Does "no pork" and "no beef" extend to other species?

Apparently, people like to eat.

Moderators: SecondTalon, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Jorpho
Posts: 6276
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:31 am UTC
Location: Canada

Does "no pork" and "no beef" extend to other species?

Postby Jorpho » Sun Aug 08, 2010 3:51 pm UTC

Just something I've been wondering: do those whose religious beliefs prohibit the eating of pork or beef products also refrain from eating, say, boar or buffalo meat?

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8509
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Does "no pork" and "no beef" extend to other species?

Postby Zohar » Sun Aug 08, 2010 4:53 pm UTC

Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Does "no pork" and "no beef" extend to other species?

Postby Belial » Wed Aug 11, 2010 2:08 pm UTC

Based on the entire one practicing Hindu I've ever posed the question to, the whole "don't eat the cows" thing is limited to cows, though. Bison is fine.

Again, though, that's not authoritative.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Pez Dispens3r
is not a stick figure.
Posts: 2079
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 3:08 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Does "no pork" and "no beef" extend to other species?

Postby Pez Dispens3r » Wed Aug 11, 2010 2:15 pm UTC

When I was traveling in India, pointing to what I thought was a cow and asking of my tour guide, "So what would happen if we hit that cow?"

"Nothing, that's an ox."

"You're allowed to hit an ox but not a cow?"

"Yes. An ox isn't a cow."

"Oh, OK."

EDIT: actually maybe I misremembered because Wikipedia says Hindus don't eat oxen, either. Might have been a buffalo.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:I feel like you're probably an ocelot, and I feel like I want to eat you. Feeling is fun!
this isn't my cow

User avatar
theGoldenCalf;
Posts: 257
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 7:16 am UTC
Location: Elbow deep inside the borderline

Re: Does "no pork" and "no beef" extend to other species?

Postby theGoldenCalf; » Wed Aug 11, 2010 2:39 pm UTC

Belial wrote:Based on the entire one practicing Hindu I've ever posed the question to, the whole "don't eat the cows" thing is limited to cows, though. Bison is fine.

Again, though, that's not authoritative.


From what I've seen, it varies. I've been to places in India where you can get any kind of meat at a restaurant, places where the local people will gladly eat meat as well, and places where you're searched for any leather objects for fear you'll desecrate the entire village and bring floods and locusts upon their heads. There is a town called Pushkar in the state of Rhajastan where it is forbidden to posses any non-vegan foods, inc. milk and eggs.
それは彼女が言ったことだ!

User avatar
Jorpho
Posts: 6276
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:31 am UTC
Location: Canada

Re: Does "no pork" and "no beef" extend to other species?

Postby Jorpho » Thu Aug 12, 2010 12:28 am UTC

Harris (reference 6 in that thar Wikipedia article) actually suggests that the Hindu prohibition against beef isn't quite what it's cracked up to be. I'm not sure I trust him, though.

User avatar
meatyochre
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:09 am UTC
Location: flying with the Conchords

Re: Does "no pork" and "no beef" extend to other species?

Postby meatyochre » Thu Aug 12, 2010 12:50 am UTC

theGoldenCalf; wrote:There is a town called Pushkar in the state of Rhajastan where it is forbidden to posses any non-vegan foods, inc. milk and eggs.
Even for children? I did some reading on vegan diets and it's not possible to raise a healthy-weight vegan child without supplementing with animal milk or eggs at the very least. Or do they breastfeed their children past the age of 5?
Dark567 wrote:"Hey, I created a perpetual motion device"

"yeah, but your poster sucks. F-"

Image

User avatar
Pez Dispens3r
is not a stick figure.
Posts: 2079
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 3:08 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Does "no pork" and "no beef" extend to other species?

