4 ms·

This two thousand word article boils down to, 1) every dollar donated saves ~1,500 shrimp per year from agony in perpituaty and 2) saving 32 shrimp from agony i

This two thousand word article boils down to, 1) every dollar donated saves ~1,500 shrimp per year from agony in perpituaty and 2) saving 32 shrimp from agony is morally equivalent to saving 1 human from agony. Neither of these points are well supported by the article. Nor are they well supported by the copious links scattered through the blog post. For example, "they worked with Tesco to get an extra 1.6 billion shrimp stunned before slaughter every year" links to a summary about the charity NOT to any source for 1.6 billion shrimp saved.

sodality2 2y ago
> For example, "they worked with Tesco to get an extra 1.6 billion shrimp stunned before slaughter every year" links to a summary about the charity NOT to any source for 1.6 billion shrimp saved. It's in the exact webpage linked there. You just didn't scroll down enough. > Tesco and Sainsbury’s published shrimp welfare commitments, citing collaboration with SWP (among others), and signed 9 further memoranda of understanding with producers, in total committing to stunning a further ~1.6B shrimps per annum. https://animalcharityevaluators.org/charity-review/shrimp-welfare-project/ https://animalcharityevaluators.org/charity-review/shrimp-we...
- bhelkey 2y ago
  The purpose of a citation is to provide further evidence supporting the claim. This instead links to a ~thousand word article. A single sentence of which is relevant. Instead of supporting the claim, it instead restates the claim.
  - sodality2 2y ago
    It's a primary source from the organization doing the partnership with Tesco. Why would they cite anything? Who would they cite? https://www.globenewswire.com/en/news-release/2024/08/17/2931776/0/en/Mercy-for-Animals-Secures-Landmark-Commitment-for-Shrimp-Welfare-From-Tesco.html https://www.globenewswire.com/en/news-release/2024/08/17/293...
    - bhelkey 2y ago
      > It's a primary source It's not a primary source. It's a one sentence summary of a secondary source. This[1] is the primary source of the Tesco commitment. [1] https://www.tescoplc.com/sustainability/documents/policies/tesco-farmed-decapod-crustacean-welfare-policy https://www.tescoplc.com/sustainability/documents/policies/t...
      - sodality2 2y ago
        Given that two organizations make an agreement, I'd say a statement by either organization is considered a primary source of said agreement.
        bhelkey 2y ago
        This is the quote: > Tesco and Sainsbury’s published shrimp welfare commitments, citing collaboration with SWP (among others), and signed 9 further memoranda of understanding with producers, in total committing to stunning a further ~1.6B shrimps per annum. It is a secondary source. It does not present firsthand information. It describes commitments made by Tesco, Sainsbury's, and others. Setting this aside, the point I made is simple. This article argues for a radical change in morality; folks generally view a human life as worth much much more than 32 shrimp lives. A well-written radical argument should understand how it differs from mainstream thought and focus on the premise(s) that underlies this difference. As I am unimpressed with the premises, I find the article unconvincing.

sodality2 2y ago

> For example, "they worked with Tesco to get an extra 1.6 billion shrimp stunned before slaughter every year" links to a summary about the charity NOT to any source for 1.6 billion shrimp saved. It's in the exact webpage linked there. You just didn't scroll down enough. > Tesco and Sainsbury’s published shrimp welfare commitments, citing collaboration with SWP (among others), and signed 9 further memoranda of understanding with producers, in total committing to stunning a further ~1.6B shrimps per annum. https://animalcharityevaluators.org/charity-review/shrimp-welfare-project/ https://animalcharityevaluators.org/charity-review/shrimp-we...

bhelkey 2y ago
The purpose of a citation is to provide further evidence supporting the claim. This instead links to a ~thousand word article. A single sentence of which is relevant. Instead of supporting the claim, it instead restates the claim.
- sodality2 2y ago
  It's a primary source from the organization doing the partnership with Tesco. Why would they cite anything? Who would they cite? https://www.globenewswire.com/en/news-release/2024/08/17/2931776/0/en/Mercy-for-Animals-Secures-Landmark-Commitment-for-Shrimp-Welfare-From-Tesco.html https://www.globenewswire.com/en/news-release/2024/08/17/293...
  - bhelkey 2y ago
    > It's a primary source It's not a primary source. It's a one sentence summary of a secondary source. This[1] is the primary source of the Tesco commitment. [1] https://www.tescoplc.com/sustainability/documents/policies/tesco-farmed-decapod-crustacean-welfare-policy https://www.tescoplc.com/sustainability/documents/policies/t...
    - sodality2 2y ago
      Given that two organizations make an agreement, I'd say a statement by either organization is considered a primary source of said agreement.
      - bhelkey 2y ago
        This is the quote: > Tesco and Sainsbury’s published shrimp welfare commitments, citing collaboration with SWP (among others), and signed 9 further memoranda of understanding with producers, in total committing to stunning a further ~1.6B shrimps per annum. It is a secondary source. It does not present firsthand information. It describes commitments made by Tesco, Sainsbury's, and others. Setting this aside, the point I made is simple. This article argues for a radical change in morality; folks generally view a human life as worth much much more than 32 shrimp lives. A well-written radical argument should understand how it differs from mainstream thought and focus on the premise(s) that underlies this difference. As I am unimpressed with the premises, I find the article unconvincing.