Mmm, steak.

[Labyrinth]

Purps, as much as I like what your doing and agree with it the tragic side is you can't make people care. You never will be able to. With things like eating cuuuuuutewiddlelambies it's often a matter of disassociation. People don't care because caring means changing and possibly feeling guilty. Who wants that?

I don't think that steak is the only thing which should be bought locally. I can find grapes from the USA, kiwifruit from Italy and roses from Columbia in my nearest supermarket. The reason it's more expensive to buy locally in supermarkets and the like is that they slap a whole lot of additional costs onto foods on the basis that people who get a feel-good sense out of them will pay more for the emotional high. And it works too. Asking for organic food 70 years ago would have been like asking for half a dozen eggs in a packet for six. Organic eggs, that is. Now we like to think that we should pay more for these things because they're a luxury.

My best recommendation would be to buy fresh produce from things like growers' markets. I know they're not everywhere, but it's a whole lot cheaper than in supermarkets because you're not paying for their profits, and the producers get a better deal out of it too.

 

[The Infamous Scamola]

Eh, frankly, I'm to lazy to care whether the steak I'm eating is free-range or not. If it's good...

I find animal rights issues to be very... overrated nowadays.

 

[Brett Alex]

Sure, by using genetics we are producing more food to help starving people, but fuck them, the cows aren't "happy".

So using needy people as guinea pigs for questionable genetics is 'helping' them, right?

 

[Semitendon]

Sure, by using genetics we are producing more food to help starving people, but fuck them, the cows aren't "happy".

So using needy people as guinea pigs for questionable genetics is 'helping' them, right?

Yes, if by "questionable" you mean- no test or study has concluded that the commercially released food is dangerous in any way.

OR, did you mean "questionable" as in- PETA says it's bad so it must be true.

OR did you mean- genetics and science are scarrry! and we shouldn't do that, because change is bad.

Since you probably meant at least one of those things, then yes, I would agree to allow experimentation.

Lets run the so called experimentation things out to it's logical conclusion, I would still have to say to allow it. If a person is starving, and going to die, and you have a food that contains extra vitamins, growth factors and other chemicals that could not only save the persons life, but vastly improve it. Then YES, I am still ok with it. If it didn't do anything, or even if it gave the person some sort of disease, it's still BETTER, because the person isn't starving to death, and will live longer. So it's like this.

Possible benefit, possible bad result Vs. Dying of starvation.

Even if that sort of thing were happening, I would still be all for it.

 

[TriGGeR_HaPPy]

The cow doesn't neccessarily know any other world besides its farm/cage life, what makes you think it has any idea it is being treated badly.

Newspeak (and the idea behind it), anyone?
Grats if you pick up on the reference.

I'm personally a bit torn on the subject. But in terms of specifically looking at cows...
Well, as a soon-to-be poor uni student, I'm going to go for the cheaper choice (whenever I get steak anyway ).

However, when I can afford it, I'ma go for the organic Scotch Fillet, thank you very much.
Yummm...

The problem is usually the cost, though...
If I can find a cheap, organic steak, then it's not a problem.
But for a few years at least, I'm simply going with what's cheapest, whatever that may be...

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Purps, as much as I like what your doing and agree with it the tragic side is you can't make people care. You never will be able to. With things like eating cuuuuuutewiddlelambies it's often a matter of disassociation. People don't care because caring means changing and possibly feeling guilty. Who wants that?

rather, people don't care because there's no reason to care. If I was a grass straw, do you really think the cow will care in the slightest about how I feel about being eaten? Do you think the cow would care if I was a gentically engineered "super grass straw" or not?

Or let's take predators as an example. Do you think a bear would care about how you feel about being mauled to death and then eaten by it? Or a Lion perhaps? Or a Shark?

it doesn't make any sense being overly protective and caring for species that wouldn't repay the care in any way or form...

 

[bluepilot]

I think you should care about what you eat. All of the added vitamins and hormones that they give to cows ultimatly end up in our stomachs. So, giving cows a healthy life means a nice healthy steak for us.

I do not want my steak to become as processed as my microwavable chicken thai pao.

 

[Brett Alex]

Sure, by using genetics we are producing more food to help starving people, but fuck them, the cows aren't "happy".

So using needy people as guinea pigs for questionable genetics is 'helping' them, right?

Yes, if by "questionable" you mean- no test or study has concluded that the commercially released food is dangerous in any way.

OR, did you mean "questionable" as in- PETA says it's bad so it must be true.

OR did you mean- genetics and science are scarrry! and we shouldn't do that, because change is bad.

Since you probably meant at least one of those things, then yes, I would agree to allow experimentation.

Lets run the so called experimentation things out to it's logical conclusion, I would still have to say to allow it. If a person is starving, and going to die, and you have a food that contains extra vitamins, growth factors and other chemicals that could not only save the persons life, but vastly improve it. Then YES, I am still ok with it. If it didn't do anything, or even if it gave the person some sort of disease, it's still BETTER, because the person isn't starving to death, and will live longer. So it's like this.

Possible benefit, possible bad result Vs. Dying of starvation.

Even if that sort of thing were happening, I would still be all for it.

DISCLAIMER: I don't support, care, or know anything about PETA. You have issues with them. Stop projecting those issues onto anything I say. (In fact, I think it would be better served if we kept testing genetically modified products on animals rather than humans)

Its good to know that you are okay with it. Because I mean, when it turns out to harm that person, its you who will be suffering, right?

But nitpicks aside, everything you said is correct. Absolutely and 100% correct.

Or at least, it would be, if we actually had a food shortage. But we do not have a food shortage, we have distribution issues.

If we were in the horrible dire straits of a worldwide food shortage, companies testing their products on the less fortunate would, if not being acceptable at least be understood and make sense. But we aren't. So instead its unethical free testing.

