/ck/ - Food & Cooking

You can eat anything OP.

>>9373891
yes op, just wring its neck then roll it around in the pinko crumbs and drop it in the frier whole

>>9373905
Yup

why would you eat acat?

>>9373891
Opossum works well in stews and pies. There are recipes in early 20th century cookbooks, and presumably the internet. Cook it very thoroughly and be careful handling the raw meat.

drown it in a barrel right in the cage, then skin and gut it like a rabbit, should be good with your panko

haha I hate myself

Fuckin pinkos are stealing our bread crumbs now?

>>9373891
>pinko bread crumbs
as opposed to what, capitalist breadcrumbs?

obviously, faggots

anal sex

>>9373891
do NOT eat the tet...

fuck this thread REEEE

Should I shoot it or drown it first before I gut it?

I think I can use my Panko bread crumbs in place of flour in this recipe.

http://www.wideopenspaces.com/3-possum-recipes-fool-taste-buds/

go to the kitchen and make her a nice snack and then set her free :3

>>9374014
drown it. its more brutal and will taste better

>>9373950
Does drowning make the meat nasty?

>>9374046
reeee leave ur not a robot, petafucker

>>9374057
just do it.

>>9374059

>>9373891
edups?

>>9374056

I don't wanna eat fear, I wanna eat deliciousness dipped in pinko bread crumbs

>>9373891
>eating an animal that eats garbage
enjoy your possum aids op

>>9374014
>>9373891
Let him go. He's a cutie who don't wanna be eaten.

>>9373891
Yes. Yes, you can!

>>9374137

Here's what you do, an old family recipe.
Move it to a slightly bigger cage so you can put in a food and water dish for it.
Feed it nothing but Cornbread and Buttermilk for two weeks.
Then, skin and clean it, and wrap it in tinfoil, surrounded by horse apples.
Cook until done, then throw out the possum and eat the horse apples, because that's more sanitary.

>>9373891
Op that is a wild tet and they are for friend, not food

Holy shit a free cat!

>>9374079
Slav here, commie bread was shit. Tasted like cigarette. Use pinko cigarette instead, already dry flake. Taste like bread crumb.

>>9374204
You're a little too excited about a stupid and nasty smelling asshole that will lay in it's own shit and piss then rub itself in OP's face and put it's ass and balls/pussy in his face

Decapitate that fucker with a shovel and reset your trap

>>9374014
Neither do it live

turkey fryer will make my Panko bread crumbs nice and crispy

>>9374137
>hurting shit to feel good about yourself

>>9373891
Feed this tet as an apology for its wasted time and release it into the wild.

>>9373891
let him go somewhere safe where he can go back in the wild. no need to hurt him.

>>9373891
>pinko bread crumbs
Get out commie

It's immoral to kill a living being.

>>9374440
>pussy bleeds even when you're a "man"

>>9373891
let me share with you the dish of my native people
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brunswick_stew

>>9373891
Can you eat it? Yes. Should you eat it? Probably not. They eat a lot of trash, so if you consumed it, you'd be at a risk to contract a disease

>they eat trash
>they are full of diseases

Opossums are not like that in the respects that you think. You are spouting typical class-restriction social propaganda. It is the same thing about catfish and carp. People think "bottom feeder" means "I'm too good for bottom feeders" and thus respond with all manner of ignorant and misplaced myths and lies. Carp are good, but the main problem is their pin bones which are branched, making them difficult to clean for fillets. Opossums are pretty ugly and like squirrels have tough meat. These attributes mean these types of meats end up as stew/soup meats. Which is another negative connotation for many higher social class individuals. They'd rather eat tinder steaks and boneless fillets.

I've eaten nearly ever wild animal and fish in my area. None of them taste bad, with the exception of shiners and creek chubs which I could never cook and get rid of the massively fishy odor and flavor. Some meats are tough and some are "gamey" which is a strong odor and flavor which can often times be lowered or prevented by killing the animal as quickly and stress free as possible.

>>9373891
•Kill it.
•Butcher it.
•Remove all the meat from the bones.
•Cube the meat.
•Crack all the bones.
•Use a slow cooker/crock pot and cook the meat and bones with salted water for 12-16 hours (overnight).
•Remove the bones and toss those away.
•Add seasonings and vegetables to the slow cooker and cook everything until the veggies are done. You may need to add the veggies at timed intervals so that everything is done cooking at the same time to prevent some turning to mush. Add a thickening agent near the end of the cooking cycle.
•Eat with seasoned, "Texas toast".

The veggies I use are standard stew veggies. Carrots, onions, potatoes, celery, garlic, green peas, red & green bell peppers, etc.

What not to do: Any type of fast cooking or frying. Covered baking can work, but you still need to slow cook it.

>>9376082
Meh. I really need to proof read more.

>>9376082
Thanks for the rare Patti

Why not?

>>9376114
QUEDO DELICIOSO

>>9375881
>ethics and morals are for women

Is the Tet alright? OP wasn't even going to eat it afterwards, so why not just let her go? She looked really fucking scared in there.

>>9376280
I hope he didn't harm tet. Desperate people are capable of anything...

>>9373891
that's not how time stamps work

>>9376114
>>9376120
UMA

I've trapped 3 oppussums and 2 racoons out of my garden this year but I just take them somewhere and let them go. I hunt, and wouldn't object to eating the meat, but I'm not a shitty enough lowlife to kill an animal I trapped in a cage. That's some scumbag shit right there.

>>9376444
see
>>9375881

>>9373891
These make great pets.

>>9374440
As opposed to buying shit that other people hurt so you don't have to?

>>9376562
Yes.

>>9376498
t. Shittyass scumbag

>>9376562
No, as opposed to hurting things for necessity, like food.

It's about the motivation. Hurting for pleasure is bad. Hurting to eliminate vermin or put food on the table is not.

>>9376498
>i might be a piece of shit but at least i'm not a pussy!
Are you like 14 years old or something?

>>9376524
Yeah but not if it has a pet tree and a gun then it's just an asshole.

>>9376595
>>9376629
Sure thing, kid.

>>9376601
>>9374440
>anon captures vermin
>anon kills vermin humanely
>anon eats vermin

>"waaahhh my pussy bleeds"

>>9373943
>There are recipes in early 20th century cookbooks
Can confirm, I've got an old cookbook from the mid-20th century that has a few recipes for opossum, including a roast.

>>9373891
Hillbilly-American here. Yes, you can cook possums. They're extremely greasy and taste kinda awful, but they're edible.

Possums are okay. Drive it 20 miles out and let it go. Fuck rabbits and woodchucks though. They ruin so much of your garden that it's better to kill them than to release it somewhere and have it come back or become someone else's problem.

>>9377064
No need to take offense; I only ask because you have the moral thought of an early teenager.

gotta love that crispy crispy pinko

>>9377069
>anon eats vermin
Wouldn't it be absolutely haram in Middle Eastern cuisine as that animal would be unclean? In any case, anon shouldn't harm tet.

>>9374014
A bullet to the head is cruelty free, it won't know anything happened. Use a .45 or .357 best results.

>>9377069
Yeah, it's wrong to kill things turns out. We could reverse our moral thought a thousand or so years to better fit in with the person in your image, though, if you'd like.

most meat is edible. i think horseshoe crabs are right out. what you have is Varmint, country cooks know what to do. i wouldnt, too much trouble, and very lean meat. prob good gamey flavor though.

>>9373891
Braise it in beer with mirepoix, garlic and a bundle of fresh rosemary.

>>9374142
Roll

>>9373891
set tet free

>>9376444
You mean something that humans have done for thousands of years?

>>9376326
DELICIA

>>9377183
>Yeah, it's wrong to kill things turns out.

lol No it isn't.

>>9377292
I don't think the roll counts for something from 2008 on /k/.

>>9377458
That was when it was the difference between starvation and sustenance and there weren't enough humans to negatively impact wild animal populations. That's why hunting and wildlife regulations exist now to ensure a balance. We have a coon hunting season in my state, but it's illegal to trap and kill them. That's lowlife whitetrash/nignog as fuck and no self respecting hunter would do it, nor would they poach other game in violation of the laws. But keep being a scumbag, you have plenty of company.

>>9377496
I mean depends on your moral system. Like I said, if you want to reverse our centuries of moral progress and revert to a moral system that makes you feel better about killing things then that is your prerogative.

Proper Opossum Gourmet Cooking

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeWQoAWeAZ0

After consulting with a family member out in the smokey mountains. I decided against eating it. Too greasy to mess with, so my Panko bread crumbs will pair nicely with the rabbit I'm trying to trap instead.

Ol' Tet is in a better place now. Humanely put a gold dot to the his head while he was munching on a snack. Never saw it coming.

>>9377806
fantastic

>>9377830
Wait so you killed it and then didn't eat it?
Pangloss was an idiot; we are truly living in the worst of all possible worlds

>>9377860

Considering it trampled my garden and ate my fruits of labor. Yes, I did dispatch it. I usually eat the squirrels and rabbits I catch. Just never caught a Tet. Animal control would of killed him anyways. If I dropped him off elsewhere, he'd be someone else's problem and maybe worse could have happened to him. So I did what I felt was best for my home and land after being told they're really greasy. I made sure he was dispatched in the most humane way possible.

>>9377889
drop the niggas off in the forest away from society and let the rules of nature take care of it

>>9377889
You're filth. You're not even on the level of a scumbag whitetrash/nignog that would kill a live trapped animal for food. What part of "live trapped" do you not understand? Pathetic.

>>9377501
Hey man let the guy believe

>>9376114
UMA

>>9378244
calm down loser

What the fuk is a Tet, a dumb meme?

>>9377860
post proof that you aren't underage right now

Possum is a really disgusting meat and undoubtedly a net loss in calories and satisfaction to prepare it. You must be an actual nigger or 300lb bubba to dedicate time to this

>>9376085
>proof reading on a possum stew image board.

>>9378321
This is the site my doctor uses to track my info.

>>9373891
Enjoy your leprosy

hey guy check out this bird I just caught. How shall I prepare this dish for me and my mom?

>>9378575

Shove a beer can up the bird's ass and stick it on the grill.

>>9376601
You seem like such a fucking homo.

>>9378327
what is google friend.

>>9378309
What is tet? We just don't know.

>>9378785
An edible cat.

>>9374142
no way

>>9377889
Animal control actually relocates them.

>>9379999
Yeah, to a compost heap.

>>9377153
>eats vermin

What is wrong this that? Not McDonald's enough for you?

>>9377530
>feel better about killing things

I don't feel anything when killing things, other than hunger. Then again I'm a farmer and I kill things all year long and eat them.

Unless you were born vegan, you do the same thing by proxy when you eat meat someone else has killed for you. Distancing yourself from it is what is wrong.

>>9380090
Compensating much?
Not even going to read this thread, but guaranteed as soon as someone starts spouting off about "the vegans" to sound tough, he's got a micro penis
You're not a cave man and pushing buttons in a $1.5M john deere GPS guided combine doesn't put you in touch with your inner neanderthal. That's pure fantasy, much like your fake southern accent despite living in Iowa your whole life

>>9376601
>Hurting for pleasure is bad.
>Hurting to eliminate vermin or put food on the table is not
Could you elaborate?

>>9380090
So there's a nonsense idea that I have been seeing floating around that somehow killing the animal yourself (via hunting, farming, etc) is a more moral way to acquire meat than getting it from a store. I'll admit that, depending on where you are buying your meat that you might be getting it from a source that does worse things to the animal pre-death, but that's a specific scenario and if you are buying from a farm that treats them as well as you would be at your farm, then you are not doing anything morally better by killing them yourself. Distance is meaningless.
Now, a more subtle difference is 1-to-1 correspondence. When you kill an animal, you can be sure that you have added one more dead being to the total dead-being count. However, when you buy meat, it's sort of hard to tell what the actual effect of that is. It seems unlikely that any large scale operation is very sensitive to the actions of a single person, so even though you're funding them, you might not actually contribute to increased death in any real way. In which case, the most moral thing would be to buy your meat. I haven't thought about this much, but my guess is that over time it evens out in some probabilistic manner, e.g you are responsible for 0 deaths the first 100 purchases, but the 101st happens to push production up for a company by 100 cows or something. It's just a guess, but I make it because I have a hard time believing that there is zero effect to being a part of demand for a product over a long period of time.

