My period of fasting is going to be over. Well, fasting, I really mean not eating meat. I had smoked salmon bagels tonight, as I usually do. That's fasting the way I like it. I don't feel deprived at all.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Cryptkeeper 2024
Cryptkeeper 2023
Cryptkeeper 2022
Cryptkeeper 2021
Cryptkeeper 2020
Cryptkeeper 2019
Cryptkeeper
My Blog List
-
-
-
-
Akira est parti3 years ago
-
-
Two New Books!3 years ago
-
A Change of Scenery...4 years ago
-
It's a wonderful, wonderful life5 years ago
-
Blame Nancy Silverton...6 years ago
-
The Brexit Video6 years ago
-
Dear Rod...6 years ago
-
2016668 years ago
-
-
-
Welcome to My French Cuisine!11 years ago
-
Pumpkin carving11 years ago
-
-
Le mot juste13 years ago
-
The reason that I started this blog13 years ago
-
Moving on.13 years ago
-
Happy New Year!13 years ago
-
Hmmm...14 years ago
-
Long time no publish!14 years ago
-
the taste of halloween16 years ago
-
-
-
-
-
12 comments:
Je ne dirais pas non à un bagel- truite-fumée non plus. Mais je n'ai ni bagel, ni truite. À voir la photo, les bagels anglais sont assez carême comparés à ceux de chez Saint-Viateur....
Why don't you stay vegetarian, A is vegetarian now :-) You like animals so it would be sad to eat them, plus C would be happy
Unfortunately, there is some lamb in the fridge for tomorrow :-(
PJ-En effet, les bagels ici ne sont pas ceux de Montréal. On trouve en fait rarement de vrais bagels ici, ceux-là viennent de l'épicerie.
Lindsey-Because I love meat too much and because I do not think eating meat is de facto unethical.
Even when I ate meat I felt it was not morally right and I felt guilty. I don't want to eat intelligent animals - pigs are as intelligent as dogs. I think of my black furry friend, aka Sky. I understand why people eat meat because I'm only recently veggie again but lambs are baby animals and have barely had a chance at life
:-(
L., I see nothing immoral about eating animals, humans are after all omnivorous creatures, as long as said animals have been treated ethically and that killing one would not endanger the survival of the species. I do make a distinction between an animal, however cute and cuddly (as lambs are) and a human being, however ugly and disgusting they can be However, I extend empathy to pet animals. And I will never blame a shark or a tiger to eat me, if it ever happens, as it is in its nature to do so. I would find immoral for someone to go on a hunting trip to avenge my death. Maybe it's a cheap excuse, I don't know, but so far that's the way I see it. But yes, lambs did not live long before getting on my plate, so you might have a point there, as the lamb I am going to eat might not have been treated ethically (and neither are cows). That said, I am still going to eat it. Once a year, I think I can live with the guilt.
bien venue en angleterre! I need to focus now (distracted by the bagel)
Help needed!
Due to a glitch in amazon.uk's system, I seem to have written the only crime thriller in the UK that doesn't appear on amazon.co.uk All my publisher's other titles are listed and my book can be ordered from all other online suppliers, including amazon.com. There is no reason to exclude my title and Amazon.uk refuse to explain themselves.
I'm an insignificant individual, powerless to influence this huge organisation, but their indifference has incensed me. I'm attempting to battle amazon's technical error by asking readers to order my inexpensive paperback through other outlets.
If you would be kind enough to consider supporting my campaign against a faceless corporation, please check out my blog for details of Cut Short by Leigh Russell.
By the way, Guillaume, I don't eat meat. My reasons vary, depending on who I'm speaking to, from the high moral ground (sanctity of life) to a dislike of smelly animals. You're distracting me from my one-woman campaign against amazon again...
But morals are part of ethics, as you pointed out the lamb might not have been treated ethically. I do not blame animals for killing animals either, it is their nature, but humans have the ability to see whether something is right or wrong and we have a conscience. We don't need to eat animals to survive where as some animals do. Anyway I just thought I would challenge you as you say some controversial things sometimes, so perhaps you are looking for a battle? One I know I would never win but I feel strongly about this topic in particular! I agree with your point that meat tastes nice but not the other reasons.
LR-Hey, thanks for stopping by. How did you get to my blog? it's interesting, I have a published thesis that can be found on amazon.com but not amazon.co.uk. Sorry I distracted you from your mission with the picture and the meat debate. I might have a look into your book.
L-It is right or wrong regarding what? Animal suffering? The deer being killed by a wolf is in terrible suffering before death, but I would not accuse the wolf of being unethical. There is a difference between an emotional response to suffering and a moral one. No animal dies in comfort, except sometimes humans. Now for treating an animal ethically before death, I would tend to agree with vegetarians. That said, our body is set to eat meat as much as other types of food, and substitutes for meat are just that: substitutes. And I know I sometimes betray my ethical stand: I eat cod and tuna, even though the species are in danger. It is healthier than eating beef or chicken, but has more environmental impact. Incidentally, my wife (or, I suspect, you), does not find it as immoral as eating meat from a warm blooded animal. Again, this is because the death of a tuna does not trigger the same emotional response. Until it does, I will eat meat without feeling too much guilt.
I think you misunderstand me somehow, of course all animals feel pain and suffer when they die. Obviously if a wolf kills a deer the deer suffers. But my point is, I do not blame the wolf as that is the wolfs nature and it thinks differently to humans. It did it because it has to. We don't have to kill. We have the ability to think deeply about things and think about the consequences of our actions. We can feel guilt but I don't think the wolf can. With fish, I still feel guilty but I eat it so I do not get ill and because even though I feel sad, I think that fish are less intelligent than pigs/cows etc. It probably dies quicker and does not have to walk through a slaughter house or live its life in a stall where it cannot move, as some farm animals are treated like this in Europe. As for us being designed to eat meat, that is usually a Christian argument but it is true, we have teeth designed to eat meat. I think that's because a variety of food didn't used to be available so humans had to scavenge. I am not trying to make you be vegetarian as that is impossible and preachy, but I don't agree with all of your reasons as you don't agree with mine.
Well, I'll be damned, using a Christian argument. This was not my intention so let me rephrase that to avoid any ambiguity: through evolution, humans kept their carnivorous attributes, they might even have gained them from ape to man, they even gained skills to hunt and to domestify animals for cattle. I don't have a problem with that per se, however I do think that even animals instrumentalised to feed us should be treated humanly. When it comes to killing animals, I draw the line when one kills an animal without using the flesh or its part, when the animal killed is of an endangered species (hence I find it less ethical to eat tuna than say rabbit)and to pet animals. Inversely, I have no problem to kill animal for population control and to preserve biodiversity (something often necessary to protect an endangered species). You draw the line partially out of emotional connection, or disconnection in the case of fish. That is your right, but I do not share your views and I see nor proof that 1)it is inhenrently more ethical to consider animal life sacred, 2)a fish suffers less than other animals and 3)vegetarianism "contains" all answers to moral issues regarding animal rights.
Post a Comment