TOOL
September 12, 2005 10:59 PM   Subscribe

THE BURDIZZO® EMASCULATONE 9 comes in a variety of handy sizes, non-slip molded plastic handle, wide opening clamp.
posted by semmi (78 comments total)
 
This thread is more comfortable to read without pics.
posted by clevershark at 11:03 PM on September 12, 2005


er, I meant 'article'.
posted by clevershark at 11:04 PM on September 12, 2005


But should you want to see the thing, you can.
posted by aladfar at 11:07 PM on September 12, 2005


I suddenly have an uncomfortable sensation akin to blue balls.

Also:

"It is quite easily adapted to making ravioli..."

And on preview of aladfar's link, the feeling got worse.

I wonder how you restrain a horse when using this device? I would tranquilize it.
posted by Derive the Hamiltonian of... at 11:10 PM on September 12, 2005


I read about the believer in the NYT this weekend.
posted by mert at 11:13 PM on September 12, 2005


For sheep and pigs, my Ag teacher just used his teeth.
posted by Tenuki at 11:16 PM on September 12, 2005


No! Oh please, no! Aaaagggghhhhh!!!!

Unfortunately, I don't speak pig, cow, or any other animal language, so it'd have to be reduced to vague squeals of agony.

What is castration for, anyway? Just another way to give farmers their daily sadist kick?
posted by malusmoriendumest at 11:21 PM on September 12, 2005


Yes, but does it also remove the sweat from the babboon's balls?
posted by scarabic at 11:24 PM on September 12, 2005


Uh...I'm going to get up and walk around for a little while now.
posted by deusdiabolus at 11:39 PM on September 12, 2005


What is castration for, anyway?

With livestock, any male that isn't going to be used for breeding gets castrated. My family does it to all spring calves every May. They get cut, vaccinated and branded.
posted by Tenuki at 11:52 PM on September 12, 2005


This was written by a very cruel woman.
posted by greasepig at 11:55 PM on September 12, 2005


That's revolting. Glad I've never been to a farm. I consider animals as well as humans my friends, and I don't eat, cut or burn my friends. Unlike some people....
posted by malusmoriendumest at 12:01 AM on September 13, 2005


malusmoriendumest, I am also a plant lover, I consider plants my friends, and I don't cut, reap, pluck or peel my friends. So I don't (well, can't) eat anything. I obtain my energy directly from the sun, as I am a hypothetical anti-silly-vegetarian machine AI.
posted by snoktruix at 12:18 AM on September 13, 2005


Remember: “Sloppy castration means lower profits.”
posted by mullingitover at 12:33 AM on September 13, 2005


Snoktruix, you know that's a false comparison. :P
posted by nonmerci at 12:34 AM on September 13, 2005




Breeding male animals are aggressive. A fully testiculated
ram can easily kill a person. You can tell when you should
slaughter your unneutered ram lambs when they start butting
you, at about 4 1/2 months of age ("I can't eat you, and I
can't screw you, so I've gotta butt you").

Personally, I favor the elastrator. At a couple
of weeks of age, the response of lambs to the elastrator is
amusingly stereotypical.

Farmers are not generally sadists. Vociferous vegetarians
are usually obnoxious, though.
posted by the Real Dan at 12:41 AM on September 13, 2005


I guess some people do eat, cut and burn their friends.

Shudder.
posted by Tenuki at 12:42 AM on September 13, 2005




Snoktruix, you know that's a false comparison. :P

Yes I suppose. I'm just expressing my view that there's absolutely nothing wrong with (society as a whole) killing and eating animals. We evolved eating animals, and animals can be viewed essentially as a very concentrated form of energy, extremely important in places where obtaining protein by eating tofu is not an option. Presumably the opposing view is based on an emotional argument, that killing animals is a form of murder.

Personally I think there is a continuum of distaste when it comes to killing, from no distaste at all in the case of killing a fungus, to severe distaste in the case of killing a chimpanzee, say. At some point, human necessity overtakes distaste. When energy is cheap at some point in the future, I wouldn't object to moving towards global vegetarianism, but at the moment it is (generally) well-fed people in rich countries who are vegetarian because of some shallow "lifestyle" choice.
posted by snoktruix at 12:50 AM on September 13, 2005


How is it a shallow "lifestyle" choice? If you have the means and the option, and if you feel it will either be beneficial to your health or you object morally (or a combination of the two), what reason is there (other than enjoyment) to eat carnivorously?
posted by nonmerci at 12:56 AM on September 13, 2005


I'm just expressing my view that there's absolutely nothing wrong

To clarify, there is *something* wrong with it, at some level, as I point out later. But I just think it is a very low level wrong, currently, compared to all the other wrong things we do as a species (killing ourselves in large numbers for example). If you get your priorities that wrong, you might as well be a Republican.
posted by snoktruix at 12:57 AM on September 13, 2005


Snoktruix, is your last comment meant in jest, or are you being entirely serious? Reading your comment, it looks like you just inferred that living a vegetarian lifestyle is akin to being Republican. Please tell me I'm not getting your joke.
posted by nonmerci at 1:00 AM on September 13, 2005


How is it a shallow "lifestyle" choice? If you have the means and the option, and if you feel it will either be beneficial to your health or you object morally (or a combination of the two), what reason is there (other than enjoyment) to eat carnivorously?

It's a bit shallow to demand it of others (or loudly proclaim that you're vegetarian and expect others to be impressed), that's all, since as I've said I don't think there is any good argument that there is anything morally wrong with eating meat.
posted by snoktruix at 1:01 AM on September 13, 2005


Okay, that's a fair enough point, but I would argue the latter half of your statement--that there is no good moral argument against eating meat. I certainly agree that in situations where doing so would be counterproductive and actually harm health (poorer countries, for example, where purchasing expensive, organic forms of meat-free protein is simply not possible/reasonable), there is no question of morality, but in a country like ours where the majority of our citizens are wealthy (to a degree), I disagree immensely. That isn't to say that I find meat-eaters lacking in moral fiber, but if you have the means, why eat meat, other than the enjoyment you get out of eating it?*

*I would like to note that I am all for hedonism, and thus do not look down on others who eat meat for enjoyment. I am merely asking a question.
posted by nonmerci at 1:05 AM on September 13, 2005


Snoktruix, is your last comment meant in jest

In the vague sense that both groups (as a vast generalization) tend to base their thinking on some idealized world rather than the actual situation.
But, that was also intended but presumably failed to be slightly amusing.
posted by snoktruix at 1:07 AM on September 13, 2005


Wow. Ow. Very amusingly written. But still, ow.
posted by blacklite at 1:18 AM on September 13, 2005


why eat meat

Apart from the good taste (which exists presumably because we evolved to find meat tasty, since meat is a good source of energy - no doubt most vegetarians enjoy the taste of meat), it is just more convenient. I would guess that making a healthy balanced meal with enough protein from just vegetables takes a non-trivial amount of effort, and it's hard to avoid it becoming monotonous.

Also, many vegetarians get their protein from dairy sources, milk and cheese, which originate with animals. Only vegans can claim the real moral high ground. And look at how hard it is for vegans to eat a balanced diet.
posted by snoktruix at 1:19 AM on September 13, 2005


That said, the way animals are treated in many farms is pretty shoddy. I'm not against killing animals for food, but we should make sure it isn't torture for them.
posted by snoktruix at 1:25 AM on September 13, 2005


I don't think it's hard for vegans to eat a balanced diet (I say this as someone who was a strict vegan for a year and a half), and I would argue that vegetarianism is as likely as meat-eating is to become monotonous (there are far more types of vegetables, fruits and the like than there are types of meat that we normally consume). And yes, vegetarians consume dairy for protein, but this is not akin to killing an animal (especially if that dairy is organic and from reputable sources). Eggs, legumes, nuts, seeds and the like are all forms of protein, and it is not especially hard to incorporate these into your diet successfully, so I find your argument a little weak.