 

[RufusMcLaser]

I evaluate my steak (which I dearly love) on the following qualities:

1.) pleasure derived from the eating thereof



...any other considerations, including price, are so minor as to not bear mention.

 

[Labyrinth]

rather, people don't care because there's no reason to care. If I was a grass straw, do you really think the cow will care in the slightest about how I feel about being eaten? Do you think the cow would care if I was a gentically engineered "super grass straw" or not?

Or let's take predators as an example. Do you think a bear would care about how you feel about being mauled to death and then eaten by it? Or a Lion perhaps? Or a Shark?

it doesn't make any sense being overly protective and caring for species that wouldn't repay the care in any way or form...

And so because we're animals too it makes it okay to mistreat our food when we can do better? Does that mean that because we're animals we should sleep naked in caves and eat our food raw? I'm for humane treatment and killing because I don't like the idea of torturing something when having healthy cattle in good circumstance avoids a whole raft of issues both for the produce and for the creatures.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

And so because we're animals too it makes it okay to mistreat our food when we can do better? Does that mean that because we're animals we should sleep naked in caves and eat our food raw? I'm for humane treatment and killing because I don't like the idea of torturing something when having healthy cattle in good circumstance avoids a whole raft of issues both for the produce and for the creatures.

What we SHOULD do is prioritize our own species first and foremost, before considering spending resources on animal treatment.

Come back when there's no more starving, naked people in the world who can't even drink clean water, and then we'll discuss the animals. Until then, all resources spent on animals are wasted resources.

As long as any meat industry is keeping hungry people fed in some way, it should stay...

 

[Labyrinth]

What we SHOULD do is prioritize our own species first and foremost, before considering spending resources on animal treatment.

Come back when there's no more starving, naked people in the world who can't even drink clean water, and then we'll discuss the animals. Until then, all resources spent on animals are wasted resources.

As long as any meat industry is keeping hungry people fed in some way, it should stay...

You seem to miss the idea that I'm against profiteering, which is the cause of many global problems. Take Cambodia for example. That could be a breadbasket for much of Asia. It has some of the most fertile soils in the world. However, the land is used to grow money crops for the west such as coffee, tea and spice rather than food. The same goes for much of the meat industry, as the same amount of land could produce a whole lot more food in terms of quantity if it were crops, but the money for farmers would be less. Much of that comes from the buyers who push prices down in order to up their own profit margin. It's a very fucked up system over all.

Unethical cattle methods can cause huge problems not just for the beasts themselves. Mad Cow Disease was a result of cannibalistic feed practices in which the brains and offal of slaughtered cattle were minced up, cooked and mixed in order to up the protein in stock diets. Prions can survive heat treatment so they got passed on. Much the same way battery hens and caged stock are more susceptible to disease spread because they're kept close together and hygiene is more difficult.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

You seem to miss the idea that I'm against profiteering, which is the cause of many global problems. Take Cambodia for example. That could be a breadbasket for much of Asia. It has some of the most fertile soils in the world. However, the land is used to grow money crops for the west such as coffee, tea and spice rather than food. The same goes for much of the meat industry, as the same amount of land could produce a whole lot more food in terms of quantity if it were crops, but the money for farmers would be less. Much of that comes from the buyers who push prices down in order to up their own profit margin. It's a very fucked up system over all.

Indeed, it is a fucked up system. It's called capitalism, and has been fucked up ever since it was invented.

Unethical cattle methods can cause huge problems not just for the beasts themselves. Mad Cow Disease was a result of cannibalistic feed practices in which the brains and offal of slaughtered cattle were minced up, cooked and mixed in order to up the protein in stock diets. Prions can survive heat treatment so they got passed on. Much the same way battery hens and caged stock are more susceptible to disease spread because they're kept close together and hygiene is more difficult.

Uhm, Mad Cow Disease = "huge" problem?

since 1996, 139 people have died due to a variation of the Mad Cow disease. 139 people out of the total global population isn't especially alarming. I mean, more people die from car accidents ever day...

 

[Labyrinth]

Uhm, Mad Cow Disease = "huge" problem?

since 1996, 139 people have died due to a variation of the Mad Cow disease. 139 people out of the total global population isn't especially alarming. I mean, more people die from car accidents ever day...

The loss of livestock was enormous too. You can't sell the meat from infected creatures.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

The loss of livestock was enormous too. You can't sell the meat from infected creatures.

Which is pretty stupid, since there were not much scientific evidence backing that mad cow disease could spread from cows to humans by eating infected meat, and the fact that only 139 people died as a result seems to confirm that fact, mainly because these people were more likely to either have a genetic predisposition towards falling ill of eating the infected meat, or the very meat they ate had a different strain of mad cow disease (a viral mutation, which is very common occurence among viral agents in general).

 

[Constable Narwhal]

All I have to say is "Meat is murder!...tasty tasty murder."

 

[O277]

This is why I turned Veggie, the meat industry is a joke, its a holocaust every day and it sickens me. I don't see why we can't just eat the crops we feed to the cows, would pretty much stop world hunger at the same time. Just shit that it takes 100kgs of mackrell to feed 10kgs worth of Tuna, because Tuna tastes better, bullshit...

 

[Macgyvercas]

I don't particularly care where my meat comes from as long as it's safe to eat and is cooked medium rare.

 

[Spacelord]

(Also, it helps if you're approached by those radical activists, to tell them how you eat your meat)

Like I give a shit about arguing with activists.

Honestly, animal rights and global warning do not concern me. I just don't care. All I care about is that the meat is good. And yeah, when not mass produced for the greatest possible profit margin, it tastes better. That's the only reason why I should ever choose to buy the more expensive meat.