News Celebrity chef Beppe Bigazzi upsets viewers with his cat casserole

[TheDamien]

Sure its Irrelevant. They're people's pets. A cat is meant to be a pet, friend and companion and not a meal. Same for the dogs

The idea that a cat is "meant" to be a pet and that a cow is "meant" to be food is nothing more than a product of culture, upbringing and social conditioning. There are also people for whom culture and upbringing dictates that cats are a food source. Does that mean that cats are "meant" to end up on the dinner table? Your argument is equally ridiculous.

Anyway, It simply isn't acceptable a cat to be served as a meal for humans. And there isn't a lot of meat on a cat really.

You assert that it is unacceptable but your only basis for this is that it is in our culture and upbringing to consider it unacceptable or taboo. If cats were universally seen as a food source in 50 years, would it then suddenly be OK to eat them?

uh uglier animals? Btw: I dont like when any animal be killed no matter ugly or not. I said it before.

Right. Except you don't seem to mind cows being slaughtered for food half as much as you mind cats being subjected to the same fate. You could at least treat animals equally.

Cows other animals are not ugly but i said before "cows always has been food for us,"
and sure there is moar meet to feed a human. Isn't it?

So what? The status quo by itself isn't evidence that something is more ethically acceptable than the alternatives. By the same reasoning as you are using, we can reach the conclusion that rape, murder and violence are more acceptable simply because they are widespread.

The fact that cows can provide more meat than cats is irrelevant. It is not always possible to raise a herd of cattle. Sometimes it simply makes more sense to use cats as a food source.

 

[FireCat]

Your argument is equally ridiculous.

Thats nothing ridiculous about that.

If cats were universally seen as a food source in 50 years, would it then suddenly be OK to eat them?

NO!

Right. Except you don't seem to mind cows being slaughtered for food half as much as you mind cats being subjected to the same fate. You could at least treat animals equally..

Sure I have mind cows be killed to and I treat them equally really, but I Can't eat veg food I Just Can't. If I could.. Then Sure I would say cows should not been slaughtered at all neither. And I know alot of humans eat meat. But its not necessary eat cats at all.
I said before we throw away alot of meat in the garbage, Isn't it waste of food? and animals get killed for nothing?. You had any thoughts about that?
Why not give to poor people that have no food then?! Instead to throw it away? It can help alot of people

So what? The status quo by itself isn't evidence that something is more ethically acceptable than the alternatives. By the same reasoning as you are using, we can reach the conclusion that rape, murder and violence are more acceptable simply because they are widespread..

Yes Its widespread. The same for cows are a food source. Not a cat!

The fact that cows can provide more meat than cats is irrelevant. It is not always possible to raise a herd of cattle. Sometimes it simply makes more sense to use cats as a food source.

Seriously, how can you say that isn't irrelevant. You need to kill alot of cat then cows. And Why would it be impossible to raise cattle? and theres nothing sense on use a cat for food.

 

[TheDamien]

NO!

If it's not the established cultural and social conventions that determine what foods sources are ethically acceptable or not, then what is it? You can't have it both ways.

Sure I have mind cows be killed to and I treat them equally really, but I Can't eat veg food I Just Can't. If I could.. Then Sure I would say cows should not been slaughtered at all neither. And I know alot of humans eat meat. But its not necessary eat cats at all.
I said before we throw away alot of meat in the garbage, Isn't it waste of food? and animals get killed for nothing?. You had any thoughts about that?
Why not give to poor people that have no food then?! Instead to throw it away? It can help alot of people

The fact that a lot of meat is thrown away does not mean that cats, specifically, are an unacceptable food source. It is a pity that the wasted food isn't put to good use, but it has little bearing on this particular issue.

It might not be convenient for you to adopt a vegetarian diet, but that does not mean that cows are more deserving of slaughter. You'll have to find a better way to rationalize your dietary habits.

Yes Its widespread. The same for cows are a food source. Not a cat!

So what are you saying? That rape and murder are less objectionable because they are widespread? Just because something is widespread does not mean that it is more ethical.

Seriously, how can you say that isn't irrelevant. You need to kill alot of cat then cows. And Why would it be impossible to raise cattle? and theres nothing sense on use a cat for food.

Cats can sometimes make more sense as a food source. For example, the article mentions that citizens of Vicenza would eat cats in times of famine or hardship. Evidently it was not possible or practical to raise herds of cattle during these periods and cats were a readily available source of sustenance.

 

[FireCat]

You can't have it both ways..

Sure I can!

The fact that a lot of meat is thrown away does not mean that cats, specifically, are an unacceptable food source. It is a pity that the wasted food isn't put to good use, but it has little bearing on this particular issue.
It might not be convenient for you to adopt a vegetarian diet, but that does not mean that cows are more deserving of slaughter. You'll have to find a better way to rationalize your dietary habits..

It has big particular issue. seriously. But it's all about money and a policy to not give it away for free.
Well, no animals deserving slaughter, But seriously.. we dont need to kill evry animals there is. I am pretty sure its enough with poor cows and pigs and If I did rationalize my dietary. then I would eat nothing.. air maybe LOL Not such a good idea. hehe

So what are you saying? That rape and murder are less objectionable because they are widespread? Just because something is widespread does not mean that it is more ethical..

No I did not said its less objectionable, I did said yes to rape and murder are widespread.. that means is evrywhere. isn't that true?
and Cows are also widespread and many people eat cows and pigs. But not cats. They are pets and always be!

mentions that citizens of Vicenza would eat cats in times of famine or hardship. Evidently it was not possible or practical to raise herds of cattle during these periods and cats were a readily available source of sustenance.

Well, Its another period now. It's Just an excuse to use cat nothing else.

 

[TheDamien]

Sure I can!

No you can not. If you are going to defer to cultural and social norms as the basis of the ethics of this matter, then you will need to accept that these things are apt to change.

It has big particular issue. seriously. But it's all about money and a policy to not give it away for free.
Well, no animals deserving slaughter, But seriously.. we dont need to kill evry animals there is. I am pretty sure its enough with poor cows and pigs and If I did rationalize my dietary. then I would eat nothing.. air maybe LOL Not such a good idea. hehe

No, we don't need to kill every animal that there is. But no one is saying that we do need to. I don't see how this is relevant to whether it is ethically worse to eat cats than cows, pigs, etc.

No I did not said its less objectionable, I did said yes to rape and murder are widespread.. that means is evrywhere. isn't that true?
and Cows are also widespread and many people eat cows and pigs. But not cats. They are pets and always be!

You seem to have completely missed the point of the comparison. The fact that something is widespread does not mean that it is more ethical. You admit that this is the case with rape and murder, but refuse to explain why the same principle does not apply to food sources. The fact that cows are widely considered a food source does not mean that they are "meant" to be eaten or that it is inherently more ethical to eat beef.

Well, Its another period now. It's Just an excuse to use cat nothing else.

That example may have been from another time period, but poverty and starvation still exist in modern times. If cat meat proves to be a viable food source in these circumstances, then people are as justified in eating it as they are in eating meat from cows.

 

[ReVolver]

I think FireCat is still thinking we are going to go to people's houses and take their pets and make them into food. We're taking about STRAYS! Those kind of cats don't do anything in the cities and mostly die at a young age, I was never referring to a pet's life span. If they had a cow or pig to eat in Africa don't you think they would have done that?

Just because their pets doesn't mean their not food...

 

[Lambda_drive]

I think FireCat is missing the point here.


Picture this image. Your an African child, your hungry and malnourished. The last thing you ate was a tuber you found in the ground and that was a week ago. Your stomach feels like a tight knot, you can barely stand up without feeling tired and you don't know even know if you'll survive to see the next day.

Now if I were to give them a plate of food and tell them that it's made from a cat I doubt they would give a damn. When people are truly hungry they don't care if a cat is cute and cuddly. to them it's just food, it's not a pet. In countries like those they don't have pets and animals like camels or donkeys don't count as pets. To those people a camel is just a tool to help them get across the desert. Do you really think people in third world countries have the resources to take care of pets? They barely have any resources to survive, they're not going to waste what little they have so they can have a pet.

The main point that you were missing is that there are lots of hungry people out there and there are lots of stray cats in cities that don't really serve a purpose in the environment. Most cities are actually overrun with stray cats. So it actually wouldn't be a bad idea for people to eat cats, there's too many of them and people are hungry. You may think, oh that's not right cats are only meant to be pets and not food, but that's just YOUR opinion. If you don't want to eat cats then that's perfectly fine, but you don't have the right to tell people what they can and can't eat. As long as an animal isn't endangered or protected then I say they're ok to eat.

Your whole argument about how cats are just pets and shouldn't be food isn't a valid argument because it's just based on your opinions and no facts. For an argument to have weight it must be based on facts and not on personal opinions. That's how debates are in the real world.

 

[SerraAvenger]

Does anyone here have humans as pets? If not, I think firecat agrees humans are okay to eat. Not young humans/babies though, since there are such QT pictures of them.

Btw, since there's soo many "unreal" pictures of cute cats, here are some scenes from real life:

Look at this mane! Its so beautiful!

Now a cute little girl and a cute cow... Arm in arm...

Now, look at HER! These beautiful eyes... Aww... So SWEET!

WILL YOU KILL THIS COW? HOW DARE YOU, FIRECAT! HOW CAN YOU EAT THIS POOR, LOVELY ANIMAL? YOU ARE SO RUDE!

Spoiler

You know what she's asking you?
"Will you kill me?
I'm a cow, you are a human, we could live next to each other! Please! We could be friends or something!!!
NO!
You don't HAVE to kill me!
PLEASE!!!
NOOOOOOO!!!!"

When you die, this picture will haunt you... Two eyes staring at you... Since you made her look like THIS:

Look at the girl! It's all YOUR fault!

 

[FireCat]

If cat meat proves to be a viable food source in these circumstances

Doesn't need to prove nothing. Cat are not a meat.

I think FireCat is still thinking we are going to go to people's houses and take their pets and make them into food. We're taking about STRAYS! Those kind of cats don't do anything in the cities and mostly die at a young age, I was never referring to a pet's life span. If they had a cow or pig to eat in Africa don't you think they would have done that?

Hahaha, Nope
Seriously, those cats do something... Cats hunt mouse, rats snake and so on.
If they didn't and there wasn't any cats out there.
It would be Invasion of mouse, rats everywhere. more than its now. You want that?
Btw. they have cows and pigs over there..

that's just YOUR opinion.
For an argument to have weight it must be based on facts and not on personal opinions

Sure it's my personal opinions and It’s a fact to.
Many have same opinion. like me. CATS are NOT food!!
Well, send them food that’s already are meat. Just not cat or dogs.


Hahahaha SerraAvenger

Does anyone here have humans as pets? If not, I think firecat agrees humans are okay to eat.

That’s your wierd thoughts. But Not at all! LOL

Btw, since there's soo many "unreal" pictures of cute cats

That's not unreal
Look here A very lovely, sweet cat.

Oh dear, Last pic wasn't necessary
I don’t want see horrible pics.

Well, I would not be haunted. I Can't Kill hmm

 

[SerraAvenger]

Oh dear, Last pic wasn't necessary
I don’t want see horrible pics.

That's why I hid it in the spoilers.

Well, I would not be haunted. I Can't Kill hmm

And Hitler didn't kill Jews, blah blah.

 

[Lambda_drive]

No matter how good of an argument you give there are some people out there that will never change their opinion. Were all giving you valid arguments that are based on fact, but instead you give us bratty childish comments. My time isn't worth arguing with someone that doesn't want to see the logic that were all trying to show you. It's pretty insulting when you write a good intelligent comment and then the comment you get back is misspelled, hastily written, and keeps on saying the same thing over and over again.

 

[FireCat]

Wow, Thats so horrific @Lambda_drive

There is no fucking facts that cats need to be killed because you want it.
I can say that billion time over and over again.And ones again

Cats doesn't have enough meat and you need to kill a lot of cats.
how many people starving really? not Just in africa! even there you are now starving.
Doesn't have a home and so on. And you only want give them cat to eat.?
There is meat to give them but no one want that. Why? "Money"
No you need to kill a cat because it sounds good. uh

Btw: Don't say nothing how I spell seriously, and how I write
You doesn't need to be a Spell NAZI. Okay!

"Cats ar not Meat!"

I know that, but you can see the pic anyway @SerraAvenger .

 

[Azlier]

>Cats doesn't have enough meat

Consider that a portion of meat is about the size of the palm of your hand. A chicken has quite a few such portions. Now, think of a fat cat.

I don't really see a reason why cats should be excluded from being a food source in underdeveloped countries.

Sure, they're cute. But so are babies, and that doesn't stop people from murdering them every single day... Oh, sorry. Off track.

Yes, the food we throw out is enough to feed the world just fine. Yes, we can not kill cats and feed everybody. One thing FireCat said is actually correct. Money's evil stuff.

 

[ReVolver]

how many people starving really? not Just in africa! even there you are now starving.
Doesn't have a home and so on. And you only want give them cat to eat.?
There is meat to give them but no one want that. Why? "Money"
No you need to kill a cat because it sounds good. uh

Somebody didn't see the graph I posted, someone doesn't know how hard it is to grow cattle, someone doesn't know how many stray cats there are in the world, someone doesn't understand the importance of cheap and easy food. Somebody is just ignorant of what is a real situation is. Someone is not reading this.

Cows eat lots of grass and water, lots of grass and water! Something Africa doesn't have, you can't expect them to grow and harvest when the land is dead, but look at Egypt and how many cats there are in that area alone could feed most people.

 

[The Helper]

I cannot believe I posted but since I did! For Great Justice!