff like this:

#15 Posted by jerseyscum (875 posts) -
@Mageman Hippies started to complain.
#16 Posted by MikkaQ (10293 posts) -

A shame for California. What's next, beef?

#17 Posted by AndrewB (7620 posts) -

I'd sarcastically ask why anyone could be against the force-feeding of animals for slaughter, but we're already raising them en-masse for the purpose of killing and eating them.

#18 Posted by Brodehouse (9951 posts) -

I support animal death, but not animal torture. Animals would eat us at their pleasure if they ruled the world. But I wouldn't want to be force fed and slave labored in order to become more economically viable for them.

I support stuff that prevents animal suffering (making any living thing suffer erodes your humanity), but PETA goes too far. We are the dominant species, we'll eat whatever we please.

#19 Posted by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

@Mageman said:

So why was it banned ?

Yea, can somebody actually post a synopsis of what's been going on this case?

#20 Posted by AndrewB (7620 posts) -

Guys, I've never eaten anything Foie Gras and never really understood what it meant until now, but it took me two seconds to figure out what was going on thanks to this thing called the internet, which you're using right now.

#21 Posted by frenchy789 (13 posts) -

As a native frenchman, I think its pretty hilarious that everyone goes up in arms about a technique that certainly isint exactly pleasant but in my mind is a hell of alot more "ethical" then the garbage meat America exports across the world in the form of fast food and other snacking food.

Hell, I wish my country would ban slim jims but thats never going to happen, if Californians actually want to ban something thats unethical, they should focus on the massive industrial cow/pig/chicken farms instead of the tiny niche Fois Gras industry.

#22 Edited by AndrewB (7620 posts) -

@frenchy789 said:

As a native frenchman, I think its pretty hilarious that everyone goes up in arms about a technique that certainly isint exactly pleasant but in my mind is a hell of alot more "ethical" then the garbage meat America exports across the world in the form of fast food and other snacking food.

Hell, I wish my country would ban slim jims but thats never going to happen, if Californians actually want to ban something thats unethical, they should focus on the massive industrial cow/pig/chicken farms instead of the tiny niche Fois Gras industry.

I think it's exactly as ethical, which means not ethical at all. I'm not against the entirely necessary process of consuming other animals, as it's what we've become biologically dependent upon to survive as a species, but the added torture of force-feeding the animal is exactly as offensive as imprisoning it in a cramped space and feeding it only the essentials of survival until it's big enough to slaughter and sell for the maximum price.

And I can't believe I'm three posts in on this debate on a video game website.

If you want to get deeper into it, I'm also a believer in human over-population, which is the root of the problem.

#23 Posted by MarkWahlberg (4605 posts) -

@scalpel said:

@AhmadMetallic said:

Why should I google Fois Gras to understand what you're talking about?

Do you need a babysitter for every thread?

NANNYMOD OBAMATHREADS TAKES AWAY OUR RIGHTS TO NOT GIVE FUCKS

#24 Posted by Iron_Tool (221 posts) -

So Kobe Beef should be banned as well then, according to some arguments here.

#25 Posted by stinky (1549 posts) -

TL;DR version why they want it banned.

(not sure how the process of slim jims are similar but i'm not french)

#26 Edited by BlackLagoon (1431 posts) -

@Mageman said:

So why was it banned ?

The animals are being constantly forcefed feed that's bad for them, to make their livers fatty and swollen (which is what fois gras is made of).

Of course, the reason this is being banned is because it affects a relatively small number of people. Because, while not as extreme as this, the average industrial farm animal lives a pretty miserable existence too, getting fed corn (which makes them sick) because it's cheap, standing around in a tiny booth all day in its own refuse, and pumped full of antibiotics and hormones to make it grow in spite of the environment it's living in. But doing something about that would actually impact a good majority of people, both consumers and business owners, so it's much easier to pretend they're all out in grassy fields, lounging about in the sun.

#27 Posted by WMWA (1162 posts) -

Foie Gras is pretty good

#28 Posted by Kerned (1170 posts) -

@LTSmash: Foie gras is incredibly delicious. I'm actually going to be heading to Chicago on Friday and already had plans to stop at Hot Doug's for that very item.

#29 Posted by ShaggE (6456 posts) -

I love the extremes people are talking in over this (in general, not talking about this thread in particular). If you're against it, you're a hippie. If you're for it, you're an animal torturer. The obsession with childish mudslinging is more disturbing than any amount of forcefeeding.

#30 Posted by Astromarine (77 posts) -

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_barber_s_surprising_foie_gras_parable.html

#31 Posted by moffattron9000 (353 posts) -

I'm just going to stick with New Zealand cow and Sheep where seeing them sitting in a field is obscenely easy and attempts to raise them indoors is immediately shot down due to public outrage.

#32 Posted by TeflonBilly (4713 posts) -

Foie gras is fantastic. Last time I was in France my friend got us reservations at some fancy Michelin star place and one of the courses was foie gras baked inside some super fluffy pastry shaped like a flame. Magnificent I tell you.

#33 Posted by Hunter5024 (5688 posts) -

Meat is pretty cool.

#34 Posted by Stonyman65 (2709 posts) -

@alternate said:

I can sympathise in that I don't think a nanny state (literally in this case) should go about banning things, much better to educate people and let them make their own choices ...

but, you should seriously find another cause to get behind. The way they farm this stuff is fucking disgusting.

It's California, dude. Common sense isn't really something that is practiced there, at least not by the Government. When it comes to the whole green-tree-hugger-loony thing, California is #1 in the world.

#35 Posted by Fattony12000 (7418 posts) -

Gotta love that gavage.

