Boiling lobsters while they are alive and conscious will be banned as part of a government strategy to improve animal welfare in England.
Government ministers say that “live boiling is not an acceptable killing method” for crustaceans and alternative guidance will be published.
The practice is already illegal in Switzerland, Norway and New Zealand. Animal welfare charities say that stunning lobsters with an electric gun or chilling them in cold air or ice before boiling them is more humane.
Which one is natural? A lobster fighting another lobster in its natural environment, or a human stuffing them into a pot of boiling water?
Here, let’s meet up and we can test both on you to see which you think is more cruel.
Then you wrap it up with a fat paragraph of whataboutism. You’re dwindeling.
Edit: to the mods removing my comments, they apply to you as well.
I reject the claim that natural is good. Appeal to Nature is a common logical fallacy.
both. unless you think humans are supernatural.
Humans putting anything alive into a boiling pot of water is not natural. You’re a dillusional nutcase.
so humans aren’t natural?
Removed by mod
Learned cognitive skills are a part of evolution. Monkeys using sharp sticks to spear fish, birds using bread to lure prey, or fishing spitting water to kill insects by your definition is unnatural
Both. Humans are animals, everything we do is natural.
That is completely incorrect. Operating a car is not natural, it is learned and a privilege. Flying a plane is not natural, it is earned, and heavily regulated which is why not everyone can be a pilot.
Even replying on here though a magic rock that somehow converse to any area of the earth, not natural.
You need to open a dictionary and start learning words. I hate to shit on you in a reddit behavior way, but you sound dillusional.
Removed by mod
It was never stated or implied that boiling water is unnatural. You’re putting a notion in that was never there. Feel free to quote me where I said boiling water is unnatural.
A self righteous asshole with better reading comprehension than you have apparently.
So anyways, boiling a living creature —> alive <---- is not a ‘natural’ thing in human nature.
There is some interesting evidence which suggests early humans and related species may have used naturally occurring hot springs to boil food, so it’s not exactly out of the question. It’s not DEFINITIVE by any means, but interesting.
https://www.sci.news/othersciences/anthropology/olduvai-gorge-hot-springs-08858.html
I’m not arguing that humans use boiling water to cook things. My argument is, and stands, that it not natural to take something living, and boil it alive.
That is interesting research though, thanks for the link.
Using boiling water to cook food is also natural.
Pardon me going a little off topic, but I can’t get over how bad this sentence is.
Work on your writing next.
Is ‘natural’ in single quotes because you’re using your own personal definition of ‘natural’?
Looking at every other carnivore on the planet, I’d say that empathizing with our food is less ‘natural’ than killing it painfully.
Removed by mod
That’s fine, I’m still trying to figure out what you were trying to say with “putting a notion in”. Is that an idiom somewhere? Maybe somewhere that doesn’t speak English?
Removed by mod
Never heard the “Nothing unnatural exists” perspective asserted?
If doing naive realism (as certainly seems could be the case), that’d be wild to jump from one to the other. :)
As worth quibbling our way out of tautologies and naive realist definitions of “magic” as for “natural”.
Half tempted to dispell the magic, and elaborate on the physics, chemistry, basics of hardware design, machine code, assembly, the various programming languages and their compilers, network infrastructure, packets, monitors, keyboards, ascii/utf8, font design (and accessibility interfaces), web protocols, federation, etc etc etc etc etc
Mhmm. Presumptive, arrogant, condescending, ad-hominem flinging… I wonder if there’s some narcissism here, besides the smugnorance born of naive realism and wilful ignorance and lack of curiosity or humility. Could learn so much more, if took that plank out of your eye, rather than chastising others for what you presume in theirs.
Interesting attempt to call out a whataboutism (I’ll check on that in a moment), after making your own appeal-to-nature fallacy, wrapped in red-herring fallacy.
And, strikingly:
Besides that being a vile proposal, it seems a thought experiment you’ve not thought through.
Okay, lets see where I made a whataboutism…
After some careful consideration… nope. Not a whataboutism fallacy. Was not deflecting. Was showing context to draw even more attention to the matter. Was not an attempt to make one thing seem okay by some other equivalent or worse thing. Was drawing the point of the implausibility that the government are caring for lobsters, given their past actions [Though, can steelman that argument better, if even only just on the face value of “the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing” aspect of big clumsy government, or even (I find incredulous) that this is under a New Labour government, not a Conservative or Conservative&LibDem coalition government]. And I certainly was not at any point trying to make it sound like it’s okay to boil lobsters alive. Sorry for whatever lack of clarity about that which I may have caused by neglectful omission of explicitly stating my position on that. … I do not think it’s right to boil lobsters alive, especially when there are other less cruel means to dispatch them. Though, I do remain open to more scientific scrutiny and reasoning on the matter, and can entertain other possibilities (like, maybe their nerve endings shut off from boiling and they dont actually suffer? And perhaps the knife through the head leaves them in an effective eternal state of suffering felt all over? Or other unknowns.).
If you're as into pastes of fairly lengthy discussions with an LLM to analyse fallacies in interactions as I am, click here
Oh bugger… It’s too lengthy to paste to lemmy. I forgot, this is not diaspora. okies, pasting to a file on my kimsufi… http://ks392457.kimsufi.com/stuff/llmpaste20251224fallacyanalysis it’s only about a thousand lines long. I will add though… despite my efforts to counter the llm sycophancy corruption effect, it’s probably still leaning too lenient and biased.
I’ll break it down for you, since reading comprehension is difficult.
Whatbaoutism does not mean (X is worse, therefore Y is fine)
Whataboutism is also anything that shifts the context of the narrative. As you did by switching it from lobsters to disabled people in the UK. One has nothing to do with the other. You are attempting whataboutism wrapped in a hypocrisy tortilla.
Thank you for also noting that the proposal was vile, so you can agree its a vile act to boil lobsters alive as you finally noted in the end of your response, yes?
Its also nice to see you claim that appeal to nature fallacy, but it is clear you again have no reading comprehension or you would have landed in the ballpark of what I did is called descriptive contrast.
You entirelt deflected because nothing you added was context related to the topic.
You d-e-f-l-e-c-t-e-d
Humans have moral agency. Lobsters have not been proven or shown to have that, therefore we can not judge or dictate what or how a lobster does anything. We can, however, demand ethical scrutiny regardless of their own behavior.
Wow.
Several strawman arguments, misrepresenting whataboutism (sounded more like a definition or red herring or moved goal post) and another fallacious accusation of whataboutism, appeal to definition, begging the question, false dichotomy, non-sequitur and self-contradiction, red herring, ad-hominems and deflection (ironically even in your hypocritical emphatic repetition of accusation of deflection (which was already refuted, and nothing done to tackle the refutation, as with other parts in this exchange)), appeal to ignorance, vague jargon, projection, dismissiveness, evasiveness, sophistry… and was that even another (at least) couple appeal to nature fallacies too, one of which wrapped in one of the strawman arguments, offering a redundant subtly moved-goal post?
That’s a hefty brandolini’s-law workload to expand upon each fallacy (and malady) to offer counter-explanations and refutations to. So much so… I don’t think we’re going to make much progress here. Bowing out.
That was a lot of word salad with no citations. Good on you for maintaining how you move the goal posts. Its a certain level of ignorance to maintain that lifestyle. Good on you for commitment.