Postby Pez Dispens3r » Thu Aug 12, 2010 1:22 am UTC

meatyochre wrote:
theGoldenCalf; wrote:There is a town called Pushkar in the state of Rhajastan where it is forbidden to posses any non-vegan foods, inc. milk and eggs.
Even for children? I did some reading on vegan diets and it's not possible to raise a healthy-weight vegan child without supplementing with animal milk or eggs at the very least. Or do they breastfeed their children past the age of 5?

Pushkar is essentiallya lake and the shore of that lake, inhabited largely by priests and new-age Westerners. Go for a brisk walk and you're no longer in Pushkar, and can have as many pancakes as your soul desires.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:I feel like you're probably an ocelot, and I feel like I want to eat you. Feeling is fun!
this isn't my cow

User avatar
meatyochre
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:09 am UTC
Location: flying with the Conchords

Re: Does "no pork" and "no beef" extend to other species?

Postby meatyochre » Thu Aug 12, 2010 1:24 am UTC

Pez Dispens3r wrote:
meatyochre wrote:
theGoldenCalf; wrote:There is a town called Pushkar in the state of Rhajastan where it is forbidden to posses any non-vegan foods, inc. milk and eggs.
Even for children? I did some reading on vegan diets and it's not possible to raise a healthy-weight vegan child without supplementing with animal milk or eggs at the very least. Or do they breastfeed their children past the age of 5?

Pushkar is essentiallya lake and the shore of that lake, inhabited largely by priests and new-age Westerners. Go for a brisk walk and you're no longer in Pushkar, and can have as many pancakes as your soul desires.

That's cool and all, and I don't profess to be an expert on how people live in other countries. But it seems bizarre that you would be an outlaw for keeping a gallon of milk in your fridge for your baby, and have to go to another town anytime you wanted to give them breakfast.
Dark567 wrote:"Hey, I created a perpetual motion device"

"yeah, but your poster sucks. F-"

Image

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Does "no pork" and "no beef" extend to other species?

Postby Izawwlgood » Thu Aug 12, 2010 1:30 am UTC

Yeah, it's a drag too, because pigow is fucking delicious.

The rules of kashrutare specific and follow a set of qualities an animal must possess (chew it's own cud and split hoof for mammals, for example). Pigs are specifically prohibited, but I know for Jews, the law isn't a list of animals you can eat and a list you can't, it's a list of rules that pretty specifically leaves a handful of vertebrate families, with pigs being outlawed, and grasshoppers and I think locust as being allowed.

I think it's pretty funny too, because like most things Jewish, there's a series of vague commandments sort of possibly maybe about it and then over a thousand years of wise men arguing about it.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Pez Dispens3r
is not a stick figure.
Posts: 2079
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 3:08 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Does "no pork" and "no beef" extend to other species?

Postby Pez Dispens3r » Thu Aug 12, 2010 1:35 am UTC

meatyochre wrote:That's cool and all, and I don't profess to be an expert on how people live in other countries. But it seems bizarre that you would be an outlaw for keeping a gallon of milk in your fridge for your baby, and have to go to another town anytime you wanted to give them breakfast.

It's one of the holiest places in India, and Hindus place a lot of importance on dietary restrictions. (And as far as I understand it, so do Sikhs and Buddhists.) A five minute walk isn't really a big deal in that context.

I mean, sometimes I'm drunk enough I need to piss really badly. But can I do it on the war memorial? No, that place is sacred. Bizarre, right?
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:I feel like you're probably an ocelot, and I feel like I want to eat you. Feeling is fun!
this isn't my cow

User avatar
meatyochre
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:09 am UTC
Location: flying with the Conchords

Re: Does "no pork" and "no beef" extend to other species?

Postby meatyochre » Thu Aug 12, 2010 1:52 am UTC

Pez Dispens3r wrote:
meatyochre wrote:That's cool and all, and I don't profess to be an expert on how people live in other countries. But it seems bizarre that you would be an outlaw for keeping a gallon of milk in your fridge for your baby, and have to go to another town anytime you wanted to give them breakfast.

