Jesus… OK so I get this has gone on for a long time. However, I feel with advances in tech and tools, 700 is probably way more than that used to get years ago before this better tools. Maybe they should stop when a limit is reached? 100 years ago there’s no way it would’ve been as many.
You can’t “humanely” murder a living, sentient being with emotions and the capacity to feel fear and pain who doesn’t want to die. (Along with their family in the case of the Grind.)
and is all the meat eaten by locals.
You know, I’ve never seen “but your honor, I ate the entire body” used as a mitigating factor at a murder trial, but you do you, boo.
In this context “humanely” refers to killing them with as little suffering as possible, generally meaning to do so as quickly and painlessly as possible so the animal does not need to live in pain any longer than necessary before dying.
It does seem strange to me to do this with whales, but I also eat meat, so I’m in no real place to judge.
“Any longer than necessary” is literally any suffering in this context because it’s wholly superfluous. Even on that note, if I walked outside today and were killed by a skilled marksman, I probably wouldn’t feel a single thing; that’s still not “humane” because it still didn’t need to happen.
but I also eat meat, so I’m in no real place to judge.
No, I really think you are and that meat eaters resign themselves too quickly to this attitude to resolve the cognitive dissonance and avoid feeling hypocritical. I’m vegan and haven’t used animal products for years, but I didn’t drop everything one day. I thought “huh, you know, killing cows and pigs for no real reason seems kind of fucked up.” This extended to chickens and then extended to fish as I increasingly realized I was using the same excuses. I look back and realize how hypocritical I was being at each stage, but it still made me work toward change.
Never putting yourself in a place to judge is putting yourself in a place where you’re perpetually stuck.
So you are entirely unaware that a large part of organic evolution on this planet has proceeded by species predation. Or are you aware of it but are simply sliding the definition of words to a disgusting degree to make woke points. Let us be clear what you are saying, animal husbandry for meat production is in your mind correctly defined as murder. So a man murdering a child is equivalent in your view to a man eating a steak, you are so willing to make your self righteous claims that you would allow the severity of child murder to be diminished.
So you are entirely unaware that a large part of organic evolution on this planet has proceeded by species predation.
A large part of organic evolution on this planet has proceeded by rape. Why do I care when considering human ethics? This appeal to nature is always flimsily brought out, and it’s always obviously fallacious.
Or are you aware of it but are simply sliding the definition of words to a disgusting degree to make woke points.
Oops, you dropped the w-word; I’m sorry nobody here can take you seriously anymore, although the rest of your comment is just strawmanning garbage not worth addressing in the first place.
Edit: I guess Lemmy doesn’t find it even a little strange that they’re siding with an ideology that power over others justifies cruelty and that opposition to that is “woke”.
What are you even talking about? The fact that you’re calling it “woke” tells me that there’s no productive conversation to be had with you. You’re saying in obvious bad-faith that calling the intentional killing of a living, sentient being for pleasure “murder” is equating killing e.g. a cow with killing a human child, but that’s obviously ridiculous; there are degrees of severity to morally wrong actions.
You do this all the time; everyone does this all the time. If I see somebody kick a harmless dog, I’d call that “abuse”; you wouldn’t come up and start lecturing me about how “woke” I’m being because I’m diminishing human victims of abuse who are brutally beaten, starved, etc. by their family members.
I phrased my reply that way precisely because you are using emotive human terms incorrectly to illicit a response but you cannot see it. Animals mating without human formalised consent is not rape and culling or predating wild animals or humanely slaughtering livestock is not murder, at least not in the sense you are trying to force. They are human terms and not applicable, also why did it take you so long to tell us you are vegan and have much higher developed sensibilities than the rest of us.
also why did it take you so long to tell us you are vegan
“How do you know someone’s vegan? It’ll come up organically and we’ll still berate them for saying it anyway because the whole ‘they’ll tell you’ thing was always a bad-faith thought-terminating cliché.”
I don’t think I really care to be lectured about how to use language from someone who unironically throws around the word “woke”.
Edit: By the way, just curious about applying “emotive human terms” and where the boundaries are: why did dairy farmers and animal researchers call artificial insemination chutes “rape racks”? Where was their compunction then? Is it only problematic when terms like “rape” aren’t used for “humorous” alliteration?
