• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • General Discussion Forums
  • Food and Drink
Jamies Foul Dinners
<<
<
4 of 4
>>
>
Ruby Shoes
14-01-2008
Originally Posted by weateallthepies:
“The argument is a bit pointless, we have been hunters for as far back as we can tell so it is our disposition to eat meat regardless of anything else.

We are omnivorous not carnivorous so that may explain some of the biological differences but we are most definitely predators.

As for raw meat, the reason is just cultural. We have in the past eaten meat raw and there are still plenty of raw meat and fish dishes around.”

Recent, authoritative research indicates that humans haven't, in fact, been natural hunters; hunting was, and always has been, a very limited "past-time" engaged in by men (women, of course, were left at home) for political and ritual purposes, vying for power and prestige. Hunting non-humans for their flesh was never and has never been essential for our survival, was never essential for our diet and never essential for our "health".

Whilst it is true that we can survive on an omnivorous diet, all of the research conducted over decades, across the globe, across all racial and ethnic communities, indicates that a plant-based diet is the most natural and most healthy diet for a human. We have far, far more in common with herbivores (including our tooth and bone structure, gastro-intestinal system, metabolic systems) such as gorillas, than with carnivores such as bears or omnivores such as dogs or pigs.

It is not our disposition to either hunt or eat meat - the vast majority of humans who have ever lived have never hunted and have no intention to do so - there is nothing that "compels" us to do so; and for the vast majority of our history the eating of meat was a very limited, very rare event - most of our diet was plant-based. It's only in more recent times, and especially with the rise of the agri-industrial complex that we are now being told that practially every meal must involve "meat" because it's "essential". Alas, it's not essential - it's dreadfully detrimental to our health... but great for their profits (and those of the pharma and "healthcare" industries who make a tidy packet once we're ill!), but why let reality get in the way of profits for big business eh?
weateallthepies
14-01-2008
Originally Posted by Ruby Shoes:
“Recent, authoritative research indicates that humans haven't, in fact, been natural hunters; hunting was, and always has been, a very limited "past-time" engaged in by men (women, of course, were left at home) for political and ritual purposes, vying for power and prestige. Hunting non-humans for their flesh was never and has never been essential for our survival, was never essential for our diet and never essential for our "health".

Whilst it is true that we can survive on an omnivorous diet, all of the research conducted over decades, across the globe, across all racial and ethnic communities, indicates that a plant-based diet is the most natural and most healthy diet for a human. We have far, far more in common with herbivores (including our tooth and bone structure, gastro-intestinal system, metabolic systems) such as gorillas, than with carnivores such as bears or omnivores such as dogs or pigs.

It is not our disposition to either hunt or eat meat - the vast majority of humans who have ever lived have never hunted and have no intention to do so - there is nothing that "compels" us to do so; and for the vast majority of our history the eating of meat was a very limited, very rare event - most of our diet was plant-based. It's only in more recent times, and especially with the rise of the agri-industrial complex that we are now being told that practially every meal must involve "meat" because it's "essential". Alas, it's not essential - it's dreadfully detrimental to our health... but great for their profits (and those of the pharma and "healthcare" industries who make a tidy packet once we're ill!), but why let reality get in the way of profits for big business eh?”

The vast majority of research and physiological evidence points to human being omnivorous along with most of the primate family. If we were truly herbivores we would be able to process cellulose which is not the case, evolutionary discarded organs aside.

I am not arguing eating meat is best for us, or that the current quantities eaten are natural but to argue eating meat is not our disposition makes no sense given the historical and current evidence. If it were not our disposition to eat meat we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.
BrideXIII
14-01-2008
Originally Posted by weateallthepies:
“The biggest shock tactics used were around the death of chickens both young and old. To me this seems completely at odds with the message of the show since the chicks and chickens will still be killed no matter how well they are treated, free range or barn.

It's all very well those audience members gasping and crying when seeing birds killed and then stating that they will buy free range from now on but that killing isn't going to change. I can't be the only one that sees through this emotional manipulation and I don't think it really helps the cause.”


I don't think it detracts from the cause at all, the cause itself was to inform people, not stop them eating meat, it was a case of 'did you know how?' not ' this is cruel, don't eat them'.
the fact is unwanted baby chicks have to die somehow, this method was humane compared to others in the past, however you should still know, that means we make an informed choice when we shop and respect the food we eat more.
Kacey
14-01-2008
Originally Posted by BrideXIII:
“I don't think it detracts from the cause at all, the cause itself was to inform people, not stop them eating meat, it was a case of 'did you know how?' not ' this is cruel, don't eat them'.
the fact is unwanted baby chicks have to die somehow, this method was humane compared to others in the past, however you should still know, that means we make an informed choice when we shop and respect the food we eat more.”

Absolutely!

90% of people eat meat - fine, I'm in the 10% that doesn't but it would be great if some of the 90%, after last weeks programmes chose to buy only meat from more humane sources.
weateallthepies
14-01-2008
Originally Posted by BrideXIII:
“I don't think it detracts from the cause at all, the cause itself was to inform people, not stop them eating meat, it was a case of 'did you know how?' not ' this is cruel, don't eat them'.
the fact is unwanted baby chicks have to die somehow, this method was humane compared to others in the past, however you should still know, that means we make an informed choice when we shop and respect the food we eat more.”

Oh I though the show was informative and I'm all for people knowing where their food comes from and making an informed choice.

However the death scenes were pure shock tactics, with the close ups of people weeping and gasping and these were obviously filmed to cause a reaction that has nothing to do with how well we treat chickens when they are alive which seems to be the premise of the show.
1982
14-01-2008
Originally Posted by Kacey:
“Absolutely!

90% of people eat meat - fine, I'm in the 10% that doesn't but it would be great if some of the 90%, after last weeks programmes chose to buy only meat from more humane sources.”

Absolutely. I'm in that 90% and along with many others will be choosing more carefully from now on.
Xdash
15-01-2008
Whilst good an educational to the condition of the chickens, there was shock in it for shocks sake, to help the campiagn, I think the industry could produce more free range without a big price increase, just look at the fields with other livestock a bit of creative shifting of stock would soon solve this.
Also one thing I found funny was Jamie's trip in his 4x4, be nice to the chicken but burn as much fuel as you like eh?
WoOsHy
18-01-2008
Originally Posted by a01020304:
“Is this program Live or is it recorded to look like its live?
I ask that as he appologised for the person saying "Shit", but that does not really mean anything.”

Originally Posted by a01020304:
“thats what i thought, but i really hate programs that make out they are live... its a total con.

He is only doing this show as he is not getting enough money from sinsbury... cant stand the tosser.”

Yes, the fast edits, where scenes change rapidly in split seconds, and the change of clothes Jamie is wearing, and the background scenes and the way he seems to teleport himself from one part of the studio to another in an instant really make the show seem as though they're trying to make it seem live

No he didn't apologise for the swearing at all. He said in a roundabout way that it wasn't very articulate. Not even close to apologising. Were you even watching the same show? It was about chickens, 'n that.
Altheya
18-01-2008
Originally Posted by a01020304:
“He is only doing this show as he is not getting enough money from sinsbury... cant stand the tosser.”

PMSL, pull the other one, the bloke has plenty of his own businesses to earn money from. He didn't break his back doing the schools campaign to earn some extra pennies and this is no different. Not everyone only does the things that make them money, sometimes there are other reasons.....
madmaniac
19-01-2008
Originally Posted by weateallthepies:
“The biggest shock tactics used were around the death of chickens both young and old. To me this seems completely at odds with the message of the show since the chicks and chickens will still be killed no matter how well they are treated, free range or barn.

It's all very well those audience members gasping and crying when seeing birds killed and then stating that they will buy free range from now on but that killing isn't going to change. I can't be the only one that sees through this emotional manipulation and I don't think it really helps the cause.”

People are upset at how chickens are treated, but will end up killing them anyway for meat. Weird.

Is it more a concern about how good the chicken will taste depending on how they are treated, or a genuine concern for the chickens? I mean, Jamie stunned that chicken to death on the show... I don't care if it didn't hurt the animal or not, killing is killing no matter how you dress it up.

People will be eating their chickens thinking... "gee, it lived a fantastic life but then someone killed it for us to eat and it tastes great". If there was a genuine concern for the animal, you'd leave it to lead a natural life and death.

I'm not a vegetarian by the way. I'm just confused at the fuss.
<<
<
4 of 4
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map