3 ms·

No worries. Sorry if I reacted strongly. I don’t feel anything about my ancestors. It just feels icky that there are people today, who enjoy chewing animals th

by akudha 5y ago

No worries. Sorry if I reacted strongly. I don’t feel anything about my ancestors. It just feels icky that there are people today, who enjoy chewing animals that are alive. This is not Stone Age and we are not Komodo dragons or pythons. I am against eating meat in general, but that is a topic on its own. There was another discussion here recently about boiling lobsters. That sounded horrific too. What is the point of inflicting this level of cruelty?

bitxbitxbitcoin 5y ago
You reacted appropriately, I reacted strongly. Apologies again! I am thoroughly enjoying this conversation though. One point of rationalization I have been able to articulate is that I find it just as icky to chew plants that are alive (or boiled) as I find it to chew animals/insects that are alive (or boiled). So all else equal I will eat what is tastier to me. Besides ethics, a good reason to inflict a quick death is because a slow death may change the taste of the meat. The point of inflicting that level of cruelty is to cook the meat and make it fit for human consumption. Stabbing it with a knife properly prior to boiling is just as cruel to the lobster because it ends its life. The cruelty is the loss of life, arguing about the cruelty of the method of taking the life is really splitting hairs. Those that don’t condone this level of cruelty and don’t partake are commendable. Those that acknowledge the cruelty and thank the dead animal for its contribution and take steps to not waste any part of the dead animal are also commendable.
- akudha 5y ago
  arguing about the cruelty of the method of taking the life is really splitting hairs If you were to be killed, would you rather take cyanide for a quick death or be boiled alive? One can be humane even when taking a life. The fact that we humans value our taste buds more than the suffering of the animals we kill for food, shows how cruel we are. There is absolutely no reason for us to be this cruel, in my opinion.
  - bitxbitxbitcoin 5y ago
    If humans were not the apex predator, and some higher level of consciousness were hunting me, I would be equally upset at being cyanided or boiled alive because the main issue is the loss of my life. Even the word you are using to split the hairs, humane, highlights that this a purely human construct. Is there a different term for a lion that takes the time to make sure it’s prey is dead before eating it? Or does it not exist. The word to describe both a human enacting that “cruelty” and a lion enacting that cruelty are the same. Primal, natural, etc. Humans are the only predators that are apologetic about it. One could argue that because we have the ability to know the difference, we should do something about it. That is a little too much thinking for the typical home chef though so you have lobsters boiled instead of stabbed and boiled. That extra second wasn’t worth the lessened net cruelty. That is how most humans are, you are an exception. This is how all animals are. Humanity is a whole different beast. Except when it isn’t.
    - akudha 5y ago
      "A lion eats its prey alive, so why can't I?" - this is a weird argument to make. We aren't lions, we don't even need to eat animals in the first place, let alone eat them alive. We have much higher intelligence, empathy etc than Komodos or Pythons or lions. Just because rest of the nature is cruel, doesn't mean we too need to be. We also have tons of spices and other non-cruel methods to make our food taste good. The cruelty that happens in meat factories is well hidden from the general public, unless they are specifically looking into the issue (google ag-gag laws), my guess is many people don't even realize how bad it is. They might have second thoughts about supporting meat industry if they are made aware. It is obvious we look at this topic from completely different angles. I respect your opinion, but I strongly disagree. Maybe we can just leave it at that :)

by akudha 5y ago

bitxbitxbitcoin 5y ago

You reacted appropriately, I reacted strongly. Apologies again! I am thoroughly enjoying this conversation though. One point of rationalization I have been able to articulate is that I find it just as icky to chew plants that are alive (or boiled) as I find it to chew animals/insects that are alive (or boiled). So all else equal I will eat what is tastier to me. Besides ethics, a good reason to inflict a quick death is because a slow death may change the taste of the meat. The point of inflicting that level of cruelty is to cook the meat and make it fit for human consumption. Stabbing it with a knife properly prior to boiling is just as cruel to the lobster because it ends its life. The cruelty is the loss of life, arguing about the cruelty of the method of taking the life is really splitting hairs. Those that don’t condone this level of cruelty and don’t partake are commendable. Those that acknowledge the cruelty and thank the dead animal for its contribution and take steps to not waste any part of the dead animal are also commendable.

akudha 5y ago
arguing about the cruelty of the method of taking the life is really splitting hairs If you were to be killed, would you rather take cyanide for a quick death or be boiled alive? One can be humane even when taking a life. The fact that we humans value our taste buds more than the suffering of the animals we kill for food, shows how cruel we are. There is absolutely no reason for us to be this cruel, in my opinion.
- bitxbitxbitcoin 5y ago
  If humans were not the apex predator, and some higher level of consciousness were hunting me, I would be equally upset at being cyanided or boiled alive because the main issue is the loss of my life. Even the word you are using to split the hairs, humane, highlights that this a purely human construct. Is there a different term for a lion that takes the time to make sure it’s prey is dead before eating it? Or does it not exist. The word to describe both a human enacting that “cruelty” and a lion enacting that cruelty are the same. Primal, natural, etc. Humans are the only predators that are apologetic about it. One could argue that because we have the ability to know the difference, we should do something about it. That is a little too much thinking for the typical home chef though so you have lobsters boiled instead of stabbed and boiled. That extra second wasn’t worth the lessened net cruelty. That is how most humans are, you are an exception. This is how all animals are. Humanity is a whole different beast. Except when it isn’t.
  - akudha 5y ago
    "A lion eats its prey alive, so why can't I?" - this is a weird argument to make. We aren't lions, we don't even need to eat animals in the first place, let alone eat them alive. We have much higher intelligence, empathy etc than Komodos or Pythons or lions. Just because rest of the nature is cruel, doesn't mean we too need to be. We also have tons of spices and other non-cruel methods to make our food taste good. The cruelty that happens in meat factories is well hidden from the general public, unless they are specifically looking into the issue (google ag-gag laws), my guess is many people don't even realize how bad it is. They might have second thoughts about supporting meat industry if they are made aware. It is obvious we look at this topic from completely different angles. I respect your opinion, but I strongly disagree. Maybe we can just leave it at that :)