4 ms·

I find such a remark weird given that "you" are serving such "helpless" creatures at your favorite restaurant. I think it's the ultimate hypocrisy. Not to menti

I find such a remark weird given that "you" are serving such "helpless" creatures at your favorite restaurant. I think it's the ultimate hypocrisy. Not to mention that we have a situation where helpless creatures are sacrificed for the science/common good of human beings and the other situation where they are murdered for the taste of their meat & bones.

JCharante 5y ago
Well I'm vegan and I find it disheartening how they can talk about a Pig like they can talk about a cement brick.
- theplumber 5y ago
  I'm pretty sure you've enjoyed meat before going vegan. Now you enjoy lecturing others. As far as the language used is concerned humans get the same "cement brick" treatment in scientific papers. How would it help using a compassionate language? It would be just a distraction from the subject.
  - Sporktacular 5y ago
    Okay, let's go with your human comparison, wouldn't it also be weird if a human was subjected to 30 experiments before being killed, all described without any reference to the state of the person's health or mentality? Would that not make you pause and reflect on how inhuman it is, or how so we can be? Humans can make informed choices when studied by science, and when they aren't society strongly disapproves - registering that disapproval by criticising the lack of compassion given - and expressed. But how exactly how did JCharante lecture anyone?
chii 5y ago
Both food, or medical, is a use of a resource that is created by and for humans. The pig wouldn't have been born had their purpose for food, or medical use, not been there. it's not like humans are capturing wild pigs and using them. I would say that wild animals deserves the right to exist and not hunted (unless they're threatening human interests), but the same cannot be said for bred animals.
- alex_sf 5y ago
  I don't see any distinction at all. Can you elaborate? (I'm an omnivore that's relatively OK with animal testing, fwiw)
  - chii 5y ago
    The distinction between wild animals and reared ones is that they existed independently of humans, where as animals reared by humans would not have existed otherwise. I hold the same distinction to fishing - i do not like wild fish, but farmed fishes (note: farmed, not fishes caught from the wild, then fattened) are ok (esp. in an enclosed, hydroponic system). Unfortunately, most "farmed" fishes refer to caught fish that is fattened... Anything that humans create, live or dead, is fair game to be used for any purpose deemed desirable by the creator. The right to live doesn't exist for those organisms. But wild animals that exist without any human intervention should have that right to live.
    - alex_sf 5y ago
      > Anything that humans create, live or dead, is fair game to be used for any purpose deemed desirable by the creator. Does that same distinction apply to human children? The objection to animal testing or consumption isn't about the source of the animals, it's about the ethical treatment of them. The potential suffering/emotional responses from the animal are the same regardless of the source. I'm more sympathetic to the exact opposite argument: it's more humane to take wild game than farmed. At least then they've lived a life relatively free of suffering, to the extent nature allows. That seems preferable to me vs. the typical feedlot life.
      - chii 5y ago
        > Does that same distinction apply to human children? it would if it weren't for the universal application of human rights today. And it did apply in the past - a slave's children are also slaves. I'm sure one day humans will move past this idea, but it is not today.
Sporktacular 5y ago
Maybe the restaurant can resolve the hypocrisy by not doing that too. Whataboutism isn't an argument.

JCharante 5y ago

Well I'm vegan and I find it disheartening how they can talk about a Pig like they can talk about a cement brick.

theplumber 5y ago
I'm pretty sure you've enjoyed meat before going vegan. Now you enjoy lecturing others. As far as the language used is concerned humans get the same "cement brick" treatment in scientific papers. How would it help using a compassionate language? It would be just a distraction from the subject.
- Sporktacular 5y ago
  Okay, let's go with your human comparison, wouldn't it also be weird if a human was subjected to 30 experiments before being killed, all described without any reference to the state of the person's health or mentality? Would that not make you pause and reflect on how inhuman it is, or how so we can be? Humans can make informed choices when studied by science, and when they aren't society strongly disapproves - registering that disapproval by criticising the lack of compassion given - and expressed. But how exactly how did JCharante lecture anyone?

chii 5y ago

Both food, or medical, is a use of a resource that is created by and for humans. The pig wouldn't have been born had their purpose for food, or medical use, not been there. it's not like humans are capturing wild pigs and using them. I would say that wild animals deserves the right to exist and not hunted (unless they're threatening human interests), but the same cannot be said for bred animals.

alex_sf 5y ago
I don't see any distinction at all. Can you elaborate? (I'm an omnivore that's relatively OK with animal testing, fwiw)
- chii 5y ago
  The distinction between wild animals and reared ones is that they existed independently of humans, where as animals reared by humans would not have existed otherwise. I hold the same distinction to fishing - i do not like wild fish, but farmed fishes (note: farmed, not fishes caught from the wild, then fattened) are ok (esp. in an enclosed, hydroponic system). Unfortunately, most "farmed" fishes refer to caught fish that is fattened... Anything that humans create, live or dead, is fair game to be used for any purpose deemed desirable by the creator. The right to live doesn't exist for those organisms. But wild animals that exist without any human intervention should have that right to live.
  - alex_sf 5y ago
    > Anything that humans create, live or dead, is fair game to be used for any purpose deemed desirable by the creator. Does that same distinction apply to human children? The objection to animal testing or consumption isn't about the source of the animals, it's about the ethical treatment of them. The potential suffering/emotional responses from the animal are the same regardless of the source. I'm more sympathetic to the exact opposite argument: it's more humane to take wild game than farmed. At least then they've lived a life relatively free of suffering, to the extent nature allows. That seems preferable to me vs. the typical feedlot life.
    - chii 5y ago
      > Does that same distinction apply to human children? it would if it weren't for the universal application of human rights today. And it did apply in the past - a slave's children are also slaves. I'm sure one day humans will move past this idea, but it is not today.

Sporktacular 5y ago

Maybe the restaurant can resolve the hypocrisy by not doing that too. Whataboutism isn't an argument.