3 ms·

How could you possibly think that this makes it ethical? This is a troll-level comment, but somehow I think you're being earnest. Please sit back and reflect on

How could you possibly think that this makes it ethical? This is a troll-level comment, but somehow I think you're being earnest. Please sit back and reflect on what you're saying here. If it's because you don't think that animals can suffer, then read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_consciousness#Cambridge_Declaration_on_Consciousness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_consciousness#Cambridge...

jazzyjackson 5y ago
don't animals also feel pain when they're killed hours before being eaten? i mean i'm not advocating for eating live squid but i really can't see how the alternative is better for the squid.
- rewq4321 5y ago
  You are absolutely right that both are terrible. That said, being eaten alive is undoubtably a slower, more painful death in most cases. Both are unnecessary - plant-based diets can prevent a lot of suffering.
MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
I am aware of and do think animals can suffer. Ethically you should kill them before eating them. What I'm saying is the Japanese do it with fish and other sea creatures but yet that must mame it okay cause it's just fish or lobster. But at the end of the day it really does not matter. If youve been desensitized to it in your life as a nonwesterner, who are we to demand they change their culture?
- happytoexplain 5y ago
  You're addressing a theoretical person who is OK with eating sea life alive, but not with eating land life alive. Clearly those people exist, but I don't see why you're assuming that's the context here.
- rewq4321 5y ago
  > What I'm saying is the Japanese do it with fish and other sea creatures but yet that must mame it okay cause it's just fish or lobster. I don't know why you're assuming that sea creatures don't suffer. There may be a miscommunication here. > who are we to demand they change their culture Would you apply the same reasoning to a culture that practices human sacrifice, for example? Or that enslaves humans? The "it's their (personal) choice" argument breaks down when you realise that the preferences/interests of the victims matter too. Their suffering matters.
  - MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
    Western civilization is not the barometer for world ideology simply because we ourselves feel enlightened. That in of itself is bigotry to the maximum degree simply because you deem our culture superior to others simply because we've moved past these customs. At one point, we did the same. Who are we to step in the way of other cultures making the same progression? Because we're just impatient and want to speed up their growth? Either one of two scenarios exist, we either deem particular cultures invalid (thusly also deeming traditional customs, religion, and experiences as invalid), or we coexist with things we do not like. Either way someone will suffer. But god forbid a westerner be told their ways are bad...
    - rewq4321 5y ago
      I don't think you actually believe the words that you're typing. Does your "let them be" policy only apply between countries? What about if a particularly insular community within a country is torturing a particular minority group within that community? Let them take their time to learn the lessons that the others have, you say? Or do you have a special escape hatch in your "let them be" rule for when no national borders are crossed? You don't seem to care at all about the victims. If we believe that there is a high probability that a particular country is causing a lot of unnecessary suffering, and we're quite sure we can decrease that amount of suffering with few negative externalities, then to not do so would be violating our own ethical systems - you're effectively arguing that your own ethical system is broken, or has a very special case where it doesn't apply (i.e. whenever an international border is involved). We can argue about how effective these international efforts would be, or have historically been, but that's it's own debate. Do you think it'd have been wrong to donate to charities which help the Rohingya during the recent genocide of their people? I guess not, because we'd be interfering with another country and that is "bigotry to the maximum degree"? What about for the Tutsis during the Rwandan genocide? As unfashionable as it is to say, some cultures absolutely are better than others along certain dimensions, and part of an existence in a global/international community is learning from one another, just like individual humans learn from one another in local communities. This is the only reason we talk about improving aspects of our culture in the first place - it's why we discuss things like rape culture, toxic masculinity, women's rights, racism, and so on. Cultures can become different and better. I think you're imagining some sort of violent military invasion to stop Japanese people eating sea creatures alive, but no one is suggesting anything of that sort. It's tempting to think in simple extremes like "Countries should never interfere with the affairs of other countries," but effective policies in our messy reality are rarely so simple. If you need help seeing that, try to imagine a really extreme case, like multiplying the suffering during the WW2 Jewish genocide by 1000x, or something like that. Would you interfere? Or just let it play out so they can learn their own lessons?

jazzyjackson 5y ago

don't animals also feel pain when they're killed hours before being eaten? i mean i'm not advocating for eating live squid but i really can't see how the alternative is better for the squid.

rewq4321 5y ago
You are absolutely right that both are terrible. That said, being eaten alive is undoubtably a slower, more painful death in most cases. Both are unnecessary - plant-based diets can prevent a lot of suffering.

MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago

I am aware of and do think animals can suffer. Ethically you should kill them before eating them. What I'm saying is the Japanese do it with fish and other sea creatures but yet that must mame it okay cause it's just fish or lobster. But at the end of the day it really does not matter. If youve been desensitized to it in your life as a nonwesterner, who are we to demand they change their culture?

happytoexplain 5y ago
You're addressing a theoretical person who is OK with eating sea life alive, but not with eating land life alive. Clearly those people exist, but I don't see why you're assuming that's the context here.
rewq4321 5y ago
> What I'm saying is the Japanese do it with fish and other sea creatures but yet that must mame it okay cause it's just fish or lobster. I don't know why you're assuming that sea creatures don't suffer. There may be a miscommunication here. > who are we to demand they change their culture Would you apply the same reasoning to a culture that practices human sacrifice, for example? Or that enslaves humans? The "it's their (personal) choice" argument breaks down when you realise that the preferences/interests of the victims matter too. Their suffering matters.
- MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
  Western civilization is not the barometer for world ideology simply because we ourselves feel enlightened. That in of itself is bigotry to the maximum degree simply because you deem our culture superior to others simply because we've moved past these customs. At one point, we did the same. Who are we to step in the way of other cultures making the same progression? Because we're just impatient and want to speed up their growth? Either one of two scenarios exist, we either deem particular cultures invalid (thusly also deeming traditional customs, religion, and experiences as invalid), or we coexist with things we do not like. Either way someone will suffer. But god forbid a westerner be told their ways are bad...
  - rewq4321 5y ago
    I don't think you actually believe the words that you're typing. Does your "let them be" policy only apply between countries? What about if a particularly insular community within a country is torturing a particular minority group within that community? Let them take their time to learn the lessons that the others have, you say? Or do you have a special escape hatch in your "let them be" rule for when no national borders are crossed? You don't seem to care at all about the victims. If we believe that there is a high probability that a particular country is causing a lot of unnecessary suffering, and we're quite sure we can decrease that amount of suffering with few negative externalities, then to not do so would be violating our own ethical systems - you're effectively arguing that your own ethical system is broken, or has a very special case where it doesn't apply (i.e. whenever an international border is involved). We can argue about how effective these international efforts would be, or have historically been, but that's it's own debate. Do you think it'd have been wrong to donate to charities which help the Rohingya during the recent genocide of their people? I guess not, because we'd be interfering with another country and that is "bigotry to the maximum degree"? What about for the Tutsis during the Rwandan genocide? As unfashionable as it is to say, some cultures absolutely are better than others along certain dimensions, and part of an existence in a global/international community is learning from one another, just like individual humans learn from one another in local communities. This is the only reason we talk about improving aspects of our culture in the first place - it's why we discuss things like rape culture, toxic masculinity, women's rights, racism, and so on. Cultures can become different and better. I think you're imagining some sort of violent military invasion to stop Japanese people eating sea creatures alive, but no one is suggesting anything of that sort. It's tempting to think in simple extremes like "Countries should never interfere with the affairs of other countries," but effective policies in our messy reality are rarely so simple. If you need help seeing that, try to imagine a really extreme case, like multiplying the suffering during the WW2 Jewish genocide by 1000x, or something like that. Would you interfere? Or just let it play out so they can learn their own lessons?