#36 Posted by s10129107 (1183 posts) -

its not about a nanny state. its about justifying animal cruelty.

#37 Posted by TIEfighter77 (80 posts) -

The market should dictate it. Put the information out and if people decide they do not approve, those places cease to exist once they stop making money. But this is America and most things here stopped making sense long ago.

#38 Posted by frenchy789 (13 posts) -

Yes, the process is not pleasant for the bird but frankly the picture of the grandpa manually doing it at least raises the human interaction with the final product, which cannot be said about factory farming.

#39 Posted by Hunkulese (2725 posts) -
@Erzs

It takes like two seconds to google 'Fois Gras California' and the top link is a news article . . .

I agree with it being banned. It's disgusting, like you said. I like the idea of educating people on how something is farmed and then letting them make their own choice, but I can't help but feel anyone who still decides to eat it then deserves this to happen to them:

"I'd like to sit all 100 of them down and have duck and goose fat - better yet, dry oatmeal - shoved down their throats over and over and over again," he told the San Francisco Chronicle in April.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/executive-style/culture/lawsuit-challenges-us-foie-gras-ban-20120710-21t0t.html#ixzz20Dz7AYb2

I sure hope your a vegetarian.

Very stupid law. How can they pass this and continue to allow the sale of beef and chicken? We grow animals for the sole purpose of slaughtering them so we can eat them and I'm fairly certain the animal isn't going to be fine with the whole slaughtering thing because we give them the occasional hug.
#40 Posted by Rayeth (1043 posts) -

Silly, silly law.

Animals are raised to be eaten. Foie gras is delicious. So I don't see any reason to stop someone from eating it, just because it might hurt the feelings of animals that are going to be killed for food later anyhow. I'm pretty sure that animals don't have feelings anyway, but that's another discussion.

There are real problems with humans that these people could be advocating for instead of defending some ducks.

#41 Posted by mikethekilla (328 posts) -

I'm Californian, I'm not butthurt.

#42 Edited by BlackLagoon (1431 posts) -

@Hunkulese said:

I sure hope your a vegetarian. Very stupid law. How can they pass this and continue to allow the sale of beef and chicken? We grow animals for the sole purpose of slaughtering them so we can eat them and I'm fairly certain the animal isn't going to be fine with the whole slaughtering thing because we give them the occasional hug.

This law was feasible because it affects a product that relatively few eat and it isn't a particularly large part of their diet. That said, comparing it to other meat product is a false equivalency - it's fully possible to raise cows and other farm animals in a reasonably comfortable and healthy manner, where they'll live a fine life up until a quick and painless death. Fois gras production is however based on making the animal sick, and its suffering is unavoidable.

#43 Posted by Arbie (1449 posts) -

@Hunkulese:Nope, but I am a vegan.

#44 Posted by jozzy (2042 posts) -

@BlackLagoon said:

@Mageman said:

So why was it banned ?

The animals are being constantly forcefed feed that's bad for them, to make their livers fatty and swollen (which is what fois gras is made of).

Of course, the reason this is being banned is because it affects a relatively small number of people. Because, while not as extreme as this, the average industrial farm animal lives a pretty miserable existence too, getting fed corn (which makes them sick) because it's cheap, standing around in a tiny booth all day in its own refuse, and pumped full of antibiotics and hormones to make it grow in spite of the environment it's living in. But doing something about that would actually impact a good majority of people, both consumers and business owners, so it's much easier to pretend they're all out in grassy fields, lounging about in the sun.

You are so right about this. Most people are not against slaughtering animals for meat, but animals are being tortured daily just so that we can have the cheapest meat possible. We don't want to give up on cheap chicken and beef, so we let that one slide. Foie grass is an easy thing to get upset about because it's a luxury item that is easy to pass on and rally against, so we feel a little better about ourselves.

That said, I will never eat foie grass because the force feeding is absolutely awful. It's easier to pretend the $3 chicken I am eating had a decent life.

#45 Posted by Ramone (2967 posts) -

The way Foie Gras is made is pretty disgusting but that's also the case behind a lot of food.

#46 Posted by Morrow (1829 posts) -

I never heard of this before. I googled, and must say after looking at some cruel pictures, good that they banned it. Should be banned everywhere. The method is utterly cruel.

#47 Posted by Ravenlight (8040 posts) -

@Morrow said:

I never heard of this before. I googled, and must say after looking at some cruel pictures, good that they banned it. Should be banned everywhere. The method is utterly cruel.

You should google how they make other foods too. You might consider giving up eating altogether.

#48 Posted by Silvergun (297 posts) -

The same people who are outraged about fois gras will happily eat a steak or burger that was treated much worse than the geese they use to make this stuff. I think people forget sometimes that we've got 6 billion people to feed on this planet, and that it's really not possible to do so with cows and chickens that roam free all day long.

With any luck, this ban will be like the Chicago one, and won't have any teeth and eventually vanish. It would be a crime if places like the French Laundry had to limit what they served because people have an unrealistic ideal of how their food is produced.

#49 Posted by Morrow (1829 posts) -

@Ravenlight:

Depends on the circumstances, I sometimes go to McDonald's, after all. I just haven't heard of a method as cruel as the mass feeding for foie gras yet. Sure, a lot of animals are only kept to be slaughtered and eaten, but at least they are treated rather decently (of course, there are always exceptions unfortunately).

Shoving a 50cm long metal pipe into the throats of ducks and gooses to force them to swallow five times their normal amount of food, often tearing holes into their body, is just disgusting. How can the people doing that not feel bad? I'll refrain from posting images here.

#50 Posted by Dexter_Morgan_ (314 posts) -

So stupid. I CAN EAT WHATEVER THE FLYING FUCK (pun intended) I WANT.