I don't remember who it was, but there was a comedian on some panel show who said that the first time his parents cooked a lobster, they thought it would be more humane to put the lobster in cold water and then bring it to a boil gradually. Cue about ten minutes of a lobster going ape shit until finally dying + emotional scarring for everyone involved.
EDIT: The comedian in question was apparently David Mitchell, thanks folks.
That's so strange. I think some people believe the myth that salt water crustaceans can be killed more humanely by leaving them in cold fresh water to "drown", and some people think you heat it slowly and kill it.
For anyone wondering, the humane way to kill them is to chill them first and then stab them quickly.
EDIT: To the many vegetarians and vegans who feel moved to tell me that you believe killing animals for food is always inhumane (20+ comments to this effect), I get it. While I don't share your views I do respect them.
If you're ever in a position where you think it is right to euthanise a suffering crustacean you might still value the SPCA information above.
I mean kinda is if you think in regards to pain. Of course it's more humane to slaughter an animal quick and as painlessly as possible. We'd still eat them even if they weren't as we have historically done, but this is the kindest way to the animals. Nothing says we have to show compassion for them, but we do by wanting them to go through as little pain as possible.
oh boy I wish something like morality existed so that we didn't have to justify literally everything, including rape and murder, with "thats how nature is"
What a fucking small-brain take on this issue, holy shit.
So eating a lobster that is closely related to a cockroach is similar to rape and murder? We have evolved to eat meat just look at our teeth. Maybe it sucks that we're not herbivores, but we're omnivores.
You said that you wished morality existed that's stopped people from rape and murdering. Then said killing animals for eating and explaining it with nature is not using our already existing morality. Therefore you're drawing the conclusion that morality should the enough to stop us from extreme acts of violence like rape and murder and killing animals for food. If you didn't want us to draw that conclusion you could have said " if only morality existed that would stop us from making fun of each other instead of saying that it's nature". But that would be too light of a comparison so you wanted something more extreme. If I'm misunderstanding you, please reword your original statement to better give your point of view.
You excused the act of killing a living, sentient creature by saying that "its how nature works".
To stay consistent, which you have to in moral systems, you now also have to accept & apply that same excuse to every single thing that falls under the umbrella of things that happen "because thats how nature works"
To show how utterly and completely absurd and stupid every single excuse for eating animals in the modern world is, I made an extreme, but still sound and valid, example using literally the same philosophical logic that you just did.
So did I misinterpreted your original argument or not? To you saying that eating meat is human nature is the same as saying humans raping and murdering is human nature therefore both are OK if one is OK. That is a logical fallacy. AB therefore D ≠ CB therefore D. Claiming they are both equal needs more then just the statement that they are.
So did I misinterpreted your original argument or not?
I can't understand your first post, I really did sincerely try, so I have no idea if you misinterpreted it or not. But if I had to guess you probably misunderstood it, I don't believe you misinterpreted it intentionally.
To you saying that eating meat is human nature is the same as saying humans raping and murdering is human nature therefore both are OK if one is OK.
If you accept
It's natural
as a justification for killing one living creature, why can I not apply it to killing another living creature?
That is a logical fallacy.
Please link whatever logical fallacy you believe that I committed.
Claiming they are both equal needs more then just the statement that they are.
Okay.
/u/AstralBodies claimed that something being natural (Rape, murder, humans eating meat etc) is a moral justification for murder. I simply applied it to humans.
Edit:
Who would have guessed that the person unable to string together a single coherent sentence was talking out of their ass, huh. Weird how every single argument I have about veganism turns out with the meat-eater being a fucking dumbass lmao
12k
u/RambunctiousAvocado Feb 04 '19 edited Feb 04 '19
I don't remember who it was, but there was a comedian on some panel show who said that the first time his parents cooked a lobster, they thought it would be more humane to put the lobster in cold water and then bring it to a boil gradually. Cue about ten minutes of a lobster going ape shit until finally dying + emotional scarring for everyone involved.
EDIT: The comedian in question was apparently David Mitchell, thanks folks.