And as for meat being tasty because of evolution, I don't see the point in such a statement. Humans are also, thanks to evolution, meant to have bodies suitable for chasing prey, and are to supposed to be physically fit in order to kill that prey. Many people sit on their asses all day in front of a computer screen, so I think it's safe to say that not all evolutionary traits are being used to the best of their ability, and many are disregarded entirely!
posted by nonmerci at 1:29 AM on September 13, 2005


(BTW, I definitely agree about treatment for animals, and I would also add that many vegetarians and vegans chose their lifestyle BECAUSE of that treatment.)
posted by nonmerci at 1:30 AM on September 13, 2005


not all evolutionary traits are being used to the best of their ability, and many are disregarded entirely!

It's hard to disregard a craving for something, programmed into you by your genes. It'll be hard to persuade the masses to stop eating what they are designed to like eating, until we can make a perfect simulation of steak from plant matter.
posted by snoktruix at 1:38 AM on September 13, 2005


I disagree! It isn't hard to disregard at all, especially when you factor in one's individual reasons for doing so, be they health, morality, or whatever. It's all about will and choice.

And who said anything about persuading? Changing one's lifestyle is always a personal choice, and one becomes vegetarian by their own choosing, even if they love the taste of steak.

Besides, plenty of biological, unsavory things are programmed into our genes (rape, for example), but they are ignored due to morality and social perception. Just because meat is tasty doesn't mean it can't be ignored. I mean, that's like arguing that I should eat three boxes of Krispy Kreme because I have a genetic craving for it and it is delicious.
posted by nonmerci at 1:46 AM on September 13, 2005


snoktruix : "It's hard to disregard a craving for something, programmed into you by your genes."

Substitute 'genes' with 'habits of palate & culture' and you would be closer to the mark.
posted by Gyan at 1:53 AM on September 13, 2005


Thanks, Gyan. You described what I tried to in far less words.
posted by nonmerci at 1:59 AM on September 13, 2005


'habits of palate & culture'

I doubt that the desire to eat meat is mostly cultural, although there will be some cultural component to it of course.

But on that note, I've often wondered why we find the taste of cooked meat so much better than raw meat. Is that an evolutionary adaptation (perhaps due to cooked meat being more hygienic), a coincidence of biochemistry, a cultural effect, or something else?
posted by snoktruix at 2:05 AM on September 13, 2005


OK, if this is going to turn into a vegetarian vs. omnivore thread, I'm going to drag it into MeTa. Don't push me, I'll fucking do it. There's a perfectly fine discussion going on here about cutting the balls off animals, and if you can't enjoy that for what it is and contribute to it in a focused and on-topic way, you're getting called out. I mean it, fuckers.

Back to the link. I am undecided what's worse: the feeling I get, as a man, reading the linked article, or the feeling I get, as a man, reading the Sarah Silverman interview in the same issue and discovering you have to buy the magazine to get more than one page. Ouch!!!
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 2:06 AM on September 13, 2005


Bah. I've done vegetarian. I love eating whole grains and veggies and legumes.

But if I do 100 miles on a bike or go hit up a skatepark for a few hours or some other activity and I tear up my nerd-muscles, all I want is a a bunch of water, a beer, and a huge slab of some roasted dead animal. Rice and beans just doesn't cut it. I want salt, fat, iron and dense protein.

Humans are omnivores. We're meant to eat meat. We're just not meant to sit on our asses and consume only three or four different kinds of exceedingly fatted animals. We're supposed to be moving all the time and eating a variety of plan tlife and gamey and lean free range animal life.

They're getting pretty close to growing synth-meat on substrates. Personally, that kind of scares me.

This thread needs more Jarvis Brain Sucker.
posted by loquacious at 2:06 AM on September 13, 2005


stupidsexyFlanders, why all the anger? Snok and I had an extremely civil, interesting discussion, so why should it be brought to MeTa?

