will I just finished reading Memoirs of a cook of spaceship, and I was so drawn to the kitchen "exotic", or at least unusual. It will The motto of the protagonist "a taste of the other garments, but eats your taste" seems to me a pretty phrase. It will also be that with the onion and leek frittata tonight is good to remain up a little ', put that to bed so early could be fatal. Well, maybe in another moment the news that the loop has been careful to send by SMS would not have hit, but these days are very receptive to the topic.
The news in question is that of a boy in Florence (which is akin to me for ages so as to geographical location) the dog has killed and ate his sister. I do not dwell on the fact that the protagonist of story is called "homeless", lived in an abusive house but despite this he was active on facebook, indeed it is playing the alert. For me it is difficult to match these parts is not what interests me.
A suspicious and an immediate outcry in defense of animal rights. Let's be clear: I could never kill an animal, and if I had the chance to exchange some € with an animal already killed, bled and sliced, I believe that the meat does not fall into my diet. Moreover, as it's worth, I am totally opposed to any recreational activity (you can not honestly talk about "sport") that involving the voluntary killing of other creatures, and I had previously expressed this regard. To put it short, I do not ever kill an animal, and I would like that others do the same.
That said, I eat the flesh . And taste, too. I'm not a carnivore exclusive, and in particular a few years I began to discover the pleasure of a meal only plant (which, even here, because a pear or a cauliflower should be happy to be eaten?). As a consumer of the members of other no-longer-living beings, I do not feel right to tell anyone which of these can eat and which not. The moment you kill an animal to eat it (I said "to eat", not "bringing this hard to prove "), which may have relevance if you are removed from the life of a wild boar rather than a rabbit, a tortoise, a wild goat, a pigeon, a salmon, a mole ...
... or a dog? Because of this it is. The reason is invoked prison for the boy guilty of this crime, is that the animal was eaten . Surely if the animal had been "just" cut to pieces and thrown into the nearest canal, public outrage was not so strong.
Now, I admit that if someone had taken my cat and we had made a sausage (I avoid the joke about the "salami cat") a little 'I would have been affected. There is no denying the special role that animals' affection for "play in human society. In this sense, the killing of the dog in question is absolutely to be condemned, and not justified at all. But the problem is: which discriminating booths is right to kill animals to eat potersene those which instead can be downloaded from CUD medical expenses?
so for many the question is simple: dog and cat are like us. Well. But a Hindu may think otherwise, when we explain that we have prepared the steak that comes from a cow. The grilled sausage is one of the foods that are more friendly, but at a barbecue like George Clooney were not invited because they could take it badly. I myself have an iguana, and one of the things I most want to do in my life is to taste a nice roast leg of iguana. Not mine, perhaps, or at least not until it is in life. Certainly not kill to eat, and probably will die when no longer good for cooking. But if the readers is an expert cook Mexican, well let me her number ...
What I'm trying to say is that I feel really restrictive to the point of speciesism , make exceptions for one or two animals that are cute, abandoning to their fate all the others. Why, given that it is permissible to slaughter a horse, I should not be able (under the same hygienic conditions) do the same with a cat? Not long ago someone else tried by the court of political correctness, has borne the brunt of this contradiction:
Woe to suggest that a domestic cat can be cooked! Vicenza is made in the province and autonomous status leviamoci the problem! And likewise, anyone you think you can flay and marinate a dog until the puppies are drowned in the water, the old abandoned in the streets, biting and suppressed shot you're not doing anything wrong, but the meat must rot in the ground, not being metabolized in the gut!
It is this hypocrisy that I really can not conceive, even though for most people it appears quite natural. The principle is similar to that for which no one shows pictures of mammals or birds impallinati accepted, but in any transmission of the kitchen you see unhook decapitated eel and trout still alive. Possible that the distinction is in the fact that a fish, conspiratorial, by definition, is unable to complain as gets choked air?
Well, at this point, I would not fall nell'apologia crime. But, again I quote: "a taste of the other garments, but eats your taste." If your tastes include canaries, as long as those laws do require you to snack on bread and bologna can not tell you anything. Sure, kill the dog (or cat, or bat, tarantula or ...) of the neighbor is rude. And we will also carnivores that thrive on the death of other creatures, but we are civilized people, no?
0 comments:
Post a Comment