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

The Lucrative Art of Chicken Sexing (2017)

psmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 51 posts

Re: The Lucrative Art of Chicken Sexing (2017)

#31

Post by cies »

Ntrails wrote: post #16
cies wrote: post #4

Calling it an art does not make it less cruel. That something is lucrative does not mean it's nice (ask slavery victims). Please consider not buying animal products, you can easily do without it. Thank you.

Ah yes, the old "Eating/Kepping animals is just like slavery, you're all monsters" chestnut... Do you really think that anyone is going to see this comment and reconsider eating meat, or wearing leather? Because "that nice _cies_ person on the internet told me I'm a terrible human being"?

I just think that calling chick sexing a "lucrative art" is disgusting to me, and I expressed that.

If that makes you re-evaluate your choices in life, that could be great for the chicks. I never called you a terrible human.

Re: The Lucrative Art of Chicken Sexing (2017)

#32

Post by cies »

naringas wrote: post #29
scandox wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm amazed at the aggression this comment is getting. There's a strong moral argument for not eating meat. There's a distinct but also reasonable argument for not consuming derivative products. It's a sane position and I think it can be advocated for. I can eat meat and still believe I may be wrong in doing so. There's absolutely no reason to take this quite polite advocacy as a personal attack.

the lesson from this? advocating vegetarianism is one of the various HN taboos.

I take the down votes. :) Happily exchange votes for a bit of platform to express myself.

Re: The Lucrative Art of Chicken Sexing (2017)

#33

Post by cies »

vbezhenar wrote: post #8
cies wrote: post #4

Calling it an art does not make it less cruel. That something is lucrative does not mean it's nice (ask slavery victims). Please consider not buying animal products, you can easily do without it. Thank you.

Plants can feel pain. Please eat rocks.

Animals eat plants too, so you significantly reduce plant pain by consuming them directly. Also: fruit are plant based but are "given" by the plant, the plant survives.

Finally, a plant's "pain" is VERY different from animal pain. Where animal pain is in many cases/ways the same as human pain.

Re: The Lucrative Art of Chicken Sexing (2017)

#34

Post by cies »

ceejayoz wrote: post #17
cies wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With so many replacements products, it has never been easier. A replacement is at hand within a few meters of the animal derived product in most modern supermarkets. Also, Youtube is full of inspiration of how to replace any animal derived product. It's never been easier. I think its more the will, than the ability, that's needed. And if someone considers some products "too hard to switch away from" then, just keep b…

I’d really like to see someone do the math on how many animals get killed growing plant-based meat substitutes. Mice sucked up when they harvest the corn, bugs sprayed with pesticides, etc. Pasture-raised grass-fed beef might come out way better in comparison.

A wild animal that inadvertently dies is not the same as a caged animal that is killed.

But yes, even plant foods incur animal suffering. Vegans know. Much, much less though.

> Pasture-raised grass-fed beef might come out way better in comparison.

If you consider a bugs life equal to a cows life: yes. Most people dont. I kill bugs when I drive my car, if I'd kill cows at the same rate as bug when driving, I'd stop driving.

Re: The Lucrative Art of Chicken Sexing (2017)

#36

Post by claudiawerner »

sjg007 wrote: post #26
scandox wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm amazed at the aggression this comment is getting. There's a strong moral argument for not eating meat. There's a distinct but also reasonable argument for not consuming derivative products. It's a sane position and I think it can be advocated for. I can eat meat and still believe I may be wrong in doing so. There's absolutely no reason to take this quite polite advocacy as a personal attack.

What is the moral argument?

There are several arguments listed at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy[0]; namely, the argument from animal suffering, the argument from animal killing, the argument from environmental damage, and the argument from harm to humans. These are compatible not just with utilitarian moral frameworks, but a variety of metaethical theories.

I'm not aware of any theory which has convincingly been able to show that animals are not worthy of moral consideration (but all humans are). Similarly, I'm not aware of any theory which successfully argues that human pleasure from eating meat outweighs the suffering of the animals (without also applying to a variety of human behaviours). Justification like that usually entails that the suffering is necessary, yet moral vegetarianism does make any claim as far as people who need to eat meat (or at least purchase meat or kill animals) for dietary reasons.

[0] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/vegetarianism/#ScheCaseAg...

Re: The Lucrative Art of Chicken Sexing (2017)

#37

Post by taneq »

ceejayoz wrote: post #17
cies wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With so many replacements products, it has never been easier. A replacement is at hand within a few meters of the animal derived product in most modern supermarkets. Also, Youtube is full of inspiration of how to replace any animal derived product. It's never been easier. I think its more the will, than the ability, that's needed. And if someone considers some products "too hard to switch away from" then, just keep b…

I’d really like to see someone do the math on how many animals get killed growing plant-based meat substitutes. Mice sucked up when they harvest the corn, bugs sprayed with pesticides, etc. Pasture-raised grass-fed beef might come out way better in comparison.

I see this kind of whataboutism almost every time people discuss the ethics of meat consumption and the surrounding industries. If growing plants commercially kills animals in the process then that's something else to examine but it doesn't change the fact that meat based industries are usually incredibly cruel.

Re: The Lucrative Art of Chicken Sexing (2017)

#38

Post by taneq »

amelius wrote: post #20
Uberphallus wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or GMO male chickens that only produce Z gametes.

Yes, but at that point you're directly interfering in the biological systems, instead of just selecting. This may be a problem for a lot of people, especially as byproducts may enter the food chain.

You mean like when we pump them full of antibiotics, or remove their beaks? There's nothing natural about modern food animals.

Re: The Lucrative Art of Chicken Sexing (2017)

#39

Post by Fjolsvith »

cies wrote: post #31
Ntrails wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes, the old "Eating/Kepping animals is just like slavery, you're all monsters" chestnut... Do you really think that anyone is going to see this comment and reconsider eating meat, or wearing leather? Because "that nice _cies_ person on the internet told me I'm a terrible human being"?

I just think that calling chick sexing a "lucrative art" is disgusting to me, and I expressed that. If that makes you re-evaluate your choices in life, that could be great for the chicks. I never called you a terrible human.

You got to experience cancel culture.

Re: The Lucrative Art of Chicken Sexing (2017)

#40

Post by sjg007 »

claudiawerner wrote: post #36
sjg007 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the moral argument?

There are several arguments listed at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy[0]; namely, the argument from animal suffering, the argument from animal killing, the argument from environmental damage, and the argument from harm to humans. These are compatible not just with utilitarian moral frameworks, but a variety of metaethical theories. I'm not aware of any theory which has convincingly been able to show that anim…

I could see a moral argument in favor of vegetarianism or veganism because it is better for the environment and prevents global warming which in turn is better for humanity and our long term existence. But even then technology may be able to mitigate the impact. For example, feeding ruminants red algae.
Post reply on HN