Shellfish may feel pain when cooked

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Rathji

You can't be serious that you think killing a cow for its leg is the same as having it squirt is milk into a hug is the same thing.

Well milk cows are genetically bread so that they produce so much milk that they can die if not properly weened off milking. I drink milk but if you want to consider the ethics off it milk production certainly isnt as clean as the ideal farmer who has a cow that they milk by hand and is a pet.

As soon as the cows go dry they are slaughtered.

I think the important thing is having going through the thought process and deciding if you are comfortable with the practice. Know what happens in a slaughterhouse, feedlot etc and make your decision. To many people dont question how food is produced. More people need to pluck chickens or have pig roasts or hunt and fish or even just boiling a live lobster. Being the actual agent in killing your food is an important experience and without it I am not sure you can make an informed decision on whether or not to eat meat.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by GGG

A better question to meat eaters would be would you eat a dog (raised to be eaten not as a pet) or is the fact that it is a dog makes it somehow more special). For me I would eat dog butchered humanely and raised as food. But if you wouldnt eat dog then can you justify eating cow?

For sure, in fact, the first thing I want to try if I go to Korea is dog meat. My brother says its delicious.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by GGG

A better question to meat eaters would be would you eat a dog (raised to be eaten not as a pet) or is the fact that it is a dog makes it somehow more special). For me I would eat dog butchered humanely and raised as food. But if you wouldnt eat dog then can you justify eating cow?

I like dogs. Dogs have done things to endear themselves to me.

There's a reason nobody makes cow movies.

[Minnie]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

For sure, in fact, the first thing I want to try if I go to Korea is dog meat. My brother says its delicious.

Tastes like chicken.

[Minnie]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

There's a reason nobody makes cow movies.

'Cept Disney.

And Paramount - 'what happens in the barn, stays in the barn.' There's probably a few more, but these are what I recall from when the sprog were wee ones.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Minnie

In short order, Pamela Anderson and a giant tomato will appear on your doorstep to give you 40 lashes with a wet noodle.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Any idea of how much that would cost?

Originally Posted by Minnie

Just 8 small monthly payments of $139.99 each. Plus shipping and erm.....'handling.'

Plus a trip to the clinic for a penicillin shot after.

[Minnie]

Now the question will be whether or not Pamela Anderson's cra.......erm........shellfish feel pain.

[saskflames69]

[Finner]

Originally Posted by GGG

Well milk cows are genetically bread so that they produce so much milk that they can die if not properly weened off milking. I drink milk but if you want to consider the ethics off it milk production certainly isnt as clean as the ideal farmer who has a cow that they milk by hand and is a pet.

As soon as the cows go dry they are slaughtered.

I think the important thing is having going through the thought process and deciding if you are comfortable with the practice. Know what happens in a slaughterhouse, feedlot etc and make your decision. To many people dont question how food is produced. More people need to pluck chickens or have pig roasts or hunt and fish or even just boiling a live lobster. Being the actual agent in killing your food is an important experience and without it I am not sure you can make an informed decision on whether or not to eat meat.

I totally agree with this.

I did my research on how beef cows, milk cows, pigs, egg chickens etc. are both treated and slaughtered as I did have some concerns about animal welfare. I love animals in general but also do enjoy meat.

I found I was generally comfortable with how beef cows in Canada are raised and slaughtered (assuming slaughterhouses follow regs), however had some significant concerns about how milk cows, pigs and egg chickens were raised, and changed my buying habits accordingly.

I drink only organic milk now as organic milk cows are required to have at least 30% outdoor grazing time (grass), unlike regular milk cows who generally cannot move and are fed foods which maximize milk production (non grass) which results in significant lameness. They are generally kept in filthy conditions on concrete and fed antibiotics to prevent infection as their legs slowly give out. Organic milk calves after birth are allowed to stay near other calves instead of being kept by themselves.

I also only eat organic eggs, as the chickens are given free range, perches and nests, and have about 6 times more space per chicken than the average battery cage chicken.

I have no problem eating meat/eating animal products, but unnecessary cruelty is not worth the extra $2 or $3 bucks a week I might spend on eggs/milk.

I also have a huge issue with how horses are slaughtered in Canada. Won't get into it here, but it is pretty disgusting.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

By taking ANY moral stance that involves degrees (I will give more to charity because I feel the poor deserve a hand up; I will volunteer more because the community needs more people to pitch in) makes the person automatically a hypocrite. If you want give $1,000 to the United Way... why not $2,000? Or are you a hypocrite and don't REALLY believe that the poor need a helping hand? We all draw a line. And while Steve may be a hypocrite, I'd rather be him than Joe.

No, I'm not a hypocrite because I'm not using your argument. You're the hypocrite because you are. It's pretty simple, and further, because I'm not a hypocrite, I'm objectively more moral than you. Annnnnnnndddddd I eat meat.

Any morality that includes hypocrisy as a consequence is poorly thought out and ultimately self-falsifying. My personal morality is that only conscious or potentially conscious beings have rights. It's wrong to kick a dog not because you are violating its rights, but because causing pain for your own pleasure or convenience is aberrant behaviour that increases the likelihood that you will do the same or similar to a conscious being that does have rights. Eating animals violates no rights and does not lead to the violation of rights in its indulgence, so therefore cannot be immoral.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by jammies

My personal morality is that only conscious or potentially conscious beings have rights. It's wrong to kick a dog not because you are violating its rights, but because causing pain for your own pleasure or convenience is aberrant behaviour that increases the likelihood that you will do the same or similar to a conscious being that does have rights. Eating animals violates no rights and does not lead to the violation of rights in its indulgence, so therefore cannot be immoral.

Well, two flaws to all this. First, scientists have declared that mammals are conscious. Which I had no doubt of given that elephants mourn their dead and dolphins have displayed metacognative abilities.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...d-as-such.html

Secondly, how can you assume that my enjoyment of animal suffering would lead to suffering against humans, but your enjoyment of animal suffering would not lead to suffering against humans? You cannot prove that my enjoy that my kicking of my dog will lead to kicking of humans any more than I can prove that your eating of cows will lead to eating of humans.

One big difference between you eating meat and me kicking the dog is that unless you hunted down the animal yourself, someone else likely killed the animal. You have removed yourself one step from the actual suffering. However, it would seem that those that kill animals for food may well be more likely to commit violence against humans:
http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/...-violent-crime

Which is interesting given Golding's "Lord of the Flies".

[missdpuck]

removed

[missdpuck]

Years ago we had a serial killer around here named Duane Owen. I had the opportunity to listen to the recordings of his "personal morality" . Hours of them.

Too bad he wasn't a hypocrite.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Well, two flaws to all this. First, scientists have declared that mammals are conscious. Which I had no doubt of given that elephants mourn their dead and dolphins have displayed metacognative abilities.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...d-as-such.html

While I agree that it is quite possible that dolphins may posses consciousness, that ability is limited to a select few animals. Keep in mind that having emotions and memories does not equal consciousness. I looked up the definition to see if had evolved since I had taken psychology at university. Looks to be about the same:

In psychology, consciousness refers to our awareness of sensations, thoughts, and other internal processes. As you might expect, our experience of conscious is always changing as our thoughts and environment shift. For example, at one moment you might be focused on reading a blog post. Moments later you might shift your thoughts to a memory of a lecture you attended earlier in the day. Next, you might notice how uncomfortable your seat is and start rubbing your neck. This ever-shifting stream of thoughts can change dramatically from one moment to the next, but your experience of it seems smooth and effortless.

To use a humourous example, I could say "My dog is not even aware of his own farts, nevermind his own thoughts." (And I love my dog enough that I would put my life at risk to save his.)

I am aware that by choosing to eat meat, it does mean that animals will suffer. As was mentioned earlier, eating lobster or crab puts us in the "first person" position of causing their death, and reminds us that we are eating what was a living breathing creature. I have gone hunting, and while I have never actually been successful at shooting a deer; my hunting buddies have been quick to ensure the animal is put out of its misery as quickly as possible.

When I cook live lobster or crab, I make sure the water is boiling hard and the animal goes in head first to minimize the pain. (I have put lobsters in tail first, and the animal jumps out of the pot with the tail already changing colour.)

[Thor]

Being vegetarian is a luxury for the western world, and hell not even for all of it as its expensive and impractical in Iceland for example which vegetables are expensive and we are surrounded by fish and sheep, mmmm delicious sheep.

[krynski]

To me, this discussion about hurting animals is incomparable between crustaceans and mammals. There are huge evolutionary differences between the two and killing a lobster is comparable to killing a spider. Spiders and Lobsters are both arthropods. Sure, they probably do feel pain. Think about all the arthropods that are killed in the production of vegetables? With pesticides and production and harvesting of vegetables, billions of arthropods are killed every day. What about these guys? Sure, they are smaller, and they are just bugs....so is there a difference between me killing a fly versus me killing a spider? Me killing a moth or me killing a crab? No. The only difference is that crustaceans are a bit harder to kill.

EDIT: Missed my point.

The production of vegetables is far more brutal to arthropods than lobster harvesting and consumption. The only difference is that lobsters are bigger than flies.

[Jacks]

One method for preparing crab that I have used involves separating the body section from the upper shell, this way you aren't boiling the guts, gills, etc with the meat. You stun the crabs by delivering a sharp jolt to them on the bottom centre of the shell, they go limp for a time. In this time you physically separate the crab leaving two sections of body and legs and the upper shell which has the "guts" and the brains.

I have personally seen the legs continue to move (and the pincers pinching) for several minutes after they have been removed from the crab. If you boil the leg sections right away they will move around in the pot. Keep in mind that these legs aren't connected to the brain, the brain is in the garbage 10 feet away.

How much of this movement is the shellfish actually "feeling" pain and how much is it's nervous system reacting to outside stimulus?

[krynski]

Originally Posted by Jacks

One method for preparing crab that I have used involves separating the body section from the upper shell, this way you aren't boiling the guts, gills, etc with the meat. You stun the crabs by delivering a sharp jolt to them on the bottom centre of the shell, they go limp for a time. In this time you physically separate the crab leaving two sections of body and legs and the upper shell which has the "guts" and the brains.

I have personally seen the legs continue to move (and the pincers pinching) for several minutes after they have been removed from the crab. If you boil the leg sections right away they will move around in the pot. Keep in mind that these legs aren't connected to the brain, the brain is in the garbage 10 feet away.

How much of this movement is the shellfish actually "feeling" pain and how much is it's nervous system reacting to outside stimulus?

There is no one brain in a crab.

http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explor...n27/jun27.html

It's primitive and considered a ganglia. So technically, the legs are still connected to a brain-like structure.

[Jacks]

The nervous system of a crab differs from that of vertebrates (mammals, birds, fish, etc.) in that it has a dorsal ganglion (brain) and a ventral ganglion. The two nervous centers are connected by a circumesophageal ganglion, i.e., it circles the esophagus. The dorsal brain is located between the eyes and near the anterior end. The ventral ganglion is located beneath the internal organs, between the legs. The brain is tiny, smaller than the point of a pencil, while the ventral ganglion is huge by comparison. The ventral ganglion provides nerves to each walking leg and all of their sensory organs, while the brain processes sensory input from the eyes.

Those legs are separated from both "brains" when using this method.

Besides, I'm not even remotely convinced that we are talking about conscious thought with the crab "feeling" some sort of horrible "pain" as much as a nervous system reaction to stimulus.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Well, two flaws to all this. First, scientists have declared that mammals are conscious. Which I had no doubt of given that elephants mourn their dead and dolphins have displayed metacognative abilities.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...d-as-such.html

I don't eat elephants or dolphins. And those scientists are making a logical leap from "exhibiting intentional behaviour" and "possessing substrates" neither of which equate to consciousness. I don't even think all humans are conscious, so the idea that cow is self-aware because it can make a choice to eat clover instead of grass is laughable.

I believe the particular flaw of logic they exhibit is "affirming the consequent"; there is a wish to show that animals are sentient, therefore all behaviours of sentient beings that are found in animals are assumed to also proceed from sentience. It could also be called "wishful thinking".

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Secondly, how can you assume that my enjoyment of animal suffering would lead to suffering against humans, but your enjoyment of animal suffering would not lead to suffering against humans? You cannot prove that my enjoy that my kicking of my dog will lead to kicking of humans any more than I can prove that your eating of cows will lead to eating of humans. .

You can't prove that eating cows leads to eating humans because it doesn't happen. Billions of people have eaten cows without subsequently becoming cannibals. This is called "evidence", you might want to look into it. On the other hand, cruelty to animals does correlate to anti-social behaviour and cruelty to other humans. Again, this "evidence" is what normal people use to prove an assertion.

Also, nowhere did I claim I enjoy animal suffering, I claimed that I was willing to countenance a minimum of it in order to provide me with meat to eat. This does not imply I enjoy this suffering, only that I recognize its necessity.

BTW, I'm being especially condescending because that is the default attitude of all animal rights zealots and vegans I've ever met. Isn't it annoying when someone presumes to know all the myriad ways that they are better than you?