What Dog Shootings Reveal About American Policing.

"

BarryL wrote:

"

deathflower wrote:

You are avoiding the argument. There are cost involve in humanely killing an animal which you downplayed as an negligible cost which is time. In animal agriculture industry where thousands of animals is slaughtered, this cost simply isn't zero. The cost is simply pay for by the customers.

No, I'm not. You are tip-toeing around the point I'm making, and diverting the argument to questionable farm factory practices where cost is actually relevant. I'm clearly talking about instances where the cost is completely irrelevant.

Despite the cost you seem to care so much about, it is still required under law and animal welfare standards (at least in NZ and Aus) to treat livestock humanely. I don't live in a third-world shithole where such standards are non-existent. These are multi-million dollar corporations that can easily absorb the costs. I'd happily spend a few more dollars purchasing better quality meat from a reputable place that raises and slaughters their animals humanely, rather than from a place that flouts the law or cuts corners for the sake of $$$.

If your argument is that cost should trump animal welfare to further line the pockets of corporations that are already filthy rich, then I'm wasting my time with you. I mean, it's almost like you care more about profit margins of said businesses than how they treat their animals. If that's the case, then very sad indeed.

The law increase the cost of inflicting animal cruelty with fines and punishments so that corporations will avoid doing it. And you recognize that customers has to absorb the cost.

If someone have to spend a few seconds to avoid walking over a bug, there will be people who will avoid the bug and people who will walk over it. That is the nature of things. How do you denial that?

As much as you would like everyone to treat animals humanely, there are those who don't care.
If someone boil their lobsters, what can you do about it? Pretty much nothing.

"

deathflower wrote:

The law increase the cost of inflicting animal cruelty with fines and punishments so that corporations will avoid doing it. And you recognize that customers has to absorb the cost.

Meat prices here have been steady or even lower for the past several years here despite tighter regulations, so how do you explain that? These laws mostly relate to things like slaughterhouse employees beating the animals with a crow-bar, or not properly stunning the animal before slaughter, etc. I'm not sure where your mythical increased cost to customers comes from. That would only be the case if there were radical new changes, which I am not seeing.

As I said, I'm more than happy to spend a few more dollars for meat that's from a more humane, reputable place.

"

If someone have to spend a few seconds to avoid walking over a bug, there will be people who will avoid the bug and people who will walk over it. That is the nature of things. How do you denial that?

Where am I denying that?

How does this even address anything I've said so far?

"

As much as you would like everyone to treat animals humanely, there are those who don't care. If someone boil their lobsters, what can you do about it? Pretty much nothing.

In an ideal world, yes, I would. Do you think we shouldn't strive to be kinder?

Unfortunately, it's not an ideal world. That isn't the point though. There are a lot of sickos out there, so if I see someone saying I don't give a shit if the animal suffers, it's going to die anyway I am going to call them out on it. These sort of people deserve all the criticism they get. If you don't agree with that criticism, that's fine.

For someone who supposedly doesn't care, you sure are spending some time to defend... whatever it is you're trying to defend. I'm not even sure what your point is any more.

Lobsters and other shellfish have harmful bacteria naturally present in their flesh. Once the lobster is dead, these bacteria can rapidly multiply and release toxins that may not be destroyed by cooking. You therefore minimise the chance of food poisoning by cooking the lobster alive.

http://www.sciencefocus.com/qa/why-are-lobsters-cooked-alive-and-do-they-feel-pain

"

BarryL wrote:

Meat prices here have been steady or even lower for the past several years here despite tighter regulations, so how do you explain that? These laws mostly relate to things like slaughterhouse employees beating the animals with a crow-bar, or not properly stunning the animal before slaughter, etc. I'm not sure where your mythical increased cost to customers comes from. That would only be the case if there were radical new changes, which I am not seeing.

As I said, I'm more than happy to spend a few more dollars for meat that's from a more humane, reputable place.

Lower meat price have more to do with oversupply and automation. I hope you aren't gonna argue that more rules and tighter regulations lower meat price. Like you mention it is rather despite the tighter regulations. You are trying to avoid admitting it.

"

In an ideal world, yes, I would. Do you think we shouldn't strive to be kinder?

I don't. I am fine the way I am. If you wish to strive to be kinder to animal, I wouldn't stop you either.

"

Unfortunately, it's not an ideal world. That isn't the point though. There are a lot of sickos out there, so if I see someone saying I don't give a shit if the animal suffers, it's going to die anyway I am going to call them out on it. These sort of people deserve all the criticism they get. If you don't agree with that criticism, that's fine.

For someone who supposedly doesn't care, you sure are spending some time to defend... whatever it is you're trying to defend. I'm not even sure what your point is any more.

I think you are failing if you are trying the moral or emotional approach when I am not easily sway by it. Like I say you have a better chance convincing the chief. I am not particular about how he cook it as long as it tastes good.

"

k1rage wrote:

Lobsters and other shellfish have harmful bacteria naturally present in their flesh. Once the lobster is dead, these bacteria can rapidly multiply and release toxins that may not be destroyed by cooking. You therefore minimise the chance of food poisoning by cooking the lobster alive.

http://www.sciencefocus.com/qa/why-are-lobsters-cooked-alive-and-do-they-feel-pain

You need to cook the lobsters immediately to kill the bacteria rather than how you kill it.

Lobster nervous system is like a insect, they don't process emotional information and don't feel pain like human do. They have decentralized nervous system but able to recognize itself as being harm and avoid injuries. A better way to put it is they are sentient but does not process emotion like pain like we do.

Lobster have cognitive disability to perceive pain however able to know that we are probably hurting it by boiling it alive.

yeah so boiling lobster=good

"

deathflower wrote:

Lower meat price have more to do with oversupply and automation. I hope you aren't gonna argue that more rules and tighter regulations lower meat price. Like you mention it is rather despite the tighter regulations. You are trying to avoid admitting it.

Do you even have any data to support your arguments? And... as I already said for the nth time, I don't mind paying a few extra dollars for meat if it means better quality and the animals are better treated.

"

I don't.

Why not? So you think we should continue to treat them like shit?

"

I think you are failing if you are trying the moral or emotional approach when I am not easily sway by it. Like I say you have a better chance convincing the chief. I am not particular about how he cook it as long as it tastes good.

Trained chefs don't slaughter mammals or birds. Whether you eat lobster that is boiled or not is not my problem, nor the focus of my points really.

"

A better way to put it is they are sentient but does not process emotion like pain like we do.

Pain is not an emotion.

If they are indeed sentient, even better reason not to boil them alive. No sentient being should be boiled alive. But I don't think you can qualify a lobster as sentient anyway.

"

k1rage wrote:

Lobsters and other shellfish have harmful bacteria naturally present in their flesh. Once the lobster is dead, these bacteria can rapidly multiply and release toxins that may not be destroyed by cooking. You therefore minimise the chance of food poisoning by cooking the lobster alive.

http://www.sciencefocus.com/qa/why-are-lobsters-cooked-alive-and-do-they-feel-pain

Are you seriously trying to argue against some of the best chefs in the world, who routinely kill the lobster before throwing it into the pot? Did you not watch that Gordon Ramsay video?

It's only harmful when you kill it, and don't cook right away. And we freeze meat for a reason (that's what you can also do with a live lobster before throwing it in).

There are many research papers showing that crustaceans do indeed feel pain. To say they do not is just denial, plain and simple.

"

yeah so boiling lobster=good

Yeah... as soon as its dead, not before.

boiling it kills it so its all good

"

k1rage wrote:

boiling it kills it so its all good

But it's painful as fuck. That's why you kill it first. You shouldn't torture animals before you eat them.

Would you approve of boiling a pig or cow to death? What about a guinea pig (delicacy in South America).

"

BarryL wrote:

"

k1rage wrote:

boiling it kills it so its all good

But it's painful as fuck. That's why you kill it first. You shouldn't torture animals before you eat them.

Would you approve of boiling a pig or cow to death? What about a guinea pig (delicacy in South America).

Hell no!

you dont boil pork or beef

it ruins the meat

are you mad?

cant say about the lil guinea pigs as I dont know how to properly prepare them

"

k1rage wrote:

Hell no!

you dont boil pork or beef

it ruins the meat

are you mad?

cant say about the lil guinea pigs as I dont know how to properly prepare them

I don't think you understood the point of my question.