It's one of the holiest places in India, and Hindus place a lot of importance on dietary restrictions. (And as far as I understand it, so do Sikhs and Buddhists.) A five minute walk isn't really a big deal in that context.

I mean, sometimes I'm drunk enough I need to piss really badly. But can I do it on the war memorial? No, that place is sacred. Bizarre, right?

But you can buy a toilet and install it in your house and pee there anytime you want to, whereas these people can't keep basic diet components in their own homes without being criminals. You're also an adult who can control where you do and don't pee. It's not comparable to a baby who has no control over when or where they get hungry. There's a difference.

And you don't have to be so sarcastic, either.
Dark567 wrote:"Hey, I created a perpetual motion device"

"yeah, but your poster sucks. F-"

Image

User avatar
Pez Dispens3r
is not a stick figure.
Posts: 2079
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 3:08 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Does "no pork" and "no beef" extend to other species?

Postby Pez Dispens3r » Thu Aug 12, 2010 2:13 am UTC

meatyochre wrote:But you can buy a toilet and install it in your house and pee there anytime you want to, whereas these people can't keep basic diet components in their own homes without being criminals. You're also an adult who can control where you do and don't pee. It's not comparable to a baby who has no control over when or where they get hungry. There's a difference.

And you don't have to be so sarcastic, either.

Eh, the fastest way to get a sarcastic response from me is to refer to a culture you don't understand as 'bizarre'. Besides which, as you earlier pointed out, babies are incidental to all this as they can be breastfed, and there's no evidence the general population of Pushkar suffers from malnutrition (the influx of pilgrims and tourists keep things quite prosperous there).
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:I feel like you're probably an ocelot, and I feel like I want to eat you. Feeling is fun!
this isn't my cow

User avatar
meatyochre
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:09 am UTC
Location: flying with the Conchords

Re: Does "no pork" and "no beef" extend to other species?

Postby meatyochre » Thu Aug 12, 2010 2:18 am UTC

Pez Dispens3r wrote:
meatyochre wrote:But you can buy a toilet and install it in your house and pee there anytime you want to, whereas these people can't keep basic diet components in their own homes without being criminals. You're also an adult who can control where you do and don't pee. It's not comparable to a baby who has no control over when or where they get hungry. There's a difference.

And you don't have to be so sarcastic, either.

Eh, the fastest way to get a sarcastic response from me is to refer to a culture you don't understand as 'bizarre'. Besides which, as you earlier pointed out, babies are incidental to all this as they can be breastfed, and there's no evidence the general population of Pushkar suffers from malnutrition (the influx of pilgrims and tourists keep things quite prosperous there).
okeydokey
Dark567 wrote:"Hey, I created a perpetual motion device"

"yeah, but your poster sucks. F-"

Image

User avatar
Nath
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 8:14 pm UTC

Re: Does "no pork" and "no beef" extend to other species?

Postby Nath » Thu Aug 12, 2010 3:38 am UTC

Jorpho wrote:Harris (reference 6 in that thar Wikipedia article) actually suggests that the Hindu prohibition against beef isn't quite what it's cracked up to be. I'm not sure I trust him, though.

It's not that rare for Hindus to eat beef. I'm from a Hindu family (though I'm not religious), and I enjoy the occasional burger (okay, more than occasional). Several relatives do, too; some more religious than others. Others eat chicken, fish and non-beef red meat; others still are lacto-vegetarian (no eggs). I don't know any Hindu vegans.

User avatar
theGoldenCalf;
Posts: 257
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 7:16 am UTC
Location: Elbow deep inside the borderline

Re: Does "no pork" and "no beef" extend to other species?

Postby theGoldenCalf; » Thu Aug 12, 2010 6:51 am UTC

Seems like the Pushkar discussion is already over (time differences be a harsh mistress), just one thing I wanted to point out:

meatyochre wrote:...you would be an outlaw for keeping a gallon of milk in your fridge...


