/ck/ - Food & Cooking

>>5695310
is this the video where the frog is eated alive? i can't watch

>>5695310
That's pretty fucked up.

Frog muscles, when in contact with something high in salt (like soy sauce) has muscle spasms that makes it seem alive.

>>5695317
>>5695318

>How terrible! Soul-less japs!
>Oh boy, porkchops for dinner

>>5695310
frogs are delicious though but i dunno about raw ones

>>5695326
no im vegan ;3

>>5695326
Doubt the piglets are flayed alive in front of them and eaten while it looks at you.

>>5695326
>theres no difference between eating something thats still alive and something dead.

I bet you had plants for dinner. Don't you know those are alive you fucking monster?

>>5695338
>out of sight, out of mind

>>5695337
>>5695338

>>5695317
>>5695318
It's a reaction to salt. Octopus will do the same thing. Pretty much any freshly killed muscles will do that if you add enough salt.

>>5695346

>>5695354

I'd react the same way if you poured salt on my exposed muscles. Shit hurts.

>>5695346
you seem to not grasp the fact that slaughter of larger mammals is about 99% quick, not slow and torturous like in the OP

>>5695310
>harnessing fire is one of humans greatest achievements
>Japanese still eat everything raw

hmmm

>>5695362

Their whole life is slow torture, and you overstimate the effectiveness of the slaughtering process. "Oops, I missed"

>>5695373
Depends on the animal. I do a bit of hunting, I avoid battery shit.

I worked in an abattoir, cattle slaughter is as humane as killing an animal for food on an industrial scale could possibly get.

>>5695373

>veal is the only meat

>>5695373
So if the frog is pampered then skinned alive that's OK?
Are you vegan or Japanese or what?

>>5695385
BUT ANON KILLING IS INHUMANE!1!!!!!1

>>5695390

Both are morally wrong, it's just hypocritical to yell at the Japanese for killing animals one way when you're about as bad. If you buy eggs, you pay people to throw millions of live baby chicks into a meat grinder.

>>5695422
morals are subjective

You have to understand that asians are a savage people who will eat anything that moves, including when it is moving.

This is why Chinese tards are killing off every endangered thing because they want it for some bs mythical cancer cure or some other nonsense.

It's not as if every Japanese person eats this or thinks it's humane. Just like not every Frenchman eats foie gras. East Asia is certainly more guilty of it though.

>>5695434

If you don't believe me, another case in point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

No wonder China hates Japan so much.

>>5695422
>you pay people to throw millions of live baby chicks into a meat grinder.
but I don't
The woman who I buy eggs from sells the roosters.

>>5695441

The woman is lying to you. To get roosters to sell, you have to raise baby chicks to adulthood. During that time, unlike hens who lay eggs, they contribute nothing at all to your profits and are just a giant money sink. This is why egg companies dispose of the males in the first place.

>>5695446
>implying you cant sell chicks

>>5695441

Grinding up a bunch of chicks instantly isn't the same as serving living creatures.

In nature I'm sure frogs have much worse all the time, but we have a choice in the matter.

>>5695435
except most frenchmen do eat foie and there isnt anything inhumane about it. At least not how they do it at all the farms in France

>>5695451

Who are you going to sell a bunch of male chicks to?

>>5695456
anyone who wants to raise chickens

Hell they even taste good if you cut their balls off or eat em young

you dont know much about chickens do you

>>5695452

>hey now, mass murdering babies isn't as bad as ritual torture

>>5695324
Incorrect. The frog shook in realization that he was about to die to be an ingredient of a bland jap dish.

>>5695462
please most of you save the animal vegan types are pro choice and abortion is the #1 cause of death in the US

>>5695467

This is what we in the business call a strawman argument. Nobody's talking about abortion

>>5695471
no but you are talking about how terrible animal murder is and completely ignoring the fact that most vegans are okay with mass murder of humans

>>5695446
>egg companies
This bitch keeps like 500 chickens among other poultry, she isn't a large company vegan.
Go guilt someone else.

>>5695473

I don't care what you think "most vegans" believe, it doesn't pertain to this. You can't excuse your own behavior like that

>>5695486
yeah but it does pertain to this

>>5695473
>most abortions
>murder

>>5695486
>You can't excuse your own behavior
Guess I'm not going stomping on baby animal heads this week. Shucks.

>>5695490

You're trying to use your personal perception of what some people who are vegan and who aren't me believe to refute what I'm saying about your immoral actions. That is a strawman argument.

>>5695510
morals are subjective

>>5695515

Well that's a convenient excuse to do anything you want and not feel guilty or ashamed

>>5695520
you assume that b/c I dont adhere to your idea of morality I have none of my own.

>>5695520
When i look back at my life in a few decades I think I'll be fine with the fact that I ate steaks and burgers and poultry and eggs.

>>5695520
There is nothing you can say that will make me feel ashamed that I eat meat products.

You should feel ashamed that while you are spending so much on your vegan diet that there are people literally starving

>>5695523

I'm sure Ted Bundy had his own subjective morality too

>>5695527

>spending so much on your vegan diet

A diet made up of the cheapest foods in the world is supposed to be expensive?

>>5695528
>any morals besides mine are as bad as a serial killers

>>5695533

>serial killers are bad because they don't follow my person moral code

>>5695310
ITT: Vegans so thoroughly fucking butthurt that they would defend the consumption of a still-living animal for entertainment just to spite those who aren't vegans.

/ck/ really is the shittiest board. The neo-nazis on /pol/ are more morally upright.

>>5695537
thats not even close to what I said

>vegan logic

The way I see it, I don't like that it has to be done but it has to be done. Survival often means taking the lives of the lesser animals. Until we develop a foolproof vegetarian method that can feed us all and not drive us insane, we have little choice.

this thread is doomed pls stop

>>5695545
Id still eat meat and meat products even if there was a cheap foolproof vegetarian method

>>5695543

It's just turning your logic around on you, and your denial again shows your hypocrisy.

>just because I kill animals for fun doesn't mean I'm a bad person, you just have different morals to me. I'm not objectively bad like some SERIAL KILLER
>just because they kill people for fun doesn't mean they're bad people, they just have different morals than you

>>5695531
>not eating roadkill

>>5695552
but i dont kill for fun

>>5695537
Utilitarianism don't real.

>>5695552
FYI most people dont kill the meat they eat.

>>5695545

Most "feed the hungry" organizations are vegetarian/vegan because that's the easiest, cheapest way to feed large groups of people. Such a diet is also recommended to people in developed countries for the health benefits associated with it. The thing about it is, we don't need meat, and in fact we may be healthier without it, but people don't want to stop killing animals to get it. In that context, I don't see how someone can possibly argue it isn't immoral.

>>5695563
So what do you propose we do with all the domesticated animals if the whole world became "moral" and went vegan?

>>5695567

Finish off the last of them and stop breeding more

>>5695571
>killing is immoral
>kill all the animals

>>5695573

Ideally we wouldn't have to kill the remaining ones, but the US alone eats about 10 billion animals every year, so of course we couldn't release them into the wild. The answer is to end the cycle, not to keep it going forever

>>5695583
so murder is only justifiable when you want it to be?

>>5695591
look up green fascism
genocide is a-OK

I have no problem with the gore and realities of the meat industry, dad worked at the local bacon factory for years and we've gone hunting roos for dog meat on many occasions, but I fail to understand the appeal of making your food look like it's alive and in agony.

>>5695583
Thats only 32 animals a year per person so thats not really that much especially considering most of them are chickens which arent very big

>>5695591

If the option is one year's worth of killing, which had already been going on for hundreds of years, to end potentially hundreds or thousands more years worth, yes. Of course, it's also ridiculous to think the world would just instantly, one day, all become vegan, rather than a steady decline in meat/dairy sales over a period of time.

>>5695602
So its better to wipe several species off the planet?

>>5695595
Because you aren't a soul-less Jap mate.

>>5695606

Sure, if the alternative is to keep them around just to cyclically kill them

>>5695606
I think we would be more likely to turn farm animals into zoo exhibits. What about population control don't you understand? If you just let all the animals free one day its going to be like the boar problem in the south where they multiply endlessly and destroy everything around them. I'm sorry but killing a lesser species that has no regard for others is not evil. We as the intelligent species know how to control and manage our population.

Sneak attack Jap food = BORING and not worthy of blowing my nose upon. Americans have long memories and we don't take kindly to folk that side with snotzies then sneak attack us at Pearl Harbor.

>>5695618
read the reply chain, I agree with you. Nothing wrong with eating animals

>>5695621
Honestly after seeing how bad Japs are at driving Im starting to think Pearl Harbor was an accident

>>5695591
Killing an animal population that is destroying crops and the ecosystem is self defense. That is why most rational people are okay with animal population control. I think we don't need to mass raise animals in shitty conditions, but rather have hunters keep wild population in check.

>>5695629
>no excuse for killing animals
>except this one and this one and this one

>>5695635

You're getting different responses from different people, and not actually listening to any of them

>>5695635
Im not the same guy, I just jumped in. Theres plenty of good excuses for killing animals, and plenty of bad ones. Doesn't take a genius to separate them either.

>>5695639
Like I said, there is no way you are going to convince me to stop eating meat or that its immoral

haznig look that one up

>>5695649
So would you eat meat if they made a plant that looked and tasted the same? Just to be an asshole?

>>5695649

Do you believe killing/eating human meat is immoral?

>>5695660
Thats a moot point since they dont look or taste the same. I also dont consider it being an asshole

>>5695664
animals =/= humans

>>5695668

Don't run from the question

>>5695675
Depends on the situation, if you have to to survive then no its not immoral

>>5695680

What if you don't need it to survive? What if it would actually harm your health to eat a person? Would it be an immoral act?

>>5695686
whether its harmful to your health or not has nothing to do with morality

>>5695691

I'd say it does. Harming someone for no real reason is one thing, but harming someone to your own detriment just takes senseless to a new level. Wouldn't it be immoral to do such a thing?