>>9380104
I'm not sure what else there is to say.

When the goal is practical (i.e. food or eliminating pests that cause damage or spread disease) it is justified.

When the goal is "I just want to see stuff die" there is no justification. It's also wasteful.

>>9380093
I think you read that reply out of context. Perhaps your blood glucose levels are a bit low.

>>9380131
It is the difference between delusion created by distance and reality. It has nothing to do with morals. Killing for food never has anything to do with morals since it is a natural thing nearly every living animal does, including some plants.

>>9380148
The dude had fun, that was enough justification for him. You still need to tell me how objectively that is bad and killing for food is not bad.

>>9380164
Yeah, seems like it wasn't just "fun" since it was eaten. Hunters love to hunt after all and they eat what they kill. I love vegetable gardening and I eat what I rip out of the ground, which kills the plant.

>>9380152
Delusion only if you are susceptible to that sort of thing. I mean I guess you could argue that to some extent it's impossible not to have delusions about anything if you aren't actually there for it, but that can be minimized arbitrarily by researching your purchases and critical thinking. Now that is probably not what most people do, I am just pointing out that the difference in delusion between the two methods can be reduced to basically zero, and so a proper person can buy store-meat with essentially no delusions.
"It has nothing to do with morals."
Sure it does. If I have a choice of killing a bunny for food or Koko the gorilla, then the more moral choice is the bunny, because Koko is much more intelligent than the bunny. A more obvious case is the moral choice that we all make to not eat other humans. We could, if we wanted to, but it's more moral to take the life of less intelligent beings for food. Each time you kill something for food you have to weigh the moral value of the life you are taking vs your situational need for its sustenance. Being "natural" does not make something good or bad, it's just neutral; you have to examine the other qualities of the action to determine whether it's morally righteous or not, and note that humans are special because, unlike every other species, we gain moral agency at some point in our development.

>>9380170

You murder plants? Fuck dude...

>>9373891
Uma Felicia Uma delicia

>>9380164
>You still need to tell me how objectively that is bad and killing for food is not bad.
What part of "Waste" do you not understand?

I've got no problem with someone enjoying a hunt so long as they eat the meat afterward.

But if they just want to go kill an animal and leave it there that's wasteful of resources. A very good resource, in fact. Wild game is many times better than flavorless factory-farmed meat.

>>9380184
>Delusion only if you are susceptible to that sort of thing.

Evereybody is. Here's your delusion:
>>that can be minimized arbitrarily by researching your purchases and critical thinking

Another one of your delusions is the fact that you think intelligence matters with regard to taking a life.

>> because Koko is much more intelligent than the bunny
That's not moral, that's practical. Logical.

>>9380184
Your second half of that post is the delusion I mean. you give an analogy, but the analogy is flawed. Morals only occur when they involve humans. Like choosing between a rabbit and a man to eat. That is a moral choice. You gave a choice between two non-man animals. That isn't a moral choice since they are both the same.

>>9380170
"Yeah, seems like it wasn't just "fun" since it was eaten."
Depends on the availability of other products. If you have product A already available, and instead you kill something because it's tastier, then you are doing that at least partially for entertainment. A couple analogies: Say your wife was kidnapped and the kidnappers wanted $100k from you. If you then went to a bank and stole that money, you could say that you were doing it for something that needed to be done, but if you already had $100k, then it's no longer about a need, it's about you not wanting to lose money.
Or, let's look at it like this: you need to shit, right? So a bathroom is necessary, however, if you were to line the walls of your bathroom with fur and I came along and told you that you killed those animals essentially for your own entertainment, you wouldn't tell me "well I need to shit, so it was for that". Whether or not you are doing something for fun hinges on a need to do that thing.
>>9380196
Consumption is a neutral action. You have already done the damage of removing a resource when you kill the animal, whether or not you personally benefit from it doesn't somehow make up for the removal of the resource. The only way you could make that argument is if you take into account that you then have to remove another resource later to gain the benefit that you could have from the animal, but if you buy it from a supermarket you could consider that contributing to the economy, which, if you consider that to be good, then it is actually more moral to not consume the animal and instead buy a product (technically you could also consume the animal and buy a product; adding the consumption to the equation is like adding a 0 because it's a moral neutral).

