Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Inky the octopus breaks out of New Zealand aquarium

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 250 posts

Re: Inky the octopus breaks out of New Zealand aquarium

#121

Post by Falling3 »

stcredzero wrote: post #112
Falling3 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wolves are irrelevant here. If we're talking about the morality of the way we treat animals, it's a logical fallacy to try to use wolf behavior to justify our own (and something I'm sure would never occur in any other discussion of morality).

it's a logical fallacy to try to use wolf behavior to justify our own Human society tends to operate on that logical fallacy. The badness/awfulness of others is taken to justify "extreme measures" from our own side. (And I would agree that this is wrong.)

Absolutely. All the more reason to point it out.

Re: Inky the octopus breaks out of New Zealand aquarium

#122

Post by [deleted] »

dorfsmay wrote: post #120
kristopolous wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our society has decided that there are a number of drastic consequences for cannibalism and murder. If someone honestly was ok with all of them including things like telling the persons' family and spending their life in jail for the cost of a meal, then that's fine. Note that my conditions make people on the hook for everything - the treatment of the workers that prepared the food, the environmental impact of delive…

This is a cop out... Would you be ok with changing legislation so that it is ok to kill humans as long as it is to eat them. This is what people are discussing here, should we legislate against killilling animals with "high intelligence" and those who share more genes with us than with any other animal, as long as it is for food?

[deleted]

Re: Inky the octopus breaks out of New Zealand aquarium

#123

Post by kristopolous »

Falling3 wrote: post #115
kristopolous wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our society has decided that there are a number of drastic consequences for cannibalism and murder. If someone honestly was ok with all of them including things like telling the persons' family and spending their life in jail for the cost of a meal, then that's fine. Note that my conditions make people on the hook for everything - the treatment of the workers that prepared the food, the environmental impact of delive…

In what sense is it okay? What does "okay" mean? Responding to an action with a life prison sentence doesn't scream "okay".

Clearly. The point is nobody would do that.

I think that if someone was forced to have a pet pig for a while they'd probably stop eating pork or if they were forced to be a single mother living on minimum wage they'd probably fight on behalf of fast food workers.

My supposition is that people shouldn't voluntarily shroud themselves in ignorance for culinary delight but instead, should take full responsibility for all of their actions, at the dinner table and in all aspects of life.

Re: Inky the octopus breaks out of New Zealand aquarium

#124

Post by brahmwg »

Falling3 wrote: post #84
kristopolous wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although not the OP, I have a fairly strong opinion on this. In order of importance everyone should * Make their own decisions on what to eat. * Understand the externalities, exogenous, and endogenous process and consequences of their decisions. * Take full personal, civic, and environmental responsibility for those decisions. Essentially, as long as people are forthright, honest, and accountable about what they eat,…

Is this really how you feel taken to its logical extremes? Do you think humans should be allowed to eat other humans? Other live humans? Eating is clearly a very personal thing, but it's silly to pretend that morality suddenly ceases applying.

What about meat grown in a lab, so no being had to die for it.

...what about human meat grown in a lab...?

Re: Inky the octopus breaks out of New Zealand aquarium

#125

Post by kristopolous »

pyre wrote: post #110
kristopolous wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our society has decided that there are a number of drastic consequences for cannibalism and murder. If someone honestly was ok with all of them including things like telling the persons' family and spending their life in jail for the cost of a meal, then that's fine. Note that my conditions make people on the hook for everything - the treatment of the workers that prepared the food, the environmental impact of delive…

> If someone honestly was ok with all of them for the cost of a human feast, then that's fine. Would you sing the same tune if you were the one that they wanted to eat?

I would be violently opposed to it of course. As I hypothesize is every other animal to their own demise. Maybe there's a moral necessity to veganism.

Re: Inky the octopus breaks out of New Zealand aquarium

#126

Post by kristopolous »

Falling3 wrote: post #114
kristopolous wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The third one, "full personal, civic, and environmental responsibility for those decisions" would include criminal charges and jail-time for the decision to eat a human as it would constitute murder. If someone said "I'm comfortable with the legal consequences of cannibalism and murder along with the possibility that the person may actually kill me before I get to them" and they actually are held to those postulation…

In that case, your first and third statements certainly seem in conflict. You don't actually believe in any practical sense that people should be able to make their own (unhindered) decision on what to eat if you're going to punish them for it and prevent them from doing it again.

It's about understanding the costs of the decisions and accepting them.

If you say "Well nobody would be ok with industrial slaughterhouses or a number of other things" I say, "yes, that's kinda the point here."

Re: Inky the octopus breaks out of New Zealand aquarium

#127

Post by Falling3 »

kristopolous wrote: post #123
Falling3 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what sense is it okay? What does "okay" mean? Responding to an action with a life prison sentence doesn't scream "okay".

Clearly. The point is nobody would do that. I think that if someone was forced to have a pet pig for a while they'd probably stop eating pork or if they were forced to be a single mother living on minimum wage they'd probably fight on behalf of fast food workers. My supposition is that people shouldn't voluntarily shroud themselves in ignorance for culinary delight but instead, should take full responsibility for all…

>I think that if someone was forced to have a pet pig for a while they'd probably stop eating pork

Unfortunately, this is often not the case in my own experience. It certainly does for some people, but that course is by no means universal. And when the well-being of other thinking, feeling individuals is at stake, I'd rather not rely on this kind of approach.

Re: Inky the octopus breaks out of New Zealand aquarium

#128

Post by Falling3 »

kristopolous wrote: post #126
Falling3 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that case, your first and third statements certainly seem in conflict. You don't actually believe in any practical sense that people should be able to make their own (unhindered) decision on what to eat if you're going to punish them for it and prevent them from doing it again.

It's about understanding the costs of the decisions and accepting them. If you say "Well nobody would be ok with industrial slaughterhouses or a number of other things" I say, "yes, that's kinda the point here."

Why would we care if someone accepts the costs or not? I find our justice system to be incredibly flawed, but ultimately we jail people because we (as a society) don't want the action they committed to take place. The mentality you seem to be espousing seems to ignore that for... reasons?

So if we're willing to say a specific action is worth jailing someone for the rest of their life, why shouldn't we say "This action is not okay and we're going to do our best to prevent it"?

Re: Inky the octopus breaks out of New Zealand aquarium

#129

Post by thedaemon »

nxzero wrote: post #44
Spivak wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The current bar is just anything not in the genus Homo and would likely extend to any 'humanoid' species. A wolf doesn't really care about the relative intelligence of the rabbits it kills, but has a natural kinship between other wolves or wolf-like creatures which more-or-less extends to, "I wont kill you for food unless I'm starving."

Wolves are extremely opportunistic carnivores, and will, given the opportunity, eat another wolf. That aside, unclear how wolves relate to the topic. Generally speaking, most life on Earth doesn't even eat other living organisms, but the naturally left remains of living organisms.

If by generally speaking you mean micro-organisms, then sure. I cannot think of any animals (mammals, fish, etc) that do not eat living organisms.

Re: Inky the octopus breaks out of New Zealand aquarium

#130

Post by btilly »

Falling3 wrote: post #84
kristopolous wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although not the OP, I have a fairly strong opinion on this. In order of importance everyone should * Make their own decisions on what to eat. * Understand the externalities, exogenous, and endogenous process and consequences of their decisions. * Take full personal, civic, and environmental responsibility for those decisions. Essentially, as long as people are forthright, honest, and accountable about what they eat,…

Is this really how you feel taken to its logical extremes? Do you think humans should be allowed to eat other humans? Other live humans? Eating is clearly a very personal thing, but it's silly to pretend that morality suddenly ceases applying.

What if it is the actual wish of the people involved?

What if a person whose fantasy was to kill and cook another person met a person who fantasy was to be killed and cooked? Then this happened. What penalty should ensue for the (well-fed) survivor?

And lest you think this is some weird hypothetical, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armin_Meiwes may enlighten you otherwise.

Post reply on HN