That specific law is similar to the large-scale ban on cow meat in that it just introduces the existing state of affairs into the legal system. People refrain from bringing non-vegan foods into Pushkar mainly from reasons of belief and custom, not just because it is the law. That's just the way things are over there and the people I've met seem to not even notice it, especially with all the tourist-money keeping them happy.

Izawwlgood wrote:pigs being outlawed, and grasshoppers and I think locust as being allowed.


That's actually an interesting anecdote in Jewish kosher-laws. Insects, together with any animal that spawns it's young, are forbidden - with the exception of grasshoppers and locusts, for some reason. This reason, I believe, is that in arid regions of the middle east, populations sometimes rely on these animals for nutrition. And yes, when there was a large Yemenite immigration a few decades back, catching and eating grasshoppers was common to the new immigrants.

Two more kosher-anecdotes: sharks were deemed scale-less fish until the invention of the microscope (or at least powerful magnifying glasses) and considered not-kosher. It was revised by some, but not all. Giraffes became kosher some years ago (something to do with their milk) but can't be slaughtered in a kosher-manner because of their necks, hence not-kosher once more. Some people just love legal theory, I guess.
それは彼女が言ったことだ!

User avatar
folkhero
Posts: 1775
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:34 am UTC

Re: Does "no pork" and "no beef" extend to other species?

Postby folkhero » Thu Aug 12, 2010 1:49 pm UTC

theGoldenCalf; wrote:That's actually an interesting anecdote in Jewish kosher-laws. Insects, together with any animal that spawns it's young, are forbidden - with the exception of grasshoppers and locusts, for some reason. This reason, I believe, is that in arid regions of the middle east, populations sometimes rely on these animals for nutrition. And yes, when there was a large Yemenite immigration a few decades back, catching and eating grasshoppers was common to the new immigrants.

Well if you have enough locusts around to be a good food source it might mean that they wiped out your other food source. I mean, if a plague comes and eats your whole harvest, its probably a good idea to be able to eat the thing that ate it.
To all law enforcement entities, this is not an admission of guilt...

User avatar
Pez Dispens3r
is not a stick figure.
Posts: 2079
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 3:08 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Does "no pork" and "no beef" extend to other species?

Postby Pez Dispens3r » Thu Aug 12, 2010 3:17 pm UTC

folkhero wrote:
theGoldenCalf; wrote:That's actually an interesting anecdote in Jewish kosher-laws. Insects, together with any animal that spawns it's young, are forbidden - with the exception of grasshoppers and locusts, for some reason. This reason, I believe, is that in arid regions of the middle east, populations sometimes rely on these animals for nutrition. And yes, when there was a large Yemenite immigration a few decades back, catching and eating grasshoppers was common to the new immigrants.

Well if you have enough locusts around to be a good food source it might mean that they wiped out your other food source. I mean, if a plague comes and eats your whole harvest, its probably a good idea to be able to eat the thing that ate it.

But that's not necessarily why it is kosher to eat locusts. It's just one of those generic "could be right" explanations which run rampant in evo psych.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:I feel like you're probably an ocelot, and I feel like I want to eat you. Feeling is fun!
this isn't my cow

User avatar
Telchar
That's Admiral 'The Hulk' Ackbar, to you sir
Posts: 1937
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:06 pm UTC
Location: Cynicistia

Re: Does "no pork" and "no beef" extend to other species?

Postby Telchar » Thu Aug 12, 2010 6:54 pm UTC

Pez Dispens3r wrote:But that's not necessarily why it is kosher to eat locusts. It's just one of those generic "could be right" explanations which run rampant in anthropology.

FTFY
Zamfir wrote:Yeah, that's a good point. Everyone is all about presumption of innocence in rape threads. But when Mexican drug lords build APCs to carry their henchmen around, we immediately jump to criminal conclusions without hard evidence.


Return to “Food”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 61 guests