I don't get it. An animal on the same level of the food chain as us would eat any of us or anything lower without a second thought but we as humans, are feeling compassion and sorrow over a fish? If that fish wasn't going to be eaten alive by us it would've been eaten alive by something else. Why is it wrong when humans do it but natural when another animal does it?

Because some nut jobs out there get worked up over nothing.

 

Also, animals have only one right, and that is the right to be tasty.

 

Because we have the means and knowledge to do it other ways? I love my meat and lots of my family own farms, but the only thing I have a problem with is inhumane treatment (Eg. slow, painful deaths).

I don't get it. An animal on the same level of the food chain as us would eat any of us or anything lower without a second thought but we as humans, are feeling compassion and sorrow over a fish? If that fish wasn't going to be eaten alive by us it would've been eaten alive by something else. Why is it wrong when humans do it but natural when another animal does it?

Because some nut jobs out there get worked up over nothing.

 

Also, animals have only one right, and that is the right to be tasty.

 

Because we have the means and knowledge to do it other ways? I love my meat and lots of my family own farms, but the only thing I have a problem with is inhumane treatment (Eg. slow, painful deaths).

 

Yeah. If you're going to kill the animal, make it quick, painless, and efficient. Don't drag out it's death any longer than you need to.

If for example, somebody tests medical product on an animal, I'm cool with that. If somebody tests cosmetics, then I'm not cool. I'm okay with sacrificing the health & wellbeing of a few animals for the benefit of potentially billions, but not so that some slapper can have a cheaper foundation.

 

Do exactly what is needed to survive. The Australian aboriginals used to incapacitate animals but keep them alive until they were ready to be consumed. I don't see that as being cruel, it makes perfect sense to me. They do the best they can to provide for themselves with what they have available. It's just the food chain, survival of the fittest, etc etc etc

Fish tastes absolutely terrible.

 

And tbh I think its fair enough that we eat animals, but yeah, killing them quickly seems like the right way to di it.

I don't really care if you kill a cow... As long as I get a steak out of it, it's fine by me ;) But eating a fish alive... while it was still breathing and everything =x That kinda made me want to puke >.> That was disgusting, and very uncalled for. I'm [bleep]ing scarred <.< Even if it is an animal, the thought of being fried, but still alive and having some giants poke at me with chopsticks is extremely disturbing :ohnoes:

I saw the fish bieng eaten alive and I lol'd, it was even more funny then that karate sensai beating up that mentally challenged man.

I don't understand why. Pain is just an instinctive stimulae (sp?) from the brain, basically just a pop up that says "Move, this thing is damaging your vital systems". I understand that as humans we react emotionally to anything that we have been taught to observe as sad, but do we even know if animals really have feelings at all? Maybe they just have the primitive instincts of a lower life form brain.

 

It doesn't matter if it's instinctive or if the animal has any feelings about it at all. The point is that there are some instances in which inflicting pain on an animal is needless and shouldn't be done. They feel pain, just like you do. Am I to take it that you'd be fine being beaten to a pulp if pain was an instinct for you and you didn't have emotions?

 

The amount of people trying to justify needless abuse to animals is staggering.

Regarding this particular video, I do think it's wrong. If it can indeed feel pain and is suffering needlessly, then obviously this shouldn't be happening. I'm not going to say "Oh, we're the superior life-forms and so it doesn't matter if it suffers" - it does. I find it utterly disgusting that people can defend things like this; not just the fish being eaten alive, but any mistreatment of animals in general. They are living things and feel things, just like us, though they may not be the same things. They have rights.

 

I am not against eating animals myself. Animals in the wild eat each other to survive and so do we. I was a vegetarian at one point, but it wasn't for a long period of time. I thought long and hard about it, but in the end, it's not going to stop animals being killed and we need to eat certain things to stay healthy. However, I do think animals need to be killed in the most humane way possible. Again, they shouldn't suffer needlessly.

 

Side note: Ignore it if my grammar is off; it's 12AM, I'm tired, and too lazy to read through it. Ignore it if I've repeated myself, too.

