[flagged]
The article describes the literal opposite of "for fun and sport".
Grabbing Dinner
11–20 of 33 posts
Re: Grabbing Dinner
#12[flagged]
From the article:
> When I asked Jody how much of his family’s meat is wild game, he initially said “about half.” Upon reflection, he bumped the number to 70 percent.
Doesn't sound like this is a justification for "culture" or "tradition". Certainly seems a lot more responsible than the average "tradition" of "I got it at the grocery store".
When you hunt for your own food, you are forced to consider the sacrifice of the animal and have to put in the work of preparing for the hunt and cleaning the animal. Things that anyone who's not done this takes for granted when they eat meat.
Re: Grabbing Dinner
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seeing as they're actually eating the frogs in question, it sounds like it's not just for fun and sport.
[flagged]
Survival is inherently selfish. Something has to die for you to live.
That something might be a plant or animal. As long as you _attempt_ to minimize the suffering of what you're consuming, then eating plants over animals isn't morally superior.
It also doesn't really matter if it's a cow, chicken or frog, as long as you're not making the animal suffer pointlessly.
Re: Grabbing Dinner
#14Fun little story. Really makes me wonder whether I should give frog legs another try. I’ve had them at fancy French places and at southern joints, and they’ve always been kinda meh - taste like chicken, basically, or else taste like what’s get fantastically butter-based sauce they’re swimming in. Maybe I need to try cooking them for myself to really get a feel for the unique flavor. I wonder if there’s a place to get…
When I lived in the rural midwest there were prodigious quantities of large frogs that the locals would sometimes catch for food. They taste fine just seasoned and lightly fried, no need to sauce them. I find the flavor to be good but not very distinctive. Learning how to fish for frogs was pretty interesting though, never would have guessed.
Re: Grabbing Dinner
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Survival is inherently selfish. Something has to die for you to live. That something might be a plant or animal. As long as you _attempt_ to minimize the suffering of what you're consuming, then eating plants over animals isn't morally superior. It also doesn't really matter if it's a cow, chicken or frog, as long as you're not making the animal suffer pointlessly.
I already said I agreed survival is justification for eating animals. But this is not survival, this is sport, because they have a choice to eat something other than animals and still thrive.
Re: Grabbing Dinner
#16My disappointment with that URL name is immeasurable. It’s the most uptight and stuffy form of shotguns.
Re: Grabbing Dinner
#17My disappointment with that URL name is immeasurable. It’s the most uptight and stuffy form of shotguns in a couple of articles.
Re: Grabbing Dinner
#18[flagged]
I'd argue our current culture and tradition of factory farming is way more sadistic than hunting to eat.
Re: Grabbing Dinner
#19[flagged]
From the article: > When I asked Jody how much of his family’s meat is wild game, he initially said “about half.” Upon reflection, he bumped the number to 70 percent. Doesn't sound like this is a justification for "culture" or "tradition". Certainly seems a lot more responsible than the average "tradition" of "I got it at the grocery store". When you hunt for your own food, you are forced to consider the sacrifice of…
[deleted]
Re: Grabbing Dinner
#20Pulled into a rural Louisiana driveway visiting a friend. And out in the back yard, they were cutting off the tail of an alligator with a small chain saw. Apparently the tail is where the good steaks are, but I didn't stay for dinner. The story reminded me of an old joke about Louisiana: In Louisiana, the zoos have signs for each caged animal. 1. Name of animal. 2. Name in Latin. 3. Geographic distribution. 4. Recipe…
Sounds like you missed the steak of a lifetime :D