>>9380093
Someone needs to remake "women/men taking pictures of things" with a gun.

>>9380219
>Depends on the availability of other products.

Nope. Especially, not in >>9374137 situation since it was eating his crops and needed to kill it. You can't relocate those things because that is illegal in most places. Even animal control just kills them since they are not allowed to relocate either, in most places. Thus, the only option is to trap it, kill it, and eat it. It is the same thing as setting a crab trap in the ocean and eating the crabs, only in the previously mentioned situation, it also performs the service of protecting the crops.

>>9380223
Someone did. Actually, a few people have.

>>9380199
"the fact that you think intelligence matters with regard to taking a life."
I don't think you understand how moral systems work. I can make it matter by definition, watch:
I declare intelligence to be of moral value in my moral system.
There now it matters. I can also make it not matter, check it out:
Intelligence is no longer a factor in my moral system.
Easy as that. Most people I talk to value intelligence after thought on the issue, and so I typically just go from the standpoint that you are valuing intelligence, but for you that is apparently not the case. I'd like you to expand on your moral system, because at this point it seems to be speciesism, in which case would you think it's a moral neutral for an alien race to come down and genocide us?
>>9380200
"Morals only occur when they involve humans. "
Question: is it a moral neutral to rape and torture a dog?
>>9380233
So I'm not the person you were replying to, and I am not talking about the specific situation of that person. You made a general statement, and I want to talk about just the general statement; I haven't even read the picture in that post so I can't comment on specifics. So, regardless of their situation, I'd like to understand what you think about the general situation. I'm okay with the real life situation being more complex and I'm happy to hear your thoughts on it, but I'd rather discuss the core of whether or not eating something can be said to be done for "fun" given availability of other products.
>>9380223
Like the other poster said, it's been done. I actually thought I had saved one, but now I can't find it. I'll post it for you if I do.

>>9373891
I used to be poor and live in alabama

We ate a couple of them but man they do not taste good i dont recommend it

>>9380250
>Question: is it a moral neutral to rape and torture a dog?

Doesn't matter. It is a dog. I'd rather eat it. The only problem with what you ask is the society. If the society is against that action completely (animal abuse laws, etc) and someone goes against those laws and society, it is a sign that the person is deeply disturbed and could (and does in many cases) cause similar harm to humans. However, if society as a whole does those very things, then it wouldn't be a problem and the person who does the disturbing thing will do something else against whatever other law there is. It isn't the actual act that is the problem. It is if that act goes against societal laws. That's how to find deviants.

>whether or not eating something can be said to be done for "fun" given availability of other products.

"Would you rather eat a meat lover's pizza or an avocado with yogurt? If you choose the meat lover's pizza it means you are morally wrong, because there are 5000 avocados and 300 gallons of yogurt, but only 1 pizza. Yet, eating the pizza may be more fun and enjoyable."

I don't like analogies/similes. They are cop-outs that are highly improper in a discussion and never properly address the main focus of the discussion. They can be twisted into literally anything you want using the truth. Personally, I hate killing. Why? Because butchering sucks, no other reason. However, during the entire act of killing and butchering I can only think of the good food it will make. I've eaten most everything locally. I know how to cook all of it to be very tasty. Some flavors simply don't exist in other animals.

>>9380290
If you know how to cook them properly they are good. Same with turtle. If you don't know how, god they are disgusting and tough. Though, I can see some people not liking any of it, but those are also people who don't like things like traditional gumbo either (gumbo made only with locally available ingredients).

>>9380295
I'm sorry, are you saying that it's a moral neutral or that it doesn't matter whether or not it's a moral neutral?
The rest of the response to this is moral nonsense. If we had a society where rape was normal, would rape be okay? Are cannibalistic societys a-ok in your view? Were the ritual sacrifices of the Mayans okay with you? What about warmongering societies? What if one society wants to go wipe out another society? What kind of moral system is this?
"They are cop-outs that are highly improper in a discussion and never properly address the main focus of the discussion."
Every time I hear this it's from people that are inconsistent in their moral logic and don't like that being pointed out via hypotheticals and analogy. I don't think you could twist my moral thought via analogy. I'm not perfect, so there might be inconsistencies, but if you can find them via analogy I would be happy to hear it.
I'm not sure what the point of your analogy was, and though it's a subtle point I am worried you might not be understanding what I am saying based on a misconception present in the analogy. Consumption is a moral neutral. You do not have the meat lovers pizza. What you have is a shitton of avocados and yogurt and one pig (+cheese, dough, etc). If you assign the pig moral value, then, by definition, you are morally wrong to kill it unless there is a need that outweighs the moral value of the pigs life. Therefore, since you do not have a need to slaughter the pig (assuming you can get the sustenance necessary from avocados and yogurt), it's morally wrong to do so by your moral system (once again, if you assign the pig moral value). This is very basic, and follows very quickly from assigning moral value to life.

>>9380336
>If we had a society where rape was normal, would rape be okay? Are cannibalistic societys a-ok in your view? ...etc

Oh course it is okay within their society. Do you think wasting resources on a computer in electric and its components is okay? Or, usury is okay? It is in our society.

The point was, there's morals involved in the selection of the pizza over the fruit, even if one includes killing. It was also to show how twisted an analogy can be, because it did exactly what I wanted it to do, to confuse you with your own "morals" on the matter. There were no moral questions or moral considerations in that analogy.

>>9380377
Okay, so you are a moral relativist, meaning that, essentially, you don't believe in human rights. Gotcha. I can't convince you of animal rights if you don't believe in human ones.
Our society having computers is very beneficial to it as a whole; it is a good thing for people to have computers. Now there are interesting arguments to be made about what we do for pleasure (e.g. is it moral to use resources to make a film), and what it boils down to is that sources of pleasure such as art are fundamental to the human experience, and thus necessitate the use of resources. There are usury laws in the USA, which is where I live, but I'm not sure what the point of even asking me these questions is, because I clearly don't think that everything that my society does is morally right.

"It was also to show how twisted an analogy can be, because it did exactly what I wanted it to do, to confuse you with your own "morals" on the matter. "
Wait, wait, wait, how were my morals confused? I looked at your analogy, thought "this is clearly a moral neutral", and so I made a new one that better fit our discussion. I didn't even really address your actual analogy because it seemed pointless, but let me explicitly address it so that there is no confusion:
consumption is a moral neutral, therefore in your analogy you can eat whatever you want without committing a moral wrong. My morality hasn't been confused, it's as consistent as ever.

>>9380411
I recognize the rights of the society in regard to ethics and morals. But, no, I don't agree with idea of human rights since it is the society who grants you those rights. This is historically evidenced every time a right is taken away from or given to people in the society. They are not a "right" if they can be so easily bartered. Rights are thus fantasy.

Remember, ethics are stated by the society and morals are your own opinion. However, there's a limit to that. Otherwise, we'd be discussing the moral implications of clipping toe nails. I'm saying that limit doesn't extend to non-human animals.

>My morality hasn't been confused, it's as consistent as ever.

We are discussing consumption from killing too.

>>9380436
>>9380411
Well, I'm out to lunch to kill some plants for juicing. Good convo >>9380411

>>9380436
Right, yeah. Like I said if you don't believe in human rights then I'm not going to be able to convince you of animal rights.
>>9380495
Yeah, good talk, see ya later.

>>9374142
Rollerino brozeph

>>9380544
Dubbity dubs OP! Confirmed for ninja sacrifice

>>9380436
What the fuck is happening in this thread

Tets are not good eating

https://youtu.be/NV_5pl-rr8o

yes.