Eating the fighting or fleeing animal
-
@oskaar23 said in Eating the fighting or fleeing animal:
@rohmilchbubi This is beyond stupid . why would stress hormones amplify the nutrition of the meat? Whats important is how the animal is fed from the start. tender meat digests easier
It is not stupid at all. He is simply saying the energetic state a hunted animal reach before his death might be préférable or more enjoyable than the energetic state of an animal that have been killed in a different way, fighting/ fighting for your life Can make you feel more alive in some cases.
-
doing this stuff is pointing towards having psychopathic and criminal tendencies , are willing to harm babies and women over ego bruising
-
@random so does drinking blood of tortured human sacrifice victim
-
@happyhanneke Thanks for the anecdote.
-
@rohmilchbubi are you Muslim?
-
@happyhanneke
Eating a chronically stressed or sick animal should not be preferred, that's what I mentioned above. But how can one determine the state of an animal before killing it? The most immediate indicators are visual and behavioral: does the animal appear strong and well-developed? How does it move? What is its posture and presence within the group? A healthy animal often reveals itself through vitality, alertness, and social status.If such assessment isn't possible beforehand there remains one direct method: Eating the stressed elk or deer immediate after killing it, while it's in a warm, blood-rich and raw state, to get a "taste" of it's health. Such an experience becomes impossible when various processing steps, refrigeration, and delays separate the moment of death from the act of eating.
Furthermore these processing steps are assumed to be necessary due to many modern safety guidelines, laws (which and when animals are allowed to be hunted etc) and hypotheses and assumptions (eating raw meat is dangerous etc.). But there is plenty of anthropological evidence, like in the documentary I posted above, that what modern hunters think of hunting today is not even close how hunting was actually done throughout history and cultures. This might be partly due to weaponization and mechanization of hunting, making it more and more easy to hunt, more distant, less meaningful.
-
@rohmilchbubi the only guy I know who talks like you tried to have a baby murdered after beginning to talk like you do
the meme about the satanist politicians etc is that they torture people before killing them to drink the blood because of the things you talk about
can you answer if you are a muslim or not?
-
@eduardo-crispino said in Eating the fighting or fleeing animal:
@random so does drinking blood of tortured human sacrifice victim
Yes, potentially they have the same reasoning
-
I recall from past experience looking into dogs being boiled alive that some people seem to believe that extremely high adrenaline will naturally tenderize the flesh of the animal when it dies.
-
@rohmilchbubi
We hunt and process our own meat. So the safety guidelines are our own.
The longer the animal hangs, and ages, the better the meat tastes. Its the same with processing a chicken, you slit the throat, process it and chill it for about 24-48 ours and then you freeze it or eat it. If you do it wrong the animal will taste like leather. It's terrible to eat.
When it comes to pigs, probably all the store bought pork you eat has been slaughtered under extreme stress. Visit a facility where they process them and you will hear their death screams. They know exactly what's coming.
My experience is that any animal eaten too soon is tasteless and tough. If we hunt elk, moose or deer the we make sure the animal is not chased and after being shot, hangs long enough so the meat is tender and tasty. It would be a waste of money to do it otherwise. Tags are not cheap. -
Vaguely related;
Why we ignore the suffering of wild animals: Understanding our biases
"""
Executive summary: This exploratory post argues that widespread neglect of wild animal suffering—despite its immense scale—is driven by a range of cognitive biases, and that overcoming these biases requires conscious effort and intellectual honesty. Key points:- Wild animal suffering vastly outweighs human-caused animal suffering, yet it is overlooked even by many animal advocates; this discrepancy is not logically grounded and is likely due to psychological biases.
- Cognitive biases such as status quo bias, scope neglect, survivorship bias, and compassion fade cause people to underestimate or emotionally disconnect from the scale and severity of suffering in the wild.
- People tend to empathize more with large, intelligent, or emotionally relatable animals, leading to the neglect of small animals (e.g., insects and crustaceans) that make up the majority of wild animal populations.
- Biases like omission bias and the idyllic view of nature cause individuals to excuse natural suffering or see it as less morally urgent simply because it is not human-caused.
- Common reasoning errors, including the assumption that “nature must be good,” false consensus about public opinion, and proportion bias, reinforce inaction by downplaying the moral importance or feasibility of interventions.
- The author advocates for practicing intellectual honesty and consistent reflection, arguing that only through sustained effort can we overcome our intuitive biases and make more accurate moral judgments about wild animal suffering.
"""