God, you people are so uptight.
posted by nonmerci at 2:16 AM on September 13, 2005




Ignoring that threat (which I'm doubting the seriousness of)--

That's an interesting question, Snok. It seems like it would have more to do with an evolutionary adaptation due to health (salmonella comes to mind) as well as culture. For example, it is possible to "cook" meat with the aid of an acid such as lemon juice (seviche, anyone?), but many people don't find this as palatable as something grilled/baked/etc. As far as culture, consider a country like Japan where sashimi is eaten and enjoyed--give that to a "regular" American and they will find it distasteful (not all, of course, but enough).
posted by nonmerci at 2:21 AM on September 13, 2005


snoktruix : "I doubt that the desire to eat meat is mostly cultural"

It is. I'm a Gujarati (Indian) who very rarely had meat before coming to the US, and I never "missed" it before I tried it, or "craved" it afterwards. In fact, I dislike most meat-based food, though I have grown to tolerate certain forms. Americans who take up vegetarianism, bring along their gustatory baggage. The taste and habits of eating meat remain etched. Also, since American cuisine, in general, is meat-based and remains so, a rich vegetarian cuisine hasn't evolved, unlike many parts of India, where being vegetarian is the default condition. These two facts combined, may make the American vegetarian convert's experience difficult, and lead them to conclude that "genes" are involved. And they probably do play a role, like some populations which have trouble with lactose, just not a principal one.
posted by Gyan at 2:29 AM on September 13, 2005


Also, since American cuisine, in general, is meat-based and remains so, a rich vegetarian cuisine hasn't evolved, unlike many parts of India, where being vegetarian is the default condition.

Agreed. Hot damn, vegetarian Indian food was my favorite while I was vegetarian - and a life saver. But then I hadn't discovered Javanese yet. MMM. This thread is making me hungry.

Ethiopian food is good veggie food, too. Mmm, spicy, spicy lentils.

I feel that the statement "Being/choosing vegetarian in the United States is hard" is quite applicable. It's difficult to easily get a balanced vegetarian diet here, especially in an on the go society. The recent forays by fast food into veggie patty sandwiches have been lukewarm at best. (Yeah, yeah, don't eat fast food.)

I've always wanted to see a really good vegetarian fast food chain open up, with a wide variety of easily accessible standard offerings, plus round-the-world ethnic offerings - even if they were just "ok" or even bastardized interpretations. As long as it was fresh and tasty and fast.

In the meantime, I can get my "grilled cheese w/ triple veggies" at any in-and-out and have a nice, cheesy-oniony sandwich that's every bit as tasty and filling as the same sandwich with beef in it. Plus their fries and shakes are the best thing known to God himself.
posted by loquacious at 2:45 AM on September 13, 2005


WTF Loquacious, stop describing food like that. You're making us all hungry.
posted by nonmerci at 2:51 AM on September 13, 2005


The idea that vegetarianism is exclusively the lifestyle choice of spoiled Westerners does seem a bit odd in the face of really quite large numbers of people in other areas whose diet is primarily or exclusively vegetarian, for reasons cultural, religious or simply practical.

Perhaps one could step up the efficiency of livestock farming by acclimating more people to eating testicles? They're accepted cuisine in a number of sensible Western cultures...
posted by tannhauser at 2:52 AM on September 13, 2005


tannhauser: Americans like their meat, but modern-day Americans (excluding midwesterners--my grandfather, for example, was very fond of a nice tongue sandwich) would much prefer to eat *choice* meat, seemingly because we have the means to splurge on expensive cuts of meat and can disregard tails, intestines, etc. that our ancestors ate largely due to necessity/practicality. It's unfortunate, really, how much is wasted because of this.
posted by nonmerci at 2:58 AM on September 13, 2005


From the Products page of the Real Dan's 'Elastrator' link:

"Scorpion Stock Prodder"

Excellent. Just what I need to keep my scorpion herd in line. It's not so bad when they're small, but a pen full of full-grown half-ton scorpions is a handful.

It would be even worse if we didn't castrate them.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 3:38 AM on September 13, 2005


What bugs me about vociferous vegetarians as the Real Dan puts it, is the whole saving-the-animals mandate they have going on. How many worms and insects are killed growing these plants?

All creatures big and small...

Back to The Burdizzo Emasculatone, ouch. But a necessity for farmers nonetheless.
posted by slf at 3:43 AM on September 13, 2005


It's an interesting one - the advent of Kreuzfeld-Jakob and other such delights in the UK has somewhat curbed our love of eating everything but the scream, but our national cusisine still has a lot of room for blood, intestines, tongue and other bits and pieces. Testicles not to my knowledge, although they'll eat pretty much anything in Yorkshire - certainly as you head further north towards Scandinavia the happy handbag becomes a source of culinary delights.

