ANSWERS: 3
  • Beef is from the French "boeuf" which means cow, and por from the French "porc", pig. Likewise mutton is from the French "mouton" sheep. Back in Norman times, these were the main farm animals - turkey, chicken, etc. cam later. The poor farmhands who tended the live animals called them by their Anglos-Saxon names of cow, pig, sheep. The rich Norman lords called the meat they ate by their French names boeuf, porc and mouton. As the two languages merged to form the English we now speak, the meats kept different names from the animals. Later arrivals did not have this split.
  • Because beef is cow (http://www.dictionary.net/beef). and conversely pig is pork (http://www.dictionary.net/pork) Damn those French.
  • If we dig deep enough into our heart and conscience, we'd know that the forceful slaughter of animals are wrong and barbaric by human standard. What standard? That conscience of knowing that it is wrong to bully and kill the weak and helpless, is the best reference as a standard for the human race. Not the kind of standards based on the comparison of ourselves to any of the much lower carnivorous animals. Usually the feeling of guilt increases with the size of the animal being slaughtered as well as whether one has been brought up in a culture that eats it. Killing an ant is not significant to most of us because it is so small. If it is too small for us to see the details of the damage done and to be able to hear the agonising cries, it is usually not noticed. On the other hand, killing living beings that are equal to or even bigger than ourselves, such as cows, pigs, sheep, whales and so forth, the details of every damage done can be seen so clearly right infront of our eyes. You don't need a microscope nor do you need sensitive microphones to pick up the sounds of the screams of pain and terror coming from them. Details such as the spill of blood, the sight of cut flesh and tissues dangling outside the animal whilst he/she is still struggling to stand up and try make an escape from the humans (see video below) can clearly be seen in any slaughterhouses and would make most of us feel horrified. As Sir Paul McCartney put it, "If slaughterhouses had glass walls, we'd all be vegetarians". So humans with their devious and crafty minds came up with euphemistic terms to mentally distance what people eat from the horrors of the most perverted cruelty done daily to non-humans. Hence, euphemisms designed to cover-up the wrongs and guilts of forcing other sentient beings to die, churned out with terms like: MEAT, as opposed to FLESH PORK, as opposed to PIG BEEF, as opposed to COW MUTTON, as opposed to SHEEP Note the the list on the left is designed to mentally associate people to the notion of food. The list on the right can then stay as communication for people inside the slaughterhouses; so that chefs, mothers, wives, husbands that does the cooking is ensured they never have to ever use these terms to remind them of the ugliness and selfishness of their action. As such, it is also used to allow for a seemingly civilised human society a corrupt excuse to indulge in something that by modern civilised school of thoughts, is referred to as barbaric and uncivilised. This method of mental cover-up with a veil of euphemism is also especially useful to distance impressionable young children from knowing and thus associating meat-eating to the worst shame of adult human cruelty to non-human beings. The slaughter of significantly smaller animals such as chickens, turkeys and even baby lambs perhaps does not create a big enough horror scene of blood bath to most people due to their smaller sizes. Hence there was never a need for a euphemistic term to distance their slaughter from the civilised notion of food. So much so that I've even heard people asked if chicken and fish are considered "meat". Ignorant question, granted; but it also exemplifies the dangerous fact that no matter how academically intelligent humans are, we can all be brainwashed from an early childhood to grow up and become totally indifferent to the barbaric slaughter of animals or even other races of humans if that culture allows it. It is also interesting to note that not only it it is not seen as meat to some, most people that go fishing also holds the obstinate belief that they can't feel pain, even after they filleted a small live fish that was just caught, to be used as bait for a bigger hook. http://www.fishinghurts.com/fishfeelpain.asp Lastly, you might have noticed I've touched upon the word whale but did not include it in the list above of the large animals being slaughtered. This is because unlike all the other animals which people in the west has been brainwashed from childhood to associate their flesh to the notion of food and grew indifferent to their killings, the whale on the other hand, is not eaten by people in the west. This is also the reason why there is no euphemistic term for whale meat in the english language. Because westerners don't eat them, they don't have an association of their flesh with the notion of food. Hence they can see the whale as a sentient being and not meat. This is why a lot of people that eats meat everyday are, strangely enough, very passionate about fighting to stop the slaughter of whales. If a meat eater can feel so bad about the slaughtering of one species of animal, imagine how much worst does a vegetarian/ vegan have to feel every single day knowing that all innocent animals everywhere are brutally slaughtered around the clock? Some are even slaughtered by the very people that strongly objects to notion of the eating of whale meat. In conclusion, 1) the use of euphemistic terms to distance meat eating from the truth is a very powerful tool to ensure it can look falsely civilised and, 2) to ensure children do not need to question the association of eating an animal's meat with the necessary violent death of an animal. 3) Euphemism aside, if a child has been brought up in a culture that considers it normal to eat a paticular type of animal, this indivudual will most likely grow up to become indifferent to their sufferings in slaughterhouses. On the other hand, if it is not an animal that this person has grown up eating, for example the whale, themn the individual would be likely to be against the slaughter and eating of its meat. One most common excuse for people to contunue to eat them throughout their entire life, is that they need to eat to survive. Sure, and so does all the hundreds of millions of vegetarians around the world. The only difference is that no sentient beings need to become partially cremated materials inside the kitchen oven. It seems then that if we all bring our children up as vegetarians or vegans, the adults of the next generation will likely to love all animals and as such the world would be a less violent place, even to human beings themselves. Karmically, as we ourselves cause less violence to others, so too will our own surroundings gradually becomes more and more peaceful as well. There will be less wars or none at all.

Copyright 2018, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy