Amy, I'm actually a bit surprised at your comment to the vegan. I expected something like, "Of course! If nobody buys the meat, there's no reason to raise the cute buggers at all. We'd have no cows! What kind of world would that be?"

OK. Maybe that's no very you, but I could see you saying it anyway.

Caring about animals and not eating animals are hardly mutually exclusive.

As you point out, this is just one more way people want to get YOU to stop doing what THEY don't want to do.

Never eaten fois gras, no interest in it, but it's another little chipping away at freedom, a little bit of the government getting involved in a place they needn't do. Not passing a law because the product isn't being being prepared or shipped properly, or some reasonable issue that might warrant their involvement; no, they ban it because a bunch of well-meaning busybodies think it's mean.

It's not going to be the big huge gulping grabs of freedom that will finally cause Americans to "revolt" (for lack of a better term), it'll be small, stupid little things like this. Because people will see these changes as something they can actually fight, exactly because they're small and stupid, and when they see how the government reacts to that pushback, they will realize that the proverbial line was crossed some time back.

We'll see more and more of these little feats of disobedience, and eventually, the government will see a need to respond, and it will not be in a small way. And it will make them look even more foolish.

I think Kathleen Madigan said it best...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqYk3KNliSA

So you are okay with force feeding the birds and the sale of foie gras?

Apparently, there's a move on in the US Congress to bypass California's ban.

See, it would be a violation of the Commerce Clause...whoops.

Of course I care about animals, they're delicious!

Of course, I love animals - I kill 'em, I eat 'em, and I wear 'em! What's not to love?

"So you are okay with force feeding the birds and the sale of foie gras?"

I am, and I don't eat foie gras. But I do hate geese.

"Think gavage is cruel -- or steak eating is evil? Don't eat foie gras or any steak not preceded by the word "tofu." But, don't legislate what others can and can't eat. "

This comeback doesn't satisfy someone who believes there's a third-party victim. People who object to gavage are trying to stop what's being done to the birds, period, not just control who eats the stuff.

You make an attempt to explain that this practice isn't as cruel as people think. If you believed it was cruel, and that these birds really suffered, would it change your opinion? Would you draw the line at something like dog meat being served in restaurants?

I am never sure where I come down on this stuff. I feel like I have to say that animals' suffering either a) shouldn't matter at all in the eyes of the law, or b) should always be considered, in which case....more laws.

Would you draw the line at something like dog meat being served in restaurants?

I was raised in a culture that does not consider dog to be a food animal, but there are cultures that do. So, yeah. I'd allow restaurants to serve dog, goat, horse, lizard . . . pretty much anything they think they can sell. Why not?

I don't tell YOU what to eat, so you don't get to tell ME what to eat.

Another favorite quote from Uncle Ted: "Vegetarians are cool. All I eat are vegetarians - except for the occasional mountain lion steak. "

This comeback doesn't satisfy someone who believes there's a third-party victim.

It's the same reason why "Don't like abortion? Don't have one!" has never convinced any pro-lifer ever.

"Why not?"

I can't think of any intellectually honest reason "why not" if we're eating other animals that are equally intelligent and capable of suffering.

Thanks, Monica. I was going to use that example, but I dreaded someone treating it as a comparison rather than an analogy.

"Why not?"

I can't think of any intellectually honest reason "why not" if we're eating other animals that are equally intelligent and capable of suffering.

As equally intelligent and capable of suffering as what?

"If we eat pigs, why not eat cats?" was the gist.

Because cats are stringy and nasty.

Most of the animals people don't care to eat, are just plain not good tasting. OR keeping them has in the past served a specific purpose that was more important than any dietary benefit they may provide by being eaten.

Dogs were used for herding and hunting. Cats hunted mice. Horses carried men and goods.

After a long enough period of time like this, the idea of eating them just did not appeal to most people because of the resulting cultural norms. Some cultures do eat those animals, but what is notable about those is that their dietary possibilities are usually far less broad than our own.

If our traditional sources of meat dwindled down to horses and dogs, eventually there would be breeds raised for that purpose and our cultural norm against eating them would be reserved towards other breeds.

When you get right down to it though...why does it matter why we choose to eat a cow and not a horse, a chicken and not a cat?

What matters is that some nosy dickwad with more heart than brain decided we shouldn't be able to choose our own food, and managed to get some power tripping government dick to make a decision for us, regardless of what we wanted and regardless of whether he even should be making that decision at all.

Robert: Because cats are stringy and nasty.

Obviously, you've never had Chinese take out.

@Patrick:

Those little bbq'd cat ribs are delish! :)

Actually you used to be able to get horse meat in some places. Many places in Europe you still can. But nowadays it primarily centered in Asia.

But a large portion of "pet" animals fall out of favor with economic growth. Cats, dogs and horses have been "service" animals for centuries. They are used for food animals when absolutely needed. And maybe for a while after, such as during WWII cat was nicknamed Roof Rabbit. Dog, raised for the purpose, is still a delicacy in the Asian world, but not in the norm. The Asian world regularly cycles economic distress.

The "cute", "friendly" animals that aren't as easy to keep in a domestic situation (rabbit, sheep, goat, etc) shift in popularity depending on availability. For example a herd of goats or sheep will crop a field to the roots and essentially require a reseeding or a fallow period.

Then you have cows, pigs, and chickens (and other fowl). Cows and pigs are relatively easy to keep and don't need 24 hour attention. The fowl -- there's a reason bird brain is an insult in just about every culture. They have been domesticated for centuries, but generally aren't considered pets.

Some cultures have other (semi) domesticated animals such as reindeer. But those are exceptions depending on the climes they live in.

But regardless -- this legislation has absolutely ZERO to do with food safety!!!

As noted above -- I'm not interested in eating foie gras, but that is my choice. I eat or have eaten many ethnic foods from, and in, many places of the world.

Food legislation should only be towards food safety. If people were getting sick in multitudes from eating foie gras from food poisoning or something similar, I could agree to the legislation. That this is all about how the animals are "abused" I have to disagree with it.

The other issue is that any federal legislation Constitutionally can't be done. This is a state level issue per the 10th. It is left up to California to figure it out.

I can't think of any intellectually honest reason "why not" if we're eating other animals that are equally intelligent and capable of suffering. - Insufficient Poison

As equally as what?

"I can't think of any intellectually honest reason "why not" if we're eating other animals that are equally intelligent and capable of suffering. - Insufficient Poison"

I interpret this to mean that the animals themselves are of similar intellect and capacity to suffer between one another, a cat suffers like a cow, etc etc etc.

You know, it amazes me that people ascribe human feelings and thinking to animals. Animals do NOT think and feel the same way humans do. To wit:

When asked by a reporter "What do you think is the last thought in the head of a deer before you shoot him? Is it, 'Are you my friend?' or is it 'Are you the one who killed my brother?'",
Ted Nugent answered "Deer aren't capable of that kind of thinking. All they care about is, 'What am I going to eat next, who am I going to screw next, and can I run fast enough to get away. They are very much like the French."

I have a simple rule when it comes to food: I will eat anything that doesn't eat me first.

"I interpret this to mean that the animals themselves are of similar intellect and capacity to suffer between one another, a cat suffers like a cow, etc etc etc."

Yes. The other interpretation (that animals have an intellect equal to humans) is just bizarre.

Flynne, coincidentally, this showed up in the Daily Mail this morning:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2174780/In-mourning-Dolphin-photographed-carrying-body-baby-heartbreaking-ritual.html

I buy meat, leather, and fur. If I had mice, I'd hire an exterminator. Occasionally, though, I ponder whether certain animals deserve special treatment. I also wonder about the morality of causing even a stupid creature prolonged pain and suffering to produce something that isn't, you know, medicine.

Should the line be drawn anywhere? What if someone invented kitten baseball? Would that be worse than eating them?

I don't think I agree with the foie gras ban, but for me it's not an easy question.

It's not totally cut and dried for me either, IP. I mean, I would never even think of eating a dolphin, but that's just me. I wouldn't eat whale either, but then again, it's never been an option for me. I get that some animals show compassion for their own, and maybe even other, species. But human beings are omnivores, always have been, always will be. I don't bother other people about what they eat or don't eat, and I don't appreciate other people bothering me about what I eat or don't eat. Someone trying to pass a law about it just rubs me the wrong way. It's idiocy.

There's good foie gras producers and bad ones, just like eggs, beef, and pork. Gavage is not inherently cruel. I wouldn't hesitate to get foie gras from Hudson Valley, for instance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kh_wJnQmETE&feature=related

But I don't eat eggs that come from battery farms.

(Dolphins are rapey little sons of bitches, I'd totally eat one.)