Gyan: Arguably, the lactose intolerance thing is less genetic than first supposed: some cultures give their neonates dairy milk early in the early stages of growth, which may condition them to tolerance. If this is true, then in a state of nature everyone's lactose-intolerant. Society trains it out.
posted by tannhauser at 3:44 AM on September 13, 2005


What bugs me about vociferous vegetarians as the Real Dan puts it, is the whole saving-the-animals mandate they have going on. How many worms and insects are killed growing these plants?

Well, there's the idea that higher mammals are able to experience pain in a way that worms and insects are not. However, I think many "conscience" vegetarians aren't looking at the question in terms of pure pain, but rather the tragedy of the commons - if everyone wants meat, and wants the amount and type of meat that they are getting now, then it becomes impossible not to affect habitats (for example by ranching) or raise animals in apalling conditions to satisfy that need.
posted by tannhauser at 3:47 AM on September 13, 2005


I have a Burdizzo Emasculatone. That thing is harder to play than a theramin.
posted by kingfisher, his musclebound cat at 4:36 AM on September 13, 2005


I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals, I'm a vegetarian because I hate plants.
posted by Bort at 5:10 AM on September 13, 2005


I think it is as unnatural for a human to eat a cow as, it is for a tiger to eat a cow. The main problem I have, lies in the way creatures are 'looked after' whilst awaiting an appointment with my oven.

I once spoke to a Chevalier (horse-butcher) in France who was raving on about the quality of the herbs in his horses' field. The freedom to run around and herbs gave the meat a far superior taste he said. He was passionate about looking after his livestock carefully - and it really did show in the added flavor of the meat.

Contrast that with the tiny cages that broiler chickens are kept in. But you ask most people if they would prefer a horse steak or BBQ chicken! Too much emotion, not enough thought?
posted by DrDoberman at 5:22 AM on September 13, 2005


snoktruix, meat is not a good source of energy. Protein is the body's last choice of things to break down to use for energy. Almost all of the energy that your body uses comes from fats and carbohydrates. We need to eat proteins as a source of building blocks (amino acids) that we no longer know how to make for ourselves.

loquacious, omnivore != "meant to eat meat". hundreds of millions of vegetarians around the world aren't living in conflict with what they were "meant" to do.
posted by sineater at 5:52 AM on September 13, 2005


So... many... bad... arguments...
(Oh, and it's not at all hard to eat vegetarian in America. Even fast food is pretty easy to come by now, especially if you're anywhere near an urban area. The only time it gets really hard is when you're in the rural or exurban areas without someplace to make your own food for a while.)
posted by klangklangston at 5:55 AM on September 13, 2005


I just ate a bunch of sausage on Sunday thanks to someone serving me the wrong order. They very carefully replaced the eggs with tofu, but loaded it chock full of sausage. I'm 27 and thats the first time I've ever eaten meat. "Sorry", they said.
posted by 31d1 at 6:16 AM on September 13, 2005


Not asking to be snarky, 31d1, but how did you like it?
posted by kingfisher, his musclebound cat at 7:18 AM on September 13, 2005


It's unfortunate, really, how much is wasted because of this.

Um, no. They don't waste anything -- where do you think the collagen in cosmetics come from, among innumerable other products?

Consider.

There's also the illustrative story of either Swift or Armour (I forget which) regularly walking down to the sewer outlet of his plants. If he saw anything besides water coming out, he knew that he was missing an opportunity to earn more money and went back to figure out where the waste was coming from.
posted by aramaic at 7:29 AM on September 13, 2005


In the meantime, I can get my "grilled cheese w/ triple veggies" at any in-and-out and have a nice, cheesy-oniony sandwich that's every bit as tasty and filling as the same sandwich with beef in it.

...and probably just as artery-hardening as the original.
posted by gimonca at 7:37 AM on September 13, 2005


kingfisher, his musclebound cat: "Not asking to be snarky, 31d1, but how did you like it?"

