Archer Daniels Midland and Monsanto.

POMPOUS

Main Entry:
pomp·ous Listen to the pronunciation of pompous
Pronunciation:
\ˈpäm-pəs\
Function:
adjective
Date:
15th century

1 : excessively elevated or ornate 2 : having or exhibiting self-importance : arrogant
—
SANCTIMONIOUS

1: hypocritically pious or devout —
ARROGANT

So thanks for ruining Ruhlman’s blog for many of us. Congratulations. I hope you’re happy. But I doubt it. People like you are never happy even if you get everything you demand, because the only enjoyment you get in life is making other people miserable. ]]> http://blog.ruhlman.com/2008/04/best-foie-gras.html/comment-page-1#comment-39467 faustianbargain Tue, 30 Nov 1999 06:00:00 +0000 http://ruhlman.com/newblog/2008/04/best-foie-gras.html#comment-39467 food riots are also happening in mexico, morocco and uzbekistan. i havent read about food riots in india tho'..can you show me where you read/heard about this? food riots are also happening in mexico, morocco and uzbekistan. i havent read about food riots in india tho’..can you show me where you read/heard about this?

Please inform me of how much MY pity of YOU, is worth on eBay.

I have faith and wait for you to really do something significant to try to change the world, tradition, history and society instead of just flaming and trolling a renowned food writer’s blog.

Food riots are happening in your native India. That has to be important to you.

I am not trying to tweak you. I have students for which I must prepare tomorrow.

Peace; Out.

-Wilmita

Franz Kafka once said, “In the battle between you and the world, back the world.”

The world unfortunately will drag on and on, with all its faults and foibles.

You’re no better or worse than the rest of us. In the continuum of time, if this would be your greatest triumph then I have sincerely have nothing but pity for you.

Surely you can make your hurrahs in a more constructive and affective manner, than trolling on a food writer’s blog.

Over and out.

-Wilmita

e.g:

corn for cows as it isnt its natural food = bad. corn mush mixed with fat for foie gras ducks = the ducks are blessed!

also:

chicken raised in barns and not free range = bad. ducks bred and raised in confined space = who cares?

further:

no part of the pig wasted = a capital idea! the casualties of foie gras industry due to organ failures/ruptures/lack of mobility = acceptable business expense.

turkeys bred for larger breast size/white meat = yuck!! breeding hybrid sterile ducks especially because they are suitable for force feeding = yum!!

etc…you should get the idea by now….i hope.

“Sometimes it’s better if we know when to shut up, if you get my drift.”

And some people never know when to shut the hell up.

Hello!

What you bring up has been the subject of some pretty interesting research. While most of us realize that no animal on Earth will ever paint a Mona Lisa, compose symphonies or build a car, what is not always obvious is that higher moral reasoning is just as complex of a task.

Moral reasoning requires that humans like you and I place ourselves in the mind of another being. This is an extremely complex brain function limited to humans and one or two species of primate. As far as other animals are concerned, it ain’t happening.

Even in primates who have some limited moral reasoning, they are ANIMALS. They do not have nearly the level of self control that we do. They react. They live minute to minute.

Sometimes in nature, Jennie, what looks like brutal and immoral behavior is actually beneficial to the species. Natural selection compels predators to kill other’s offspring in an attempt to contine a genetic line or to rid the lineage of a sick or weak member.

Obviously this is not thought out in some lion therapy session. It is a reaction and an instinct. Read Darwin’s Origin of the Species for more.

I hope I understood your question correctly.

If you are correct then how do you respond to these questions:

Certain animals are known to cannibalize either their own offspring and/or their own siblings. Animals have been known to do this in the WILD (and not just in captivity).

Now, if the animal in this question, is as sentient a being as a human being is…then that means it knew what it was doing; it knew it was not acting in love and that it was creating pain by killing & eating its own offspring/brother/sister and using it for food.

How then is it the equivalent to a being (animal or human) that NEVER kills and eats a relative?

Or is the animal NOT a sentient being and it did what it did in moral ignorance (in which case it would not be the equivalent to a sentient human being).

You know, just because some of us don’t comment it does not mean we are not reading. If Ruhlman wishes to reduce the number of comments, he is welcome to delete my comments or to set the site for owner approval only.

Personally I don’t comment very often here because I’m a vegetarian and I’m allergic to wheat. That means no bread, no pasta, cookies, nothing. I don’t have much that’s eloquent to say on food that I don’t eat.

Also, I’m not very proficient in cooking so I have very little intelligent to offer when the subject of making food comes up. I do, however, appreciate his elements of cooking and educational posts, which are very useful to me as someone who would really love to be a good cook.

I am assuming that Ruhlman would prefer to have many readers, and that he also appreciates people’s restraint in commenting if they have nothing to say. I’m not going to make a comment like, “Duh, that’s nice” if I’m not eloquent on the subject at hand.

Sometimes it’s better if we know when to shut up, if you get my drift.

Haranguing people that will never agree with you with the same inane diatribes over and over again isn’t going to win them to your side. It’s just going to piss them off. If that was your intention, you succeeded in your mission. Now go read this again, because you people need to read it every time you feel the need to post your ridiculous arguments:

http://users.tpg.com.au/users/tps-seti/baloney.html

Claudia, Much like the ducks following the farmer – women stay with abusive boyfriend and husbands all the time. So you really shouldn’t impose your feelings on the women in my basement.

I’m pro-foie-Gras but I’m anti-self-serving-faulty-logic. Like I previously wrote: I love foie gras.

Every major progress in Human Rights over the last 500 years, was made not because of a philosophical change an advancement in the Moral Code, but because society declared a class of people worthy of protection under the Moral Code (the declaration came under varying degrees of duress).

And we have a moral code for treating animals raised for food, humane. And there’s plenty of variations, but up until the Foie post, we could consider our standard for humane treatment be “The animal shouldn’t be relieved to die.” We like our cows eating grass and walking around, we like our chickens to see sunlight and have beaks, etc… There are practical limits (gets expensive, hard to find), but it’s nice easy to follow rule.

Is Factory Farmed Meat treated humanely? No. And neither is factory farmed Foie Gras.

If One wants the smug self-satisfaction of eating humanely raised meat, then Foie Gras is off the menu (except for Sousa). If you don’t care about how your meat was treated when it was alive, then Foie Gras is OK.

Nobody ever said that. The point of that comparison (which again I’ll say is offensive and a poor choice of examples) is to debate the assertion that if someone enjoys doing something, there won’t be any stress or discomfort from forcing them to do it against their will. You have complained about the comparison, but you haven’t really given an argument that Like It=Forced To Do It.

I think you’re getting hung up on the offensiveness of the comparison and missing the point it is meant to illustrate. Tactless? Yes. But “specious”? No.