It doesn't matter if it's instinctive or if the animal has any feelings about it at all. The point is that there are some instances in which inflicting pain on an animal is needless and shouldn't be done. They feel pain, just like you do. Am I to take it that you'd be fine being beaten to a pulp if pain was an instinct for you and you didn't have emotions?

 

The amount of people trying to justify needless abuse to animals is staggering.

That's irrelevant because I'm not a lower life form.

 

And it's not needless, I just believe that anything that could potentially better a persons life (that includes better tasting fish) is fair game [pun].

 

The fish would still taste the same if it had been killed humanely before being cooked so keeping it alive while you eat it doesn't benefit anyone (except the Chinese restaurant owners who have a gimmick to sell). Also, in light of your views here, I'm beginning severely doubt your first point :wink:

I don't understand why. Pain is just an instinctive stimulae (sp?) from the brain, basically just a pop up that says "Move, this thing is damaging your vital systems". I understand that as humans we react emotionally to anything that we have been taught to observe as sad, but do we even know if animals really have feelings at all? Maybe they just have the primitive instincts of a lower life form brain.

 

It doesn't matter if it's instinctive or if the animal has any feelings about it at all. The point is that there are some instances in which inflicting pain on an animal is needless and shouldn't be done. They feel pain, just like you do. Am I to take it that you'd be fine being beaten to a pulp if pain was an instinct for you and you didn't have emotions?

 

The amount of people trying to justify needless abuse to animals is staggering.

That's irrelevant because I'm not a lower life form.

 

And it's not needless, I just believe that anything that could potentially better a persons life (that includes better tasting fish) is fair game [pun].

 

It's a completely valid question - just answer it. Or are you too afraid because you know you'd hate to feel pain just like any other animal? Instinct or not, emotions or not, it doesn't matter. Pain is pain, and needless suffering is wrong.

 

As 1_man_army argued quite nicely, it is needless. Just kill the damn thing and eat it raw if you want to.

You see, there's the thing. We don't live in the wild. We actually have capacity for thought beyond the instinctive level, just as you said. This sort of barbarism lowers us to that level. You want to make a claim for being a higher life form? Act like it.

You see, there's the thing. We don't live in the wild. We actually have capacity for thought beyond the instinctive level, just as you said. This sort of barbarism lowers us to that level. You want to make a claim for being a higher life form? Act like it.

The reason we don't eat our meat raw and alive like most animals is because we'd get sick if we didn't cook it, not because we're a "higher" species. We also can't hunt like a bear or a lion. We're outmatched in speed, strength, and protection compared to most animals. Because of this we need our food dead so it can't escape from us while we try to eat it with our not so sharp teeth and nails.

No, it isn't a valid question. You are comparing a human to an animal, which is the whole point of the argument. I said that animals are essentially resources until they can express themselves in a way that isn't instinctive. You say needless suffering is wrong, but if we lived in the wild, grizzly bears would probably shred us without a second thought.

 

And I would argue that if someone thinks it makes the fish taste better then it is perfectly okay.

 

Rocco, we don't have to do what grizzly bears do (or accept that it's an alright way of doing things) just because it's natural. We have the capacity to show compassion for other animals, so why not do it?

 

My question still stands if you want to answer it - if you think pain is just an instinctive reaction and a quick, painless death isn't something we should worry about for animals, I take it you wouldn't care if you were tortured or beaten for no reason if you were, say, a fish (or any other animal that satisfies the hypothetical)? Hey, who cares right? Its just a reaction in your brain and you have no feelings about it.. Its not like you would mind being tortured. Its only pain, right?

 

Am I to take it that you think there should be a reason for inflicting pain on an animal based on that last line? If so, thats good, but what a stupid reason to justify inflicting pain on a fish.

Rocco, we don't have to do what grizzly bears do (or accept that it's an alright way of doing things) just because it's natural. We have the capacity to show compassion for other animals, so why not do it?

No, we don't do it because we'd die if we did and we aren't able to hunt and eat an animal with our lack of sharp teeth, nails, and slow speed. The point is that even if we didn't give that fish a quick death or a long death it certainly would've been eaten alive by a shark, dolphin, or a pelican. What difference does it make if it dies a quick or a long death? It was going to be eaten anyways.

Rocco, we don't have to do what grizzly bears do (or accept that it's an alright way of doing things) just because it's natural. We have the capacity to show compassion for other animals, so why not do it?

No, we don't do it because we'd die if we did and we aren't able to hunt and eat an animal with our lack of sharp teeth, nails, and slow speed. The point is that even if we didn't give that fish a quick death or a long death it certainly would've been eaten alive by a shark, dolphin, or a pelican. What difference does it make if it dies a quick or a long death? It was going to be eaten anyways.

 

It causes unneeded suffering. I would rather kill my own food before eating it. Why? because I empathize with living things, whether or not they would be considered below us or not. It's part of what seperates humans from animals. Some say that I would be comparing humans to animals. But some people have done the same thing. Some say that a grizzly bear would eat the fish alive, so why shouldn't I? That is saying that people should act like grizzly bears and eat things alive. What would that be, if not comparing a human to a grizzly bear? I respect life, whether it's a lower life form or not. It's part of what makes us human.

Rocco, we don't have to do what grizzly bears do (or accept that it's an alright way of doing things) just because it's natural. We have the capacity to show compassion for other animals, so why not do it?

No, we don't do it because we'd die if we did and we aren't able to hunt and eat an animal with our lack of sharp teeth, nails, and slow speed. The point is that even if we didn't give that fish a quick death or a long death it certainly would've been eaten alive by a shark, dolphin, or a pelican. What difference does it make if it dies a quick or a long death? It was going to be eaten anyways.

 

It causes unneeded suffering. I would rather kill my own food before eating it. Why? because I empathize with living things, whether or not they would be considered below us or not. It's part of what seperates humans from animals. Some say that I would be comparing humans to animals. But some people have done the same thing. Some say that a grizzly bear would eat the fish alive, so why shouldn't I? That is saying that people should act like grizzly bears and eat things alive. What would that be, if not comparing a human to a grizzly bear? I respect life, whether it's a lower life form or not. It's part of what makes us human.

Reverse the roles of you and the fish. If a fish was going to eat you would it give you a quick, humane death? No, it'd eat you alive. I'm not saying we should act like grizzly bears but instead, that it's ok to eat an animal alive, because not only would it do the same to us but also because if we didn't eat it, something else would.

Rocco, we don't have to do what grizzly bears do (or accept that it's an alright way of doing things) just because it's natural. We have the capacity to show compassion for other animals, so why not do it?

No, we don't do it because we'd die if we did and we aren't able to hunt and eat an animal with our lack of sharp teeth, nails, and slow speed. The point is that even if we didn't give that fish a quick death or a long death it certainly would've been eaten alive by a shark, dolphin, or a pelican. What difference does it make if it dies a quick or a long death? It was going to be eaten anyways.

 

It causes unneeded suffering. I would rather kill my own food before eating it. Why? because I empathize with living things, whether or not they would be considered below us or not. It's part of what seperates humans from animals. Some say that I would be comparing humans to animals. But some people have done the same thing. Some say that a grizzly bear would eat the fish alive, so why shouldn't I? That is saying that people should act like grizzly bears and eat things alive. What would that be, if not comparing a human to a grizzly bear? I respect life, whether it's a lower life form or not. It's part of what makes us human.

Reverse the roles of you and the fish. If a fish was going to eat you would it give you a quick, humane death? No, it'd eat you alive. I'm not saying we should act like grizzly bears but instead, that it's ok to eat an animal alive, because not only would it do the same to us but also because if we didn't eat it, something else would.

 

You're missing the point. Just because an animal does something like eat another animal alive doesn't make it okay for a human to do it. That's like saying I should rape and kill people because rapists and murderers rape/kill people. Just because something occurs in nature, or any other circumstance, doesn't make it right for humans. We can empathize, we shouldn't stop just because an animal doesn't. We're better than that.

Rocco, we don't have to do what grizzly bears do (or accept that it's an alright way of doing things) just because it's natural. We have the capacity to show compassion for other animals, so why not do it?

No, we don't do it because we'd die if we did and we aren't able to hunt and eat an animal with our lack of sharp teeth, nails, and slow speed. The point is that even if we didn't give that fish a quick death or a long death it certainly would've been eaten alive by a shark, dolphin, or a pelican. What difference does it make if it dies a quick or a long death? It was going to be eaten anyways.

 

As MisterGreen said, it causes unneeded suffering. It's the principle of the matter as well - we don't have to act like other animals and ignore the suffering of what we eat because it would suffer regardless. We have to capacity to act empathetically, so why must we ignore that capability just because nature is cruel? Besides, much of the food we eat is farmed and wouldn't be killed by wild animals anyway, but that's really beside the point.

No, it isn't a valid question. You are comparing a human to an animal, which is the whole point of the argument. I said that animals are essentially resources until they can express themselves in a way that isn't instinctive. You say needless suffering is wrong, but if we lived in the wild, grizzly bears would probably shred us without a second thought.

 

And I would argue that if someone thinks it makes the fish taste better then it is perfectly okay.

 

I'm pretty sure that grizzly bear wouldn't keep you alive just so it could laugh at you.

 

And how is it okay to cause pain and suffering just for your pleasure? That's sadistic.

No, it isn't a valid question. You are comparing a human to an animal, which is the whole point of the argument. I said that animals are essentially resources until they can express themselves in a way that isn't instinctive. You say needless suffering is wrong, but if we lived in the wild, grizzly bears would probably shred us without a second thought.

 

And I would argue that if someone thinks it makes the fish taste better then it is perfectly okay.

 

I'm pretty sure that grizzly bear wouldn't keep you alive just so it could laugh at you.

 

And how is it okay to cause pain and suffering just for your pleasure? That's sadistic.

That's life, some humans feel nothing but pain and suffering for your pleasure, those shoes you're wearing, they were made in a third world country, where people work for barely enough to feed themselves, and they have to feed a family. People expect animals to live pain free, yet we still can't have our own brothers and sisters living in decent living conditions.

Err, what? That's irrelevant to the topic since we're not discussing human rights.

Mage, have you just started ignoring what MisterGreen's been saying? Here, let me recap; we are not common animals. If you want to relinquish your claim to that fact, then go ahead and do this. If you want to try and say that "we're the superior species so this is perfectly fine", then I say to you this. What would be your opinion of a group of UFC fighters busted into your home, beat you into a bloody pulp, and took all your stuff? Would you be saying it's alright because they're superior to you?

No, it isn't a valid question. You are comparing a human to an animal, which is the whole point of the argument. I said that animals are essentially resources until they can express themselves in a way that isn't instinctive. You say needless suffering is wrong, but if we lived in the wild, grizzly bears would probably shred us without a second thought.

 

And I would argue that if someone thinks it makes the fish taste better then it is perfectly okay.

Deciding what can be needlessly tortured and what cannot is where you're in the wrong. Think about it. Fish, chickens, cows and grizzly bears only express themselves instinctively because that's all we expect from them. You can't just separate humans and animals on such a large scale based on what little we know about animals. I'm not saying animals are much smarter than we think - I'm saying that humans are more animalike than we think. [bleep], for centuries everybody thought humans were the only animals with souls and the only ones able to go to heaven. More and more scientists are breaking the barrier between the all powerful human and regular animals, people just decide that none of the experiments (elephants painting pictures, crows making tools, monkeys' advanced linguistic communication ect. ect. ect.) relates to anything. If you punch a puppy in the face, it probably won't come near you again. You think it's because it has a built in circuitry "instinct" that drives it to avoids the puncher, I think it's because the dog can go "this guy is an [wagon] and caused me pain, I'm going to stay away from him". No, in fact, I'm saying that both are the same. Since they are the same, they are both equally negative reactions to pain, and thus unnecessary abuse is sickening, no matter the species harmed.

=D>

No, in fact, I'm saying that both are the same. Since they are the same, they are both equally negative reactions to pain, and thus unnecessary abuse is sickening, no matter the species harmed.

 

That's defeating your own argument. Animals make other animals suffer all the time. If we're the same as them, then doesn't that mean it's no different when a human makes an animal suffer than when an animal does it?