• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Whole Foods Grocery Will Stop Selling Live Lobsters

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: Linflas
Originally posted by: kogase
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Originally posted by: aaronseo
I think animal rights are stupid in the first place; in my opinion, animals have no souls.
Click to expand...

Animals either do have "souls" or they do not, and no amount of opinion either way will change or have any effect on that. In fact, the question of whether humans have "souls" or not is also a matter of mere opinion given that there is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that such a thing exists.

That said, I don't like the idea of creating unnecessary suffering, regardless of the animal. I have no intention, however, of ever becoming a vegetarian.
Click to expand...

Which is the point. We are going to eat animals, and that involves killing them, but it isn't right to torture them in the process. This doesn't seem to be a case of torture, as they die within seconds.
Click to expand...

This is the part that many on this board seem to miss.
Click to expand...
Torture smorture. Any method of killing them is going to be painful, and what constitutes the fine line between torture and a quick kill? 5 seconds? 10? Since it's subjective and cannot be proven, it's stupid to argue over. It's on the same level as whether you think a painting by Dali is better or worse than a Picasso.
 
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
This is the part that many on this board seem to miss.
Click to expand...
Torture smorture. Any method of killing them is going to be painful, and what constitutes the fine line between torture and a quick kill? 5 seconds? 10? Since it's subjective and cannot be proven, it's stupid to argue over. It's on the same level as whether you think a painting by Dali is better or worse than a Picasso.[/quote]

Ah, it's all a fine line. So I suppose you see no difference between stabbing a man in the heart, and tying him down and repeatedly stabbing his arms over and over over the course of 20 minutes until they look like ground beef and he's been screaming in agony so loud he has blood gushing up from his throat suffocating him until he finally passes out and dies?
 
Originally posted by: kogase
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
This is the part that many on this board seem to miss.
Click to expand...
Torture smorture. Any method of killing them is going to be painful, