In Switzerland, it's now illegal to boil a live lobster • Hacker News Board

Re: In Switzerland, it's now illegal to boil a live lobster

#221

Post by petre » Sun, Feb 18, 2018, 6:18 AM UTC

andrewwharton wrote: post #49

The common procedure I was taught when growing up was chilling the crayfish (stick it in the freezer until it goes to sleep) before killing it [1]. It really takes very little effort and make no discernible difference whatsoever to the end result. It's interesting that this method wasn't one of those listed, because I was under the impression that it was quite effective. [1] http://kb.rspca.org.au/What-is-the-most-hu…

The Swiss probably don't cook much live lobster or crayfish anyway, so chilling the live crustacean hasn't occured to the lawmakers. Yes, it's way easier than electrocuting, so thank you for sharing.

Re: In Switzerland, it's now illegal to boil a live lobster

#222

Post by goostavos » Sun, Feb 18, 2018, 6:18 AM UTC

myopicgoat wrote: post #123

ricardobeat wrote: post #120

> and Kunfermann said offenders could land in a lot of hot water Is there serious journalism being made anywhere these days? I feel like these subtle puns everywhere detract from the reading experience - not everything is for entertainment.

Seems a bit overreacting dissing the whole of journalism for the odd pun seen in an article. Eg: John Oliver’s late night show is, objectively, quite good journalism (even if he denies it) though it’s not very “serious”.

> objectively, quite good journalism

Eh.. I dunno. I've watched, and will continue to watch, every episode of Last Week Tonight, however, I don't consider it "objectively good" journalism at all. I enjoy it as a silly, biased take on current events from a funny guy.

The "Amnesia effect" applies equally well to Oliver:

>“Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.”

Re: In Switzerland, it's now illegal to boil a live lobster

#223

Post by white-flame » Sun, Feb 18, 2018, 6:18 AM UTC

52-6F-62 wrote: post #215

nezzle wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We clearly eat far more meat than we need and produce/harvest meat in ways that create unnecessary damage and suffering. However, not everyone is like you. Some people develop deficiencies when they exclude meat from their diet. I have witnessed an ex-vegan health/nutritional professional advise a vegetarian to start eating some meat due to chronic health issues and lab-tested nutritional deficiencies. It was an hard…

> Some people develop deficiencies when they exclude meat from their diet. I'm one of those people. Personally, I think refraining from consuming animals is the morally superior option—nothing to do with health. In the longer history of humankind I hope that's the direction we take. I'd happily take an artificial steak made of a complex of vegetable proteins, fast, etc that tastes like prime beef over slaughtering an…

> Personally, I think refraining from consuming animals is the morally superior option—nothing to do with health.

Personally, I can see zero moral difference between killing an animal for food, and killing a plant for food. If one is unacceptable, then so should be the other.

Re: In Switzerland, it's now illegal to boil a live lobster

#224

Post by abecedarius » Sun, Feb 18, 2018, 6:20 AM UTC

> "then it dies within seconds,” he said.

Perhaps worth keeping in mind that smaller animals tend to run at a faster "clock speed". Seconds might feel rather longer to them. (E.g. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/small-animals-liv... though that's about vertebrates.)

Re: In Switzerland, it's now illegal to boil a live lobster

#225

Post by moab » Sun, Feb 18, 2018, 6:21 AM UTC

discoursism wrote: post #217

moab wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is pretty clear bait, but his choice to commit suicide gives absolutely no information on his position on harming other creatures.

I think the person you were responding to was saying that he does not hesitate, because he does not kill spiders, because he is dead. Not necessarily bait of any kind.

Thanks for the explanation. My misunderstanding.

Re: In Switzerland, it's now illegal to boil a live lobster

#226

Post by alphaalpha101 » Sun, Feb 18, 2018, 6:21 AM UTC

eridius wrote: post #153

> That means cats must have a daily visual contact with other felines Wow, really? Why? Cats are loners, they don't need to be around other cats. In fact, my cat hates other cats, giving her daily visual contact with other cats would basically be torture.

That's why. Because animals like yours suffer as adult cats when they're poorly socialised as kittens.

Re: In Switzerland, it's now illegal to boil a live lobster

#227

Post by alphaalpha101 » Sun, Feb 18, 2018, 6:23 AM UTC

wildmusings wrote: post #137

The bar for infringing on people's freedom should be high. Laws should exit only to protect human interests. That can include things like preserving biodiversity. But to use the power of the state against people for the sole purpose of protecting animal interests is unjustified in my opinion. I believe we have a moral duty to treat animals well, and certainly to avoid causing needless suffering. But not all moral dut…

Okay, so vote against this if someone proposes it where you live. I don't really see why anyone needs to read your unjustified personal philosophy in this comment section. You just state these things as views without justifying them. Why is it unjustified? What set of principles justifies state action? Why is that set of principles the right set of principles to use?

Since when is it controversial for the state to compel people to act in a moral manner?

Re: In Switzerland, it's now illegal to boil a live lobster

#228

Post by c_shu » Sun, Feb 18, 2018, 6:25 AM UTC

nurettin wrote: post #216

So some humans think they finally have the luxury of seriously considering animal ethics while some other humans would still kill for survival. Meanwhile, the earth or the universe continues to not care.

I agree that we should pay more attention to people that are suffering.

But I think the rationale of such laws is somewhat valid. Can you imagine a person who is totally emotionless when torturing an animal but is also very compassionate towards human beings?

I think in some ways human ethics and animal ethics are connected.

Though if you ask me whether Switzerland has gone too far, I'm still hesitant about yes/no.

Re: In Switzerland, it's now illegal to boil a live lobster

#229

Post by bufferout » Sun, Feb 18, 2018, 6:28 AM UTC

myrandomcomment wrote: post #142

So you will crush a roach or swat a fly? I am all for humane chicken faming methods, et.al. However we are the top of the food chain and we eat everything below. That means it dies. My friends dogs will try to eat his chickens and it is not pretty (he trains the dogs not to of course.) I have a forest full of dear behind my house. I heard the very loud screaming of an animal the other day. One of the deer was lunch f…

No. Our intelligence and capacity for empathy obliges us to rise above the level of primitive instincts.

Seeing as rape and incest exists in the natural world, by your argument should it also be considered fair game for humans?

Re: In Switzerland, it's now illegal to boil a live lobster

#230

Post by white-flame » Sun, Feb 18, 2018, 6:28 AM UTC

watwut wrote: post #5

nickjj wrote: post #2

"...dipping it into salt water and then thrusting a knife into its brain." So for a few seconds it will think it's being released back into its natural habitat and then seconds later its brains are dripping down some chef's knife. The article talks about "animal dignity", but how is that giving them any form of dignity? They are still being killed unnaturally. NOTE: I'm not some animal rights person and I do eat meat…

Natural death of an animal in the nature can be quite long and very painful. The point is not to simulate natural kill, the point is to kill the animal without torturing it unnecessary.

Right, if we can kill it within 30 seconds, that eliminates a lot of unnecessary torture compared to a natural death. But then if 30 seconds is the new normal, then it becomes outrageous again, and killing it in 10 seconds is now eliminating unnecessary torture, right? But then that becomes the new norm and we shave another second off? Do we end up disputing the transmission of pulses down their nervous systems and interrupting them before they're perceived, just to prepare food that's already acceptable to eat?