Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Cheetah, Nov 3, 2019.
Chickens are *******s, but you can always get a cage-free one.
I have (and I suppose so do most people?) a feeling of aversion about killing any living thing. Back when I was in late elementary school and did go (for a summer) in a rather pronounced killing spree against insects of various kinds, I recall being very aware of this aversion; ie I did indeed view the death as something of a living thing, not similar to breaking some toy. I guess it is enough to get drunk with murderous bloodlust even if you only kill insects. Thankfully that was the last time I felt like killing anything.
Besides, killing people would have other kinds of consequences. Though I am not really agreeing that people who kill dogs (for whatever reason) should be jailed or fined impossible amounts of money. In the end of the day, despite their action being vile, it is a dog and not a human.
Or at least, they never do it when there are witnesses present ...
It's certainly eaten by humans:
They're smart enough to kill for fun, maybe they're smart enough not to leave witnesses!
There does seem to be an intelligence threshold over which species do become capable of delighting in suffering.
Well, I still think that is preferable. I'd feed a lot of chickens into the grinder for the sake of one whale. I don't know exactly how much, but enough that the pound for pound ratio favours the whale. I think that's probably the crux of our disagreement.
I ate octopus here, not a fan but damn it tasted good.
Whaling in Norway is highly regulated with strict rules about methods of hunting, limitation to only one species, and quotas.
This is meant to preserve the culture related to whaling (whale has been until a generation ago the cheapest and most available source of meat) without endangering the whale population.
From that point of view it isn't too dissimilar to the whaling rights granted to some populations in northern Canada.
Said that, I object to government subsidies to whale hunting: The Norwegian government pays subsidies equal to about half the value of whales caught.
Subsidies include fuel tax exemptions, and payments to subsidize pet consumption.
The second point of objection I have is that a proportion of whale meat is not used as human food but for animals and a lot of it is exported (mainly to Japan).
Limit these points and the whale industry would decrease enourmously.
Hunting whales is also a drop in the ocean, for cetaceans in general, when compared to byfishing and disruption of envirovment (overfishing, pullution, noise pollution, etc.)
Fair enough. I do think that from both an environmental and ethical standpoint, favouring meat from livestock over any sustainable wild game is fairly irrational. From an "all meat is murder" standpoint, I of course see that whaling is "murder" too. But anything beyond that I think the argument dies on it's own irrationality.
On the other hand, who am I to say who's to live and who's to die for our dietary needs/desires? I do not know what's right and what's wrong in these matters.
It's not an "all meat is murder" standpoint, it's more like, if you were hunting humans, no one would give a crap that it was more ecologically sustainable than livestock.
But whales are not humans. Not even a little. They're a lot more comparable to a pig.
But they are intelligent animals, no doubt. And I do see the argument that the smarter an organism is, the more "value" it's life has. For instance, a mosquito dies from mosquito poison, don't care. A whale dies a slow death from ingesting a bunch of plastics, I care quite a bit indeed.
I'm not arguing that there isn't a set of different ethical considerations to take when it comes to meat eating.
Says you, but I don't agree and I would guess neither does Tfish.
What do you base this on?
A quick google led me to this reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/zoology/comments/24fnt4/are_whales_smarter_than_pigs_im_not_satisfied/
Seems it hard to compare intelligence between different types of animals.
Genetically, the closer "terrestrial" thing to cetaceans are hipos. Deers and such are closer than pigs too.
Here you can see the whole tree of life. Pretty amazing:
What are you basing the idea that they're comparable to pigs on? No offense, but to me it just sounds like a rationalization because you eat whale meat and don't want to feel bad about it.
Anyway, from wiki:
Now, to be fair the minke whale, which is apparently the whale hunted by Norway according to the OP, is not on that list. Their wikipedia article doesn't mention social behavior or other things I consider signs of high intelligence so idk.
Like said, I'm not very much into whale meat. Not much of a meat eater in general tbh. But occasionally I'm served whale meat, and I'll finish my plate with a cleaner conscience compared to most other meats.
Basing it on my general impressions of intellectual capacities from stuff about whales and stuff about pigs. And a quick but more targeted google dive into the matter doesn't seem to suggest that whales are more comparable to humans than pigs, intellectually. But I'm no biologist.
Surely you know that causing suffering for your own gratification is wrong, though? We might not know the lesser evil between pig and whale, but in general it should be easy to figure out if it's evil overall
Isn't it easier to use this to guess that eating pigs is also wrong?
Dog eating is becoming rarer. South Korea I believe banned it. Vietnam might have as well. There is an awareness that the reputation hurts tourism and I think a lot of people in those countries stopped supporting it out of their own disgust as well.
I don't think eating horses is rare and a lot of countries use horse meat to feed other animals (dog food) or turn them into gelatin. (The jokes about sending a horse off to become glue is sort of true)
The Santa Anita racetrack near LA kills so many damn horses they could sustain most of LA's dogs all by themselves. No but seriously, they've killed over 30 horses this year from horrible racing conditions and this year is just average as far as deaths go. There is a growing public backlash but that's in reaction to it becoming widely known how many horses die, not any fundamental change in how many they kill. People just didn't realize how barbaric that sport is as it is non-obvious. They pump the horses full of hormones and drugs to keep them running, the track itself allows them to go fast but is terrible on their bones and they literally run the horses to death.
A valid point and a legitimate argument for sure.
On the other hand:
Yeah horse racing is ethically very murky waters indeed. Don't get your gambling fix there, peeps!
And it's so non-obvious to me as a complete outsider to the sport. It was eye opening when the news began reporting on every horse death earlier this year.
I mean all you have to do is look over the type of people who attend the Kentucky Derby to tell that something is wrong with horse racing. All those people playing plantation-owner dressup.
Separate names with a comma.