New reality TV show brings fresh brutality to the genre with a threat to make you cook and eat your pet. Is this the way the Left sells vegetarianism?
This story — and some actual fun ones — on this Right Angle: Lightning Round, where Stephen Green quizzes Scott Ott and Bill Whittle on breaking news and general weirdness.
Our Members bring you this, and some four dozen other shows each month, most of which you can enjoy right here without a Membership. But to unlock new achievement levels, access backstage shows, engage in our Member blog, forums, comments and private messaging, join us today.
26 replies on “Eat Your Pet Reality TV Show Sells Vegetarianism with Brutality”
Dirty joke Bill… that sort of thing really is above you for a show of this quality.
The first I’d heard of the TV show was on here. So I checked up on it. Yup, Channel 4 is indeed making three, one hour “reality TV” shows called Meat the Family. The families will be given the option of going vegetarian or eating the animal they have adopted as a pet. The animal will not be their actual pet dog, but a pig, or lamb or whatever, “adopted” for the show. The aim, so it is claimed, is “to confront the reality of an animal’s journey from field to plate”, which is BS. The reality of journey for the vast majority of animals destined for the plate does not include being pampered and pestered by a modern British family.
I’ve had friends who’ve have pigs that they raised specifically for slaughter. They named them Bacon, Sausages and Chops. they looked after them well but kept an emotional distance.
It’s just a re-hash of the old challenge “How can you eat meat if you’re not willing to kill the animal?”. If that’s the test then presumably only those willing to put their own lives on the line should enjoy the protection of the police and armed forces, only those willing and able to perform surgery should get surgery? Vegetarianism and especially veganism are very big in our public culture, more so than they seem to be out in the real world. The annual appearance on various TV shows of someone from the Vegetarian Society to tell us what made percentage of us are now vegetarian has become part of the cycle of the year like Christmas or the University Boat Race. They inevitably go on to say that on current trends we’ll all be vegetarian by 20??. All based on the number of people who get in touch to tell them they’ve given up meat It never occurs to them, and the interviewer is never rude or intelligent enough to ask, how many people that have gone back on the bacon butties get in touch to tell them.
No surprise this comes from Channel 4, the BBC’s nasty little bastard brother. It was set up in the 1980s, is partially state funded and is self consciously “hip and edgy” compared to sad old “Auntie Beeb”.
I suspect that the only meaningful thing that will demonstrated by this show is what emotionally incontinent pawns in the hands of the Media/Leftist complex many of my countrymen are. I could be wrong and it may be this bights them on their fat, complacent bums. We live in hope.
Davey hits the nail square.
Just because most of us don’t kill the animals we eat, I could also say, most of us don’t build the cell phones we talk on. Should Vegans be prevented from using Technology if they can’t pass a calculus test and solder parts on a printed circuit board?
as Davey said:
If that’s the test then presumably only those willing to put their own lives on the line should enjoy the protection of the police and armed forces,
Is it really a Reality TV show or the TV news coming out of Venezuela? They ate their pets under socialism.
So, I fully expect Cocaine Mitch and PDT to do a joint rally at that KY gun range. Can’t believe it hasn’t already been announced.
ABC knew exactly what they were doing when they aired that Kentucky Syrian footage. If you look at the original video, you can see hundreds of people holding up their cell phones, recording the live fire action. ABC not only darkened the video, they put up a crawl at the bottom of the screen to mask the cell phones and the watching crowd. ABC, don’t insult my intelligence by lying about your lies. It only makes you look more stupid.
Scott, you miss the point. If everything I say is offensive, I get to say absolutely anything I want to!
How about willful public defamation of someone else with careless disregard of the truth? You can say it but you can be sued. You might not like the consequences.
See: Defamation, Slander, and Libel
If they’re going to make the claim about anything I say, I still get to say anything I want.
That is exactly what I said. I also said that you might not like the consequences.
You really need to get a sense of humor there…
I was taking you at your word. You persist in saying you can say anything you want, thereby implying there is no limit to what you would say. I simply specified that you cannot say just anything without suffering negative legal consequences with some statements.
Perhaps you need to learn how to specify what you really do mean more clearly. Words mean things external to your foggy miasma of unstated internal intent. Deal with it!
There is a huge difference between “can” and “should”. To claim you can is to claim you can safely ignore the consequences. To claim you should is to take the consequences into account.
You have a right to your opinions but don’t have a right to your facts. You determine what your opinions are. Reality determines what the fact are.
Misstate the facts and it is a misrepresentation of reality. Any attempt to do so will come with a price. The payment is immediate or offset by your forcing someone else to pay the price for you. Which is itself a fundamental violation of their individual rights. Thereby setting a boundary between can and should.
I strongly suggest you check your premises and review the difference between can and should in context of a civil society. If you live on a deserted island, do and say what you will. You and you alone will pay the price or reap the rewards.
You’re deciding that what is said is what you want it to mean, not what it actually is. You do know that’s a fairly “progressive” way of interpreting someone else’s words, right?
Please note that I started the statement as an example of something you could say that would have undesirable consequences for you if you said it. I did not say you said it.
Further, you did not give any boundaries on your “want to say”. Hence, there is no limit on what you could say but not without consequences.
Besides, “willful public defamation” and “careless disregard of the truth” are both judgment calls which require the plaintiff to prove his case, not the defendant to prove him wrong.
Example: You were the one asserting a falsehood about another: publicly and with damaging consequences to your target. Your only defense is to prove what you said is the truth. Since what you said was false, you can’t do that. If you don’t defend, you are leaving yourself to the mercy and skills of the prosecution lawyers. Not very good odds.
As I said, you can say whatever you wish but you might not like the consequences of having said it. Speak only the truth, be able to prove it is the truth, then and only then can you say what you will without worrying so much about the consequences.
You’re making some extreme assumptions here. I said I get to say anything I want, you somehow took from that that I would be lying. You really need to learn to read for content.
Consider this: all I know about you is your words. I take them at face value. I cannot read your mind nor can you read mine.
You leave the interpretation of your words wide open. Try narrowing the scope of possible interpretations to what you actually do mean.
Indeed, you can say anything at all on the un-banned list.
Perhaps they could offer the carnivores the option of eating a vegetarian…
There are big differences between pets and cattle. We’ve done this for thousands of years. We may care for and really like our cattle but we know they are for food. I’ve raised cows and been attached to them but I knew they were headed to the butcher at some point. This is a far cry from my dog who is part of my family and I would sacrifice for.
True Will and the “Meat Your Family” show is set up with 4 families and the so-called “pets” for each are a calf, chicken, lamb, and pig.
The Passover lamb spends 10 days in the house as a pet before its slaughter for Seder. God wanted to make a point about the power of sacrifice and the ugliness of sin.
And anyone who has spent 5 minutes at the 4-H Sale Barn knows that $10,000 won’t dull the pain, but it will fill the freezer and pay tuition. Spunky the steer brought $40k. Brett is raising Nickelback for the Fair next summer. Sorry, UK Vegans: This reality show goes on everyday in rural America—and Britain— if you’d set foot outside London.
Theres an old saying here in TX. You don’t mess w/ a man’s woman, truck or his dog. Not necessarily in that order.
They ain’t gonna be doing that show here in TX. I’ve yet to meet anyone I like more than dog and I’m armed.