and just for who ever it was that hadn't seen mint jelly that was mint jelly, just not the brand that I buy.
I think the important point here, and I think one we can all agree on, is that if God had not wanted us to eat animals he would not have made them out of meat.
I realise that I'm new here and haven't made any huge contribution as yet, but I am disappointed about the tone of some of the comments above. As a vegan, I disagree with the use and killing of animals by humans, for food and other purposes, in cases where it is not absolutely necessary. I realise that this stance is opposite to most others here, but that difference in opinion does not make me 'stupid' or immune to offence caused by any of the other derogatory comments above. Of course, I have no problem with people expressing or debating their opinions on this or any other matter, whether they agree with me or not, but it should be done in a respectful manner. These forums are about technology, and I'm grateful for the first-class content and interaction available on that subject. I do not think that other subjects should be excluded, but people who are interested in technology will have all manner of views on other subjects, and this should be taken into account when discussing them.
Gosh, you're closed minded and rude to boot. It's one thing to talk about the story, why did you decide to take this opportunity to call vegitarians and vegans nonsensical and stupid? I don't see (rib)eye to (rib)eye with vegetarians, but I respect their right to eat as they please. I still don't think that it's a great idea for small children to raise a cute cudley animal and then have to struggle to comprehend its being destroyed and turned into food. Learning about the food chain is one thing, but the way it was done was inappropriate. I love lamb (reading through the thread has got me salivating), but I too would have issue with raising a lamb and then killing it for food. Kill another lamb, I don't care, just not the one that I'm personally attached to.
...As long as they don't get preachy about "Meat is murder" etc. I choose to eat meat, you do not. Let's leave it at that. Perhaps it's just that you can't separate pets and food properly? (That didn't sound very nice, not meant as flame.) It might sound a bit cold, but that lamb was raised to be eaten, it's a complex and difficult issue, but one that I feel children should be confronted with. From what I've read the whole thing was designed from start to finish as a clear and simple idea to the children, and I'm sure they might be a little upset about losing such a nice pet, but I'd hope they've learnt a valuable lesson about the real world. p.s. Please don't get flamey. Everyone included. This forum might be a perfect place to unleash flames, since we're often talking about issues that people feel strongly about, but being reasonable and not unleashing stupid comments is what makes this forum worth keeping.
I've heard this a lot. Predominantly from city-dwellers. In fact, it would seem that the vast majority of criticism of this whole thing has come from city-dwellers. It's a brilliant idea to do this. And yes, it's even wonderful that they're personally attached to the animal because it makes them face the fact that every time they eat a part of an animal on their plate, they're eating something that they could have grown just as attached. I personally don't think anyone should eat anything they wouldn't be prepared to kill. If you can't face up to the reality of what you're doing, you have no business doing it. That's why I think this is an extremely valuable experience for children. The day that lamb is slaughtered, one or two of them are going to go home and question whether they still want to eat meat. That's a good thing.
As specofdust mentioned, it's likely due the fact that I have had limited interactions with live animals. Throughout my life, I have been around live animals and meat, but was never exposed to anything in between. Don't worry, your post didn't come across as rude. Your points make a lot of sense. Perhaps if I was exposed to a program such as this one when I was a child, I would have an even better appreciation of how the food gets from the side of the cow to my plate.
My mother was raised on a farm and I have spent time on a farm as well so I understand the whole process in between animal to steak. I also agree with specofdust about this being a brilliant idea by teaching the food cycle, which was that one of the points of the school farm was. If you read the article, they bought the lamb knowing that it was going to be used for food and they are even getting pigs now for sausages. The children know what is going on, while they are being spared the whole slaughtering process, the way I see the farm is teaching them that their meat comes from an animal and that to get that meat they must sacrifice the animal.
wat. Surely giving people the knowledge of where their hamburger comes from and how its made will reconnect people with their food. Giving people this information is essential as corporations are mis-treating animals left right and centre, the more we can encourage people away from cheap, processed food which not only harms us in the long term, but mother nature as well.
I agree that people are out of touch with where much of their food comes from, and that packaged meat is often viewed as a commodity rather than a formerly living, breathing animal, but I can't sanction sacrificing this individual animal (or any other) for educational purposes.