It was in a breakfast burritto, it didn't leap out at me as tasting wierd, I hate to say it was actually a pretty good burritto. I felt pretty sick the rest of the day, I have no idea if it was psychosomatic or what.
posted by 31d1 at 7:55 AM on September 13, 2005


snoktruix: That said, the way animals are treated in many farms is pretty shoddy. I'm not against killing animals for food, but we should make sure it isn't torture for them.

Careful, snoktruix. Distinguish between factory farming and regular farming here. While it's clear that many factory farming practices (thousands of chickens in one cage, etc) are absolutely abhorrent, I find that quite a few people who are well-removed from the farming experience know little to nothing about what farmers actually do and why.

As pointed out above, intact male animals not intended for breeding purposes have aggressive tendencies that can be dangerous -- for both the farmer and the other animals living with him. Hence castration.

Something closer to my own experience (my kitten's snip snip this year doesn't really make me a castration expert): I'm a fiber artist. I work with raw fleeces, I make a point to buy from smaller family farms, and I know quite a bit about how sheep are raised.

Do you know what flystrike is? Ok, imagine this: you're running around pantsless, and maggots are nesting in your anus. Itchy, right? Annoying? Now -- you don't have those handy opposable thumbs, so there's f***-all you can do about it. And the maggots just keep on breeding in your bum.

(An appealing image, I know)

PETA would prefer you, as a sheep, suck it up and deal with the maggots, because they're against docking sheep's tails ("mulesing"). See here for additional commentary on that. Does anyone at PETA know a damn thing about how farmers actually treat the animals that are their livelihood? From the fiber perspective alone, animals that are highly stressed, or malnourished or otherwise abused produce shoddy fleeces. It's in the farmer's interest to care for them because otherwise, no product.

The non-commercial farmers I know practically treat their animals like housepets that just happen to be kept in a barn. (Bottle lambs roaming the kitchen in a diaper are more common than not come lambing time in the fiber-farming world!)

Long story short: animals on commercial farms get far shoddier treatment than animals on family farms, so concentrate your efforts there. Unless, of course, you're a PETA person and would prefer that no one care for any animal, ever, because it's slavery blah blah blah...

(My dachshund would argue that point, by the way: I'm so totally her bitch).
posted by bitter-girl.com at 9:02 AM on September 13, 2005


If God didn't want us to eat animals, why did he make them out of delicious meat? -Homer
posted by clevershark at 9:04 AM on September 13, 2005


What does it mean that people are made out of meat too?
posted by 31d1 at 9:07 AM on September 13, 2005


People taste good?
posted by Catfry at 9:27 AM on September 13, 2005


What does it mean that people are made out of meat too?

If God didn't want tigers to eat people, why did he make us out of delicious meat?
posted by DrDoberman at 9:30 AM on September 13, 2005


gimonca: "...and probably just as artery-hardening as the original."

Shut your mouth. You live in an In-n-Out-less barbarian state and as a barbarian you're unqualified to comment.

When the Royal and Just In-n-Out Empire sees fit to bless your state with it's Holy Presence and you've pledged your Oath of Fealty to the Order of the Holy Cross of Palms, then you can meekly submit your supplications to the Most Holy and Royal Court of the Most Holy and Royal Trinity of Burger, Fries, and Shake. But be not afraid, it is a just and fair court. Damn near Solomonic.

A "grilled cheese" is about 1/3 to 1/2 the saturated fat of a sandwich with the beef, depending if you got a single or double or about 4-6 grams total - with the "spread". Without the spread it nearly drops to about 1 gram of saturated fat, which is damn small for a fast food (non)burger sandwich.

Of course, that all goes out the window if you get an ice cream shake and some fries.

Besides, it's In-and-Out. We're not talking about McDonalds or Burger King here. Or for that matter Sonic Dairy Queen or fuckin' White Castle. At least I'm getting fresh food and veggies that tastes good and is completely additive and preservitive free.

I spent a year living off of In-and-Out food when I had a choice between that and Denny's. I lost a lot of weight, but I ate once a day, and I was running some pretty long hours. As far as fast food goes it's pretty nutritionally sound, the only thing that was really missing was whole grains and raw fiber.

Don't get the idea I'm some kind of fast food whore just because I like In-n-Out. It's a treat. I vastly prefer to stay home and cook, and I eat a lot of brown rice, beans, whole grains, oats, fruits and veggies. And yogurts and cheeses. Mmm.
posted by loquacious at 9:39 AM on September 13, 2005


My dad used to raise pigs. On a small family farm, at least, the little fuckers lead pretty good lives. Stubborn bastards deserve to be eaten though.

Uh...I don't want to go into methods of castration...but it wasn't bloodless. It was young enough so it was sort of like a bris, though. Only...less celebration and more cursing. :)
posted by graventy at 10:00 AM on September 13, 2005


It wouldn't be a very kosher ceremony, I suspect -- eh, graventy? :)
posted by bitter-girl.com at 10:57 AM on September 13, 2005


You're being disingenuous, bitter-girl. Mulesing is not simply docking the tail. It involves removing large amounts of skin from the buttocks as well, both without any anesthetic:
http://www.animal-lib.org.au/lists/mulesing/mules.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulesing

Crutching accomplishes the same thing (removes the wool from those areas) but needs to be repeated at intervals. Of course the farmers don't want to pay the additional cost of either doing this *or* using at least a local anesthetic when performing mulesing, so they just go ahead and do it with none. Wikipedia says the operation takes about 2-3 minutes. How would you like have your skin flayed for 2-3 minutes?


On a slightly different topic, almost always in these conversations someone comes up with "What about all the worms or birds or voles that are killed by the farming machinery?". Most grain/soybeans are actually fed to animals. If your goal is to reduce the suffering/loss of life for other animals and you eat meat, you get the suffering/loss of life from the animal you killed + the suffering/loss of life of any animals killed during the harvesting of the grain that was fed to them. If you just eat the grain, the negative effect is much less.
posted by Vulpyne at 11:43 AM on September 13, 2005


Snok and I had an extremely civil, interesting discussion, so why should it be brought to MeTa.

Agreed. I'd say that it was unusually so, for a vegetarian v. meat-eater thread, but oddly enough I've found that those usually go a lot like this. I think it's because both sides know they're not going to convert the other, and for most people it's not a religious issue.

Not a vegetarian myself, but I will say this: If you get bored as a vegetarian, you're not using your imagination. In a modern society, it's just about as easy -- and probably cheaper -- to be a vegetarian, than to eat a bunch of meat.
posted by lodurr at 12:56 PM on September 13, 2005


You live in an In-n-Out-less barbarian state

Guilty as charged. When I moved here, you could get all-you-can-eat lutefisk at Viking Village on Sundays for $5.95. And we liked it. Dammit.
posted by gimonca at 1:18 PM on September 13, 2005


stupidsexyFlanders had his tongue stapled to his cheek when he posted that.
posted by Vulpyne at 2:44 PM on September 13, 2005


erm. ahem.

Balls.
posted by bartleby at 4:55 PM on September 13, 2005


stupidsexyFlanders had his tongue stapled to his cheek when he posted that.

Nah, we just pulled it out with that Emasculatone thingermajizzle.

Care for a taco?
posted by loquacious at 5:19 PM on September 13, 2005


This is the first time I've had the urge to do one of these:

Metafilter: And the maggots just keep on breeding in your bum.
posted by Devils Slide at 7:31 PM on September 13, 2005


For every animal you don't eat, I'll eat two.

Does that settle the argument or just make things worse?

My current best for most species of animal on plate at once and then consumed: 11.
posted by The Cardinal at 8:26 PM on September 13, 2005


Bitter-girl: My uncle was a sheep farmer. Your beliefs on the life of sheep are laughably naive. Seriously.
posted by klangklangston at 1:51 PM on September 14, 2005


I wonder- is the argument of all the meat-eaters (often, arguably, more obnoxious than the most vociferous vegetarian) based on the premise that people are somehow far superior to other animals? What a ridiculous idea. Unless they're a Christian, of course, with all that "Created in His own image" nonsense.
posted by malusmoriendumest at 9:24 AM on September 16, 2005


« Older And that's being sued in Lake Woebegone   |   Implosions 'R Us Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments