Eating live fish!

[versatastic]

Lobsters are cooked whole so they die in a few seconds. That fish was meant to be passed around on the plate and eaten all the while it's brain is still alive and conscious. You should actually kill the thing completely, not keep it alive so it can watch as you munch on its flesh.

The disgust is mostly psychosocial, though. People aren't disgusted with eating live oysters simply because they're still alive. If there's any repulsion, it's mainly due to eating something cold and slimy. People don't care whether it's dead or alive because it doesn't have a head or a face. It's the same reason people can be very carnivorous but can't bear to pluck out the feathers and gut a warm chicken with a heart that's still beating. I used to do that with phesants and ducks that my grandpa hunted, so it doesn't really phase me, but some of my cousins would scream, cry, and/or throw up because of it.

 

[NameTaken]

From my understanding, none of these animals are euthanized, so any animal killed for human consumption is going to suffer. From my understanding, pigs and cows bleed to death. How is one supposed to make sure something is dead anyway? If they cut the heads off what else can they do? Whether they wait to cut up the animal or let it bleed to death, isn't it still suffering during the time its alive? People don't have to eat meat. People are raised to eat meat, but it's not necessary to live. I just don't think one method of preparing meat is any better than another. The animals all end up killed.

Gee, funny how I already adressed this. I said, and I quote, "as humanely as FEASIBLY possible". It isn't very feasible for a major coporation out for profits to euthanise every animal, but most don't set out with the intent to keep the animal alive during the painful process. Yes, some animals in factories may bleed to death, and that is sad as well. The difference is most corporations don't STRIVE towards having the animal bleed to death, like the people in this video do. By the way, people are omnivores by design. Just thought I'd throw that out there for ya.

If you are going to respond again, try actually responding to what I've already layed out time and time again: The fact that the people in the above video are PURPOSELY making sure that an animal suffers vs the people in many other markets who try to ensure, as feasibly possible for a major corportation to do, that the animals are dead before processing the meat.

 

[OTHFan]

After reading these comments, there's no way i'm clicking.

 

[irydion]

poor fish

 

[Fucker29]

I forget that some of the posters here aren't in America. I don't know if you know of American culture but cats and dogs can even be considered members of people's families. My point was that emotional ties to certain animals doesn't make them more special than any other type of animal.

Since when is that an american thing?

 

[belamy]

'''''''

 

[Fucker29]

View attachment 297838'''''''

 

[alley]

That's really fresh--it's twitchin' and all---*chokes lunch back down into throat*

 

[Passion4Muzik]

Gee, funny how I already adressed this. I said, and I quote, "as humanely as FEASIBLY possible". It isn't very feasible for a major coporation out for profits to euthanise every animal, but most don't set out with the intent to keep the animal alive during the painful process. Yes, some animals in factories may bleed to death, and that is sad as well. The difference is most corporations don't STRIVE towards having the animal bleed to death, like the people in this video do. By the way, people are omnivores by design. Just thought I'd throw that out there for ya.

If you are going to respond again, try actually responding to what I've already layed out time and time again: The fact that the people in the above video are PURPOSELY making sure that an animal suffers vs the people in many other markets who try to ensure, as feasibly possible for a major corportation to do, that the animals are dead before processing the meat.

Whether a person purposely wants to make an animal suffer or not when killing it for food, the bottom line is that it does. The intent of the person who kills an animal doesn't make a difference to the animal. It's still ending up dead and in someone's mouth and stomach. Understand? Have you not ever killed a fly, roach, ant or spider? Has your household not ever set a mouse or rat trap? Have you not ever used insect sprays? Do you care about their suffering?

 

[Passion4Muzik]

Since when is that an american thing?

I haven't been out of my country so I don't know how every other culture feels about cats and dogs. Apparently, everybody doesn't have the same ties to cats and dogs or they wouldn't be eaten in other parts of the world. You're focusing on a miniscule issue when I've already clarified my point: cats and dogs are just animals.

 

[NameTaken]

Whether a person purposely wants to make an animal suffer or not when killing it for food, the bottom line is that it does. The intent of the person who kills an animal doesn't make a difference to the animal. It's still ending up dead and in someone's mouth and stomach. Understand? Have you not ever killed a fly, roach, ant or spider? Has your household not ever set a mouse or rat trap? Have you not ever used insect sprays? Do you care about their suffering?

How foolish of you to assume that intent and degrees do not matter. I'm sorry that you have toruble seeing things in varying shades of grey and can only see this in black and white, but it isn't such a matter. Intent matters because it says worlds about the people who peform the actions. There is no way you can argue otherwise.

Suffering, as in most things, changes immensely depending upon degree. Stubbing your toe, being killed then having your toe cut off, and being kept alive while all of your toes are amputated are very different things. you can not argue that all scenarios cause the same amount of suffering. More importantly you cannot argue that just because in the end the animal ends up dead that both of the latter scenarios are just as humane or are no different. To argue that would be pure stupidity.

In response to your last few points, I actually put insects like spiders and the like outside, I do not kill them.

 

[Fucker29]

I haven't been out of my country so I don't know how every other culture feels about cats and dogs. Apparently, everybody doesn't have the same ties to cats and dogs or they wouldn't be eaten in other parts of the world. You're focusing on a miniscule issue when I've already clarified my point: cats and dogs are just animals.

Well, in Europe pets, specially cats and dogs, are also regarded as a member of the family, not just an animal.

For YOU, they're just animals. For many others, they're not.

 

[Passion4Muzik]

How foolish of you to assume that intent and degrees do not matter. I'm sorry that you have toruble seeing things in varying shades of grey and can only see this in black and white, but it isn't such a matter. Intent matters because it says worlds about the people who peform the actions. There is no way you can argue otherwise.

Suffering, as in most things, changes immensely depending upon degree. Stubbing your toe, being killed then having your toe cut off, and being kept alive while all of your toes are amputated are very different things. you can not argue that all scenarios cause the same amount of suffering. More importantly you cannot argue that just because in the end the animal ends up dead that both of the latter scenarios are just as humane or are no different. To argue that would be pure stupidity.

In response to your last few points, I actually put insects like spiders and the like outside, I do not kill them.

If animals are being killed for food, what difference does it make if the person doing the killing is getting off on it?

All scenarios of animals being slaughtered most likely doesn't cause the same amount of suffering for various reasons. Do you know for a fact that the animals in the clip suffer more than others? It's been said that even after some animals are dead their bodies spasm. YOU EAT MEAT, so YOU contribute to animal suffering. Stop eating meat and you can save lives since you're so concerned. You'd have more credibility if you were a vegetarian. Do you not wear leather as well?

 

[Passion4Muzik]

Well, in Europe pets, specially cats and dogs, are also regarded as a member of the family, not just an animal.

For YOU, they're just animals. For many others, they're not.

FACTUALLY, cats and dogs are just animals and humans came up with the idea of cats and dogs being pets. Other people in the world think it's weird that people eat beef or pork. Bizarre food is relative -- that is my point. It's self-righteous and hypocritical for someone to put down others for eating different animals from them when they're all animals.

 

[NameTaken]

If animals are being killed for food, what difference does it make if the person doing the killing is getting off on it?

All scenarios of animals being slaughtered most likely doesn't cause the same amount of suffering for various reasons. Do you know for a fact that the animals in the clip suffer more than others? It's been said that even after some animals are dead their bodies spasm. YOU EAT MEAT, so YOU contribute to animal suffering. Stop eating meat and you can save lives since you're so concerned. You'd have more credibility if you were a vegetarian. Do you not wear leather as well?

I don't know how anybody with half a brain by this point in time could think that intent or as you put it people "getting off on it" DOESN'T matter.

Hmm, getting desperate I see, lol. Your next point is moot as the criteria for the chefs, as stated in the video, was that the fish must be breathing. Your next point again is moot. As I have said so many times now, the point is that the suffering inflicted is MORE than neccesary. Yes, all meat eaters are obviously not helping the problem, but the types of people who set out for suffering is where the problem lies. Anybody with half a brain will have seen by now that the difference between most meat eaters and the ones shown in the video is that most would prefer (in an ideal situation where convienience was not altered thereafter as a consequence) their animals to be treated as humanely as possible (even if they are too lazy to protest, etc. to try to get it that way) whereas the ones shown in the video PREFER the animals to suffer through it alive.

Let me make it even more simple for you, since you obviously have trouble understanding. Here's a cliff notes version for you. Most meat, if given a choice where price/convenience would not be altered as a result would prefer the animals be treated humanely, the ones shown in this video are literally the opposite.

 

[belamy]

......

 

[star-warrior]

I don't know how anybody with half a brain by this point in time could think that intent or as you put it people "getting off on it" DOESN'T matter.

Hmm, getting desperate I see, lol. Your next point is moot as the criteria for the chefs, as stated in the video, was that the fish must be breathing. Your next point again is moot. As I have said so many times now, the point is that the suffering inflicted is MORE than neccesary. Yes, all meat eaters are obviously not helping the problem, but the types of people who set out for suffering is where the problem lies. Anybody with half a brain will have seen by now that the difference between most meat eaters and the ones shown in the video is that most would prefer (in an ideal situation where convienience was not altered thereafter as a consequence) their animals to be treated as humanely as possible (even if they are too lazy to protest, etc. to try to get it that way) whereas the ones shown in the video PREFER the animals to suffer through it alive.

Let me make it even more simple for you, since you obviously have trouble understanding. Here's a cliff notes version for you. Most meat, if given a choice where price/convenience would not be altered as a result would prefer the animals be treated humanely, the ones shown in this video are literally the opposite.

"Humanely" is a nice word that humans can use as a moral guide about actions of others. If the animal were in the wild, it would have been ripped apart by other predators without any forethought about the morality of how its victim dies.

However, even if a humane way which limits an animal suffering before it is consumed were taken into account, animals which were purposely bred for consumption, or caught from the wild still suffers the ignomony of being disregarded about whether it takes a preference for being dinner for someone or not.

From a culinary point of view, freshness means taste. When any animal is killed or vegetable plucked from the garden, it begins to deteriorate in its taste. That's why you see frozen peas adverts telling you that they're picked and frozen within a few hours to preserve the sugar content that makes frozen peas so sweet and tastey. I grow my own veggies, and I can tell you the joy of tasting freshly picked bean that are cooked within half an hour of picking. They're wonderful.

I can also hold my hand up without any shame that I've bought live fish and had them killed and cleaned before me in fish markets. Even in that gutted state, the fish is still fresh enough that it writhes. The seller fishes it out, whacks it across the head with a big rolling pin of a stick, the scales it, chops off the fins, opens the belly and scrapes the guts out, a quick chop to the gill area and a twist bring the gills out and its done, all within twenty seconds. Not only fish, but we have bought frogs and fowl in a similar fashion. The storekeepers will kill and defeather chickens and ducks that way.

Here, in the UK, however, most fish is dead, when they're sold in fish markets. The meat is often decomposed, yellowing and beginning to smell of ammonia as the meat decomposes. Even whole fish which you choose and have cleaned will show signs of decomposition where the bile sacks have leaked their greeny fluid into the membranes of the gut.

If you are used to buying and eating decomposing meat and vegetables, then you're missing out on the taste. Humanity is all fine and well, but if animals were killed in the wild, it would be a far more gruesome affair than the way any person could kill the animals in the clips above. The flee or flight and eventual masceration by claws and teeth of a predator does not invite pity for its victim.

 

[star-warrior]

This thread made me nauseous.

You might consider any of the following as food for thought then...

 

[Passion4Muzik]

I don't know how anybody with half a brain by this point in time could think that intent or as you put it people "getting off on it" DOESN'T matter.

Hmm, getting desperate I see, lol. Your next point is moot as the criteria for the chefs, as stated in the video, was that the fish must be breathing. Your next point again is moot. As I have said so many times now, the point is that the suffering inflicted is MORE than neccesary. Yes, all meat eaters are obviously not helping the problem, but the types of people who set out for suffering is where the problem lies. Anybody with half a brain will have seen by now that the difference between most meat eaters and the ones shown in the video is that most would prefer (in an ideal situation where convienience was not altered thereafter as a consequence) their animals to be treated as humanely as possible (even if they are too lazy to protest, etc. to try to get it that way) whereas the ones shown in the video PREFER the animals to suffer through it alive.

Let me make it even more simple for you, since you obviously have trouble understanding. Here's a cliff notes version for you. Most meat, if given a choice where price/convenience would not be altered as a result would prefer the animals be treated humanely, the ones shown in this video are literally the opposite.

My point is that there is no way to "humanely kill" anything when it's being killed strictly for your pleasure. You DON'T NEED meat. You WANT meat. You don't need to wear leather either.

Being condescending is not helping your case. It doesn't matter whether an animal suffers 10 minutes or 5 when it doesn't have to suffer at all if you didn't want to fill your belly with it. You are in no position to point fingers at anyone's method for preparing food when simultaneously you are responsible for the killings/suffering of many animals yourself.

 

[NameTaken]

My point is that there is no way to "humanely kill" anything when it's being killed strictly for your pleasure. You DON'T NEED meat. You WANT meat. You don't need to wear leather either.

Being condescending is not helping your case. It doesn't matter whether an animal suffers 10 minutes or 5 when it doesn't have to suffer at all if you didn't want to fill your belly with it.

On the contrary, our bodies were DESIGNED for meat. We can survive without it, but we were designed as hunter gatherers. While it is possible to survive without meat the most healthy diets (read: good for you) will include a balanced meal with occasional meat. Unless you want to try to rewrite hisory you don't really have a case there.

That's where we differ, I and many others have enough morals to prefer animals to suffer as little as possible. You trying to say there is no way to "humanely kill" is utter stupidity. What is euthansia? You, yourself have even have refered to euthanising in a post in this very thread! Humanely killing is really quite simple to understand, it is tyring to kill something while inflicting as little suffering as possible. No finger has been pointed for the act of killing, a finger has only been pointed at the METHOD. My god, is this the 5th+ time I have explained that. Really, you must be trying to troll this thread if you are trying to appear like that hasn't sunk in yet...

Sorry if I sound condescending, but it's hard not to sound that way when the same point has been explained time and time again while the other man shows little to no comprehension and has put nothing new or anything at all that has actually been a good argument on the table.