Jesus… OK so I get this has gone on for a long time. However, I feel with advances in tech and tools, 700 is probably way more than that used to get years ago before this better tools. Maybe they should stop when a limit is reached? 100 years ago there’s no way it would’ve been as many.
I think the answer lies in how sustainable is the population after modern culls, how humanely is it done and is all the meat eaten by locals.
You can’t “humanely” murder a living, sentient being with emotions and the capacity to feel fear and pain who doesn’t want to die. (Along with their family in the case of the Grind.)
You know, I’ve never seen “but your honor, I ate the entire body” used as a mitigating factor at a murder trial, but you do you, boo.
In this context “humanely” refers to killing them with as little suffering as possible, generally meaning to do so as quickly and painlessly as possible so the animal does not need to live in pain any longer than necessary before dying.
It does seem strange to me to do this with whales, but I also eat meat, so I’m in no real place to judge.
“Any longer than necessary” is literally any suffering in this context because it’s wholly superfluous. Even on that note, if I walked outside today and were killed by a skilled marksman, I probably wouldn’t feel a single thing; that’s still not “humane” because it still didn’t need to happen.
No, I really think you are and that meat eaters resign themselves too quickly to this attitude to resolve the cognitive dissonance and avoid feeling hypocritical. I’m vegan and haven’t used animal products for years, but I didn’t drop everything one day. I thought “huh, you know, killing cows and pigs for no real reason seems kind of fucked up.” This extended to chickens and then extended to fish as I increasingly realized I was using the same excuses. I look back and realize how hypocritical I was being at each stage, but it still made me work toward change.
Never putting yourself in a place to judge is putting yourself in a place where you’re perpetually stuck.
Damn,I wish someone would humanely murder me.
So you are entirely unaware that a large part of organic evolution on this planet has proceeded by species predation. Or are you aware of it but are simply sliding the definition of words to a disgusting degree to make woke points. Let us be clear what you are saying, animal husbandry for meat production is in your mind correctly defined as murder. So a man murdering a child is equivalent in your view to a man eating a steak, you are so willing to make your self righteous claims that you would allow the severity of child murder to be diminished.
A large part of organic evolution on this planet has proceeded by rape. Why do I care when considering human ethics? This appeal to nature is always flimsily brought out, and it’s always obviously fallacious.
Oops, you dropped the w-word; I’m sorry nobody here can take you seriously anymore, although the rest of your comment is just strawmanning garbage not worth addressing in the first place.
Edit: I guess Lemmy doesn’t find it even a little strange that they’re siding with an ideology that power over others justifies cruelty and that opposition to that is “woke”.
But you cannot answer it can you.
What are you even talking about? The fact that you’re calling it “woke” tells me that there’s no productive conversation to be had with you. You’re saying in obvious bad-faith that calling the intentional killing of a living, sentient being for pleasure “murder” is equating killing e.g. a cow with killing a human child, but that’s obviously ridiculous; there are degrees of severity to morally wrong actions.
You do this all the time; everyone does this all the time. If I see somebody kick a harmless dog, I’d call that “abuse”; you wouldn’t come up and start lecturing me about how “woke” I’m being because I’m diminishing human victims of abuse who are brutally beaten, starved, etc. by their family members.
I phrased my reply that way precisely because you are using emotive human terms incorrectly to illicit a response but you cannot see it. Animals mating without human formalised consent is not rape and culling or predating wild animals or humanely slaughtering livestock is not murder, at least not in the sense you are trying to force. They are human terms and not applicable, also why did it take you so long to tell us you are vegan and have much higher developed sensibilities than the rest of us.
“How do you know someone’s vegan? It’ll come up organically and we’ll still berate them for saying it anyway because the whole ‘they’ll tell you’ thing was always a bad-faith thought-terminating cliché.”
I don’t think I really care to be lectured about how to use language from someone who unironically throws around the word “woke”.
Edit: By the way, just curious about applying “emotive human terms” and where the boundaries are: why did dairy farmers and animal researchers call artificial insemination chutes “rape racks”? Where was their compunction then? Is it only problematic when terms like “rape” aren’t used for “humorous” alliteration?