Saturday, January 10, 2009

Women and children are dying but a lobster is free...

PETA is declaring victory in freeing a lobster that they claim is 140 years old, some say closer to 80. Either way it's become something that's happened often enough that PETA has what they call "lobster libbers" and there is an actual website set up focusing on Lobster Liberation.

Of course for those of us who don't live by an ocean, the chances of freeing a lobster would be a bit difficult. They also have a way for you to have the taste of lobster without killing one. You'll be disappointed if you head over to VegieWorld looking for fake lobster, they don't seem to carry them anymore but they do have the shrimp. I wonder though, would eating fake shrimp still be in violation of Leviticus?

Though it seems as if any animal food comes from killing animals, the focus on lobsters is of course because they are kept live until moments before ending up on a dinner plate. Though it can be debated would a lobster that is that large and that old taste good anyway, experts state those over 5 pounds typically taste stringy...

19 comments:

Robin said...

For some reason I had a flash of that Simpsons episode where Homer had a pet lobster and he accidently kills it in the bath tub.

Alex said...

I don't understand the content of the post in its relationship to the title of the post. This wouldn’t be a situation where two distinct issues are collapsed as a means to negate the value of one issue – animal rights – by comparing it (without justification of course) to the value of another issue – war?

Lisa Renee said...

It was just the irony that this story was making headlines in our local news while nothing was reported on in Gaza...That's what drove the headline.

Cyberseaer said...

Oh yes, saving a 140 year old lobster is much more important that the lives of children around the world. I bet that lobster could have fed at least 50 straving kids. But what do I know? I'm just in favor of saving the human species over any other species.

This is one of the many reasons why PETA sucks and why I care about animal rights. I'll tell you what, as soon as my dog earns enough money for my wife and I not to work and I can just lay around the house and lick my balls all day then I will care about animal rights.

Lisa Renee said...

C, I don't know how to break this too you, so I'll try to be kind. I don't think even if the dog could earn money you would ever be flexible enough to lick your own balls.

It pains me to have to dash that dream of yours...But as your friend? I have to be honest...

:-)

Cyberseaer said...

Fair enough, but I am losing weight and I will be taking Yoga to get more flexible. It may take five years or more, but danmmit, I have a goal to reach! ;)

Lisa Renee said...

Okay, I won't totally dash your dreams, I suppose if you become a yoga master it might be possible, I do however suggest when you start Yoga you don't tell them it is so you can lick your balls.

:-)

Cyberseaer said...

Of course not. Then it would ruin the surprise for the class. I got that from one of the very few funny skits from the modern Saturday Night Live. One of the few times that Will Farrell had me laughing alot.

Lisa Renee said...

For You because you need to laugh as often as possible.

:-)

Cyberseaer said...

Thank you, Lisa. You are truly a good friend.

Lisa Renee said...

You are too, look how long we've been friends. Because we care about each others needs...

:-)

Alex said...

Cyberseaer:

Quote:

"Oh yes, saving a 140 year old lobster is much more important that the lives of children around the world. I bet that lobster could have fed at least 50 straving kids. But what do I know? I'm just in favor of saving the human species over any other species."

Truth of the matter is that if we were actually concerned about "saving our species" (i.e., feeding starving children), we would adopt a vegan diet thereby avoiding the waste and inefficiency inherent in the system of flesh production.

As it takes roughly 10-15 pounds of plant protein (e.g., corn and grain) to produce a single edible pound of flesh protein, the waste of these precious resources is manifest. Therefore, on your own premise, it stands to reason that you would be more sympathetic to animal rights.

Quote:

"I'll tell you what, as soon as my dog earns enough money for my wife and I not to work and I can just lay around the house and lick my balls all day then I will care about animal rights."

This is precisely why I believe that the "human rights movement," where even babies and the mentally handicapped are allowed access to the "right not to be my property" for example, is so frustrating to me.

These groups of human beings are utterly worthless as an instrumental matter: they do not earn any money nor can they reason or invent things, and yet they consume our finite resources and time. It's hard to take any theory of rights seriously when they include the severely senile or otherwise mentally incompetent.

In the end, then, Lisa, my point still holds: these issues should not be collapsed into a single proposition about ethical worth or "importance." They are distinct, and, therefore, they deserve two distinct discussions. One point, however, is not proven by mocking the substance of the other.

Cyberseaer said...

Alex,

I get your points, but first off meat is not the evil that vegans claim it is to be. Sure you can tell me that eating a no meat diet is healthier and such, but remember that those who ate mostly meat in the West back in the 1800s lived to be over eighty for the most part.

There are thousands of examples of handicapped people who are far more productive in their lives than most able bodied people who choose to be lazy and work the system to their laziness, let alone a rare type of bird that lives in the Arctic Circle that less 1% of the human population will ever know about.

As for babies, hell if we killed them all then the animals would rule the world and take the remaining humans without this sense of nobleness that they are taken care of the world. By the way, this world has more resources than the enlighten people say we have. The human race is the most arrogant of all animals to think that the world can't undo the damage that we may inflict upon it.

And if you haven't noticed, the human race is the most dominant species on Earth. Stop feeling guilty about that and stop thinking that we must save everything. That is a hoarder mentality and that is a known mental disorder.

And like it or not, everything has an importance order to it. Such is life. It isn't fair, but it is true and ignoring that fact doesn't make untrue. Nothing can not and should not put into simple one proposition boxes that are black and white. Everything on this Earth is all shades of grey. There is no true evil or true good in this world. Everything tilts one way or the next, just different degrees, but no absolutes.

And Alex, I touched on all of your points without having to include your comments to bulk up this post. And don't say that you were helping someone so that they didn't have to scroll up to see what I said first. That is just a sign of a pure elitist liberal who is ashamed and has feelings of guilt of their fortunate position. It is insulting to others and you are helping no one but your feeling of self worth. True liberals are just as damaging to people as are true conservatives. Moderation in everything, including politics and ways of life, is the true sign of progress. It is the moderates, the middle of the road people, who help this country progress ahead by compromise and cooperation. Leaning too far in either direction is damming as in proof of the last eights years and the four years to come.

Lastly Alex, get a sense of humor and realize sarcasm when you see it. And don't use sarcasm with over the top examples. It isn't witty, it just a sign of a poor writer.

Alex said...

Quote:

“…but first off meat is not the evil that vegans claim it is to be.”

Vegans don’t claim that “meat is evil.” That doesn’t even follow. The processes the convert nonhuman animals into “meat” engender our criticism.

This lead nicely into my challenge that follows strongly from your own premise:

Quote:

“I'm just in favor of saving the human species over any other species.”

I would re-quote my comment, however, I wouldn’t want to suggest a liberal elitism, unconscious guilt, and compensation (through sheer size) for the weakness of my argument.

Quote:

“There are thousands of examples of handicapped people who are far more productive in their lives…”

And there are “thousands of examples” where these same groups of humans are not productive. So it follows from your own argument that they don’t have rights because, like dogs, they can’t “earn enough money for my wife and I not to work and I can just lay around the house and lick my balls all day.”

That’s interesting logic: no productive value, as defined by you, equates to an absence of rights. Admittedly, this is an inexact science; however, we can surely find groups of humans who would be qualified-out of rights protection on your own premise.

Quote:

“As for babies, hell if we killed them…”

Who said “kill”? I’m speaking about exploitation. Following from your proposition, what if we were to exploit severely mentally challenged human babies for scientific purposes? This would surely help to achieve your stated end: survival of our species, while avoiding the troubling conclusion: no more human beings.

Quote:

“By the way, this world has more resources than the enlighten people say we have. The human race is the most arrogant of all animals to think that the world can't undo the damage that we may inflict upon it.”

If you say so; it’s interesting, however, that you admit damage and then assume its acceptability by arguing that in the end, it will all work out.

Two points of interest here: One, there are examples where it isn’t “working itself out” – e.g., deforestation --, and two, how do you justify the initial damage?

Quote:

“And if you haven't noticed, the human race is the most dominant species on Earth. Stop feeling guilty about that and stop thinking that we must save everything.”

I have noticed that. However, I have also noticed that males are the most dominant sex on Earth, and I cannot help but feel guilty about the logical consequences of assuming that my “might” make’s “right” – as you are doing.

A “hoarder mentality” is distinct from the issue of challenging the logic of dominance or “might makes right,” which has logically resulted in various systematic abusers including slavery.

However, I don’t think one could label someone who believes in conserving land for renewable crop production versus deliberately razing this same land as a means to produce a net loss in protein a “hoarder” or “mentally ill.” It stands to reason, unless we accept your argument that it will all work out in the end (For whom? You or your children’s children?), that the “illness” goes the other way.

As you laud “compromise,” perhaps we can find a compromise position here? You don’t seem to be trying though, which is strange.

Cyberseaer said...

Alex,

I am not looking for a debate nor trying to save the world. But once again I see that you you have to copy and paste my comments in your comment to disect and rearrange things so that your point seems to be the right one.

When you get to middle age and if you have kids you will find that these high ideals you have will go off to the wayside in order to maintain your standard of living. It is a sad comment on society, but it happens to us all. You will see in 17 years or so. Also, being a student only means that you are still learning about things through others, teachers, and not learning through the main teacher, life. You may have gone through things so far, but there are other things that await your arrival into the working world. Once life has beaten the crap out of you a few times, and it will happen, your ideals change and your standards will lower a little bit. Just wait and see.

I am not trying to scare you, just let you know what is out there. I read your blog bio and you seems like a very intelligent girl and most likely are a nice one at that. Just remeber, not everything is a debate and not everyone is looking for a fight.

I will say that your bio was drawnout and overindulgent, but if that is who you are that's fine. Live and let live. I know that last statment is throwing you for a loop. People, like causes, have different levels of grey and multiplicity. We all don't agree and disagree on everything.

Lisa and I are on opposite ends of lots of stuff, but we fine common ground and live with the differences. Debates are fine, but attacking based on a few comments are unneed and unwanted.

Take it for what it's worth and if you wish to analyze any or all of this, fine go ahead. I'm done with this quasi-disscussion. But if you need to have the last word, take it and be happy. But will you truly be happy? Only you know the answer to that. Enjoy.

Alex said...

Cyberseaer,

To begin, if you actually read the bio, as you claimed to have, you would know that I am Alex Melonas, a boy not girl. It is my girlfriend Jen who is "that vegan girl." Therefore, the bio encompasses two people, not one, which may go to make your little criticism about it being "drawn-out" sound childish.

If you actually look at how I quoted you, they were direct and in logical order; not "rearranged." They were "dissected" because they are presented as an argument. My argument, then, goes to counter your premises: it's called a discussion -- I learned that in school. Your challenge here is clearly baseless. You should move on from it.

I have always found it curious that I'm attacked for being "young" and "educated" -- "full of ideals."

One, ad homonyms merely display an absence of cogent arguments -- they are used when our assumptions are shown to be not-as-strong as first imagined. (I will forgive you for that because the logic of animal rights is pretty strong.)

And second, why do you defend a raise to the bottom, ethically speaking? You assume that because your ideals (false as they were, apparently) were effectively disregarded, mine will be as well. I disagree, of course. I've been challenged as such before and yet, here I am, stronger and more passionate about my "ideals" than ever before.

I await your challenge then: if my logic is wrong and we shouldn't all be vegans, tell me why and we will see how youth and idealism plays to your interesting standards.

Perhaps you can begin by defending your criticism of PETA? And then move on to why my reasoning about "saving the species by being vegan" is incorrect.

Cyberseaer said...

Alex,

I know I said you would have the last word, but your last comment just drew me in.

I want to apologize for mistakenly thinking that you were female. You bio was so long and boring I fell asleep in the middle of it. Sorry to say, you write like a high school girl. My mistake. I offer doze off at bad writing. I promise to do better and stay awake through your trite going foward.

Being young and educated is not why you may be attacked by others. Education is a very good thing and being young is wonderful. But whn you act like you have a lifetime of experience, yet still in school, it pisses off those of us who do have life experience and we resent the fact that you feel that you know it all, when you don't know shit. I know you will dissagree with me and call be crude for using such base language, but in time you will see how right I am, even if you never admit it.

I don't blame you for your extreme leftist views. You are just a product of today's college system. The students of the sixties who wanted to have free ideas that come from everyone have become today's college teachers who believe in the same free thought process as long as it doesn't go against their personal poltical agenas. At least when I went to college, before you were born (I know it is hard to understand that life didn't start with you. You'll grasp the concept someday) the college teachers invited different viewpoints even if it was in direct opposition to their views. It seems to me that you are trained to believe in what you believe and tell evryone else that they are completely wrong, immature, and are complete moroons. You are just like a lot of right winged Christians I have talked to.

As for using big words, they don't make your point more valid, it just make you look more pompous. I find it funny that you say in your bio that you thought most vegans were self rightous and assholes, when you seem exactly like that when you write.

I'm no even going to bother to debate you. Not because I think I'm right, but because it would be a useless excerise since you have all the answers at 23 and you have bullshitted yourself that you could never be wrong. Is that a product of your parents praising every little action that you did or did your parents ignore you to the point that you have this need to tell as many people as possible that you need attention?

Though I know you were scarcastic when you said that the disabled are useless, it wasn't needed and since I have a severely handicapped brother who never had a chance to be the spoil little needy child you turned out to be, go fuck yourself.

I'm done with you. Have a nice time growing up, baby. You bottle is in the fringe that mommy put there for you, like she always does.

Alex said...

What's interesting, is that I'm derided as young and lacking experience, and yet, while I try to advance and defend certain premises about the validity of animal rights, it is Cyberseaer who resorts to profanity and, literally, personal attacks. I wonder, then, who is more "adult" here? Perhaps my parents and liberal, elitist universities provided at least a partially solid foundation: I prefer a reasoned debate even when confronted with juvenile insults and wild accusations.

Well done Cyberseaer, you have proven your point...I think.

Cyberseaer said...

And it took you three days to come up with that response. Wow. The country is doomed.