4 ms·

> 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 s

> 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.

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.