>>5695705
no

>>5695721

Okay, so it's not immoral to kill and eat other humans. In your subjective morality, what is considered immoral then?

>>5695732
I already said it was unless you had to.

>>5695705
The only way you could possibly justify unhealthy eating as immoral is through saying that more people would be upset if you died younger or increased tax burden or some shit.

But definitely not on its own like you put it. The harming another is really the only thing that's important morally.

>>5695737

Alright, so it's immoral to kill and eat a human for the sake of your own pleasure. Some people would disagree with that. Why do you believe they're wrong, and why would you agree with them if they were talking about non-human animals instead? In other words, why is there a logical inconsistency in the morality when we switch from humans to cows?

>>5695746

Like the guy said, in a survival scenario, he believes it's fair and reasonable. The opposite of a survival scenario is a scenario in which the activity itself is killing you. It follows that such a scenario would be more immoral.

>>5695732
I'm not sure why people insist on putting animals on the same tier as humans. Lesser species are supposed to be controlled and domesticated for whatever use they can provide. That means that eating animals is objectively not evil. However, needlessly torturing them is clearly subjective as most would agree. Theres no point comparing said laws and standards to humans because we have our own.

>>5695747
because animals =/= human

>>5695761

>I'm better than them, I can do whatever I want

Sounds familiar

>>5695753
Survival scenarios don't take into account long term health effects, just calorie content, as that's really what you need to survive. Eating the wrong piece of human meat and getting poisoned isn't something with moral implications and anything longer term goes beyond the scope of survival situations. If the only thing you can eat is human meat long term in a longer lasting survival situation then there are clearly pressing enough reasons that overcome the health worries anyway. Unhealthy food choices are not the opposite of a starvation survival scenario.

>>5695768

How is that any different from a human serial killer saying "they aren't ME, so they don't matter"? Your "morals" are just excuses to do what you like to others while shaming people who would do what you do, to you

>>5695769
The difference is that we have scientific proof of our differences from animals. If there were any MAJOR differences in the human races that could be backed up, you damn well know people will do that all over again. Don't try to pull the racist card, because one day it might actually be reasonable.

bimonthly reminder for everyone vaguely interested in cooking ethics to read david foster wallace's 'consider the lobster', it's short and entertaining and makes you think m8

>>5695781

In that scenario, short-term survival would obviously be more important than long-term health. If the short-term survival factor isn't there and it's just you doing what you like at the expense of others for no practical reason, that is textbook immorality no matter what you say you believe

>>5695782
A serial killer doesn't kill to survive. They kill for entertainment or revenge. We kill animals for survival (most of the time), and you should not support the others.

>>5695769
only 1.6% of Americans owned slaves at its height. Africa and the Middle East had a lot more slaves than America ever did. It wasnt about being better it was about cheap labor.

>>5695791

>We kill animals for survival (most of the time)

I don't know what country you live in, but no 1st world nation kills/eats animals for their own survival

>>5695783
not gonna go all /pol/ but there are a lot of genetic differences

>>5695797
You dont enslave something that you consider an equal.

>>5695804
Hey im all for slowing it down for alternatives, but not eliminating it entirely on the basis of morals.

>>5695804
We kill animals for sustenance serial killers do it for other reasons

>>5695807
sure you can, there were white slaves before they started importing blacks and there are lots of other cases of slavery of the same people

Africans enslaving other africans, russians enslaving russians etc. You do it for the cheap labor.

>>5695814

>We kill animals for sustenance serial killers do it for other reasons

Including sustenance

>>5695821
>cherry picking

>>5695833

Just helping you understand why the excuses you use to justify one thing aren't consistent with your views on other things

>>5695838
yeah except they are.

>>5695668
!= > =/=

>>5695784
here's one for you, this is monthly.
We're not all twats ya know.

https://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-1407.html

>>5695843
oh look a name fag shitposting

>>5695850
this is /ck/

>>5695790
Depends entirely on which theory of morality you subscribe to.

>>5695833
No.
>>5695814
This is cherry picking.
>>5695821
This is nitpicking.

>>5695310
Another thread successfully ruined by vegans

>>5695891

Yeah, this could have been a great, civilized thread about the japanese eating live frogs

>>5695917
not the point

>>5695807
Read a history book please

>>5696233
Provide an example of a group of people enslaving another which they consider equal.

>>5696235
see
>>5695817

>>5696235
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nexum

>>5696245
Debt bondage =/= slavery.

>>5696242
Obviously they considered the other tribes or people of different ethnicities or social levels to be inferior, not equal.

>>5696249
>transfer of rights
>implying you have any evidence backing to tribes considering them inferior

>>5696249
>forced labor for no money
>that's not slavery, it's indentured servitude.
you're splitting hairs here buddy. a slave is a slave.

>>5695422
someone pls link the .gif of this

>>5696249
>Chattel slavery is the only kind of slavery

Eat a million dicks.