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.
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.