[KS] Re: Cats next?!

[Jason Parker]

I agree that there is a contradiction. I am not aware of the reasons 
mentioned insofar as tenderizing the meat is considered. I am only aware of 
the taste that is derived from the release of adrenaline in the meat. It is 
counterintuitive that meat could be made tender through a process that 
creates such stress upon an animal (when I get a tension headache, my neck 
is anything but tender). Ms. Dyke makes a very valid point in her 
mentioning of cultural relativism and how people "make sense" of their world.

Jason Parker
OSU, Anthropology

At 01:17 PM 7/26/00 -0400, you wrote:
>I find this thread both fascinating and nauseating.  I have a factual (?)
>question.  Several posts have referred to the "benefits" of beating or
>otherwise significantly traumatizing the animal in question (boiling the
>cat alive) in order to "release adrenaline" "tenderinze the meat" etc.  I
>recall reading an article on animal slaughter in the U.S. (cattle).  The
>entire thrust of the article was that one of the motivations underlying
>more "humane" forms of slaughter was to REDUCE the amoung of adrenaline
>and other stress hormones released just prior to death in order to IMPROVE
>the quality of the meat.  There seems to be a direct contradiciton.  Can
>anyone reply?
>
>Liz Ten Dyke, Ph.D.
>Kingston NY
>
>By the way, I am an anthropologists who has often lectured (to
>undergraduates, anyway) on cultural relativism, and the limits of cultural
>relativism.  Boy is this discussion pushing me to my own limits (that is,
>my ability to recognize that practices/habits of others may make sense to
>them, in the context of their own lives, belief systems, social
>relationships, etc., even though they are incomprehensible to me in the
>context of my own.  Yes, and I eat meat.  Boy does life get confusing
>sometimes).
>



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%