Alright, since there are a certain few of you whom took offense to my extreme viewpoint, I might as well post-preface my statement with the disclaimer that my tongue was affirmably in cheek. At least the last bit was. While I do personally feel that it is a bit beyond silly to be so disgusted by a purely natural process, I realise that not everybody has the same viewpoint. What I do have a strong personal problem with are those that transpose a human personality onto an animals face, and call it murder when I have some dinner, putting to use the teeth in my mouth designed with the specific intention of ripping and tearing flesh, and use my digestion system, which has been designed to be rather efficient with meat. We're omnivores in every sense of the word. Unless you go well above and beyond what is available in any one climate, you're never going to derive the same nutritional content from plants as you do from animals. EDIT: Alright, as Tin Can posted just before I did, I feel it necessary to respond to his last comment: what makes you think that ignorance is better than knowledge?! Making broad, sweeping statements like "No animal should be sacrificed for education" is about as nonsensical as thinking murdering a plant is different than killing an animal. How would you rather children learn how to deal with such extreme ideas like: death, food, sacrafice, and farming? Sit down with a pamphlet?! Unless people like you start only eating plants that have died of natural causes, you've no right to come in and talk to level-headed people who take an animals life to sustain their own, just as it has always been, like with every other animal on the face of the planet that eats meat. You're never going to convince that tiger to eat tofu, I'm sorry.
+1 I came across this when I started cooking more whole foods and noticed how uncomfortable my kids were with it (seeing the duck neck, organs etc). This took me off guard as I grew up on a farm and it was just second nature plus, the have seen cooked turkey etc but I guess they weren't privy to the preparation prior to that. Our foods have been processed and handled to the point where our culture is unaware of the source and that disturbs me quite a bit. There's the old cliche about no one wants to watch their sausage being made but I think it has gone about 3 steps too far. If you are going to eat meat, the more whole you can get it, the better from a health and economic standpoint which is something that is totally appropriate to teach kids. My daughter is a vegitarian and she knows why and can explain in a mature and reasoned manner and that's fine with me.
Ok, well I was in the process of thanking you for your acknowledgement of my point, but on seeing how you've phrased the edit, I'm just going to bow out of the conversation as gracefully as possible - after pointing out that I have just as much right to express my (perfectly level-headed) view as anybody else here. As you can imagine, I've had this type of conversation a fair few times in my 23-odd years of vegetarianism, and I don't have the energy for it again now in these circumstances. I'm here for the tech.
With my tounge firmly planted in my cheek: Perhaps if you had a more rounded diet including meat you'd have that missing energy?
Must admit i had rabbit for the first time last year. I had some initial difficulty separating my (tasty) dinner from my mates pet. Got over quickly enough though. I think its fair to say we city folk are spoilt when it comes to the food chain, were too far removed for our own good.
Ok, spec'll bite. Personally I can't think of a way that an absolutist view of animal rights could effectively exist. Kantian ethics get complicated when applied to animals. But perhaps the man has a good reason for believing that it's wrong to kill an animal even if it means that fewer animals will be killed as a result. As for teaching extreme ideas, we don't need to let kids murder a human, or rape a 4 year old, to teach them that it's wrong. That's just being silly. Plants have no capacity to suffer. A moral argument against eating meat is based upon the fact that animals can suffer, and so it is wrong to cause, or bring about that suffering. Moreover, Tin Can has as much right as you to be here, and at least he's not being an ass. One does not need to make tigers eat tofu to have a consistent moral argument for being vegetarian. Perhaps you should spend more time educating yourself on the moral arguments for and against vegetarian or vegan lifestyles and less time insulting people and just asserting that it's natural or historically common.
Wait, so you want to teach kids that killing animals for food is wrong? Why? The slaughter of plants is no different than the taking of an animals life for sustenance. Depriving carbon-based life-forms of the ability to live out their lives, and reproduce should be uniformly applied to anything that falls under that category. Murdering plants because they don't "feel" is an aesthetic point of view, not a moral one. How do you know? Have you talked to a petunia lately? Plants live for hours (sometimes days) after they've been severed from their root-structure. Who says that during this time of starvation and suffocation they are not actually suffering? We've absolutely no method to translate what they may be going through. The same thing goes for animals. While we try to extrapolate that animals suffer based upon their cute little faces, it is still a rather difficult task to just ask them what they feel, in human terms. So, please, stop confusing moral issues with aesthetic ones. And yes, I am being an ass, but sometimes a viewpoint (plants = murder) needs an ass behind it to get attention, otherwise it's just looked upon as another laughable, unimportant viewpoint. As for Tin Can, I'm honestly not trying to attack you personally, although I know it's coming across as such. I was overzealously pointing out the hypocrisy in your (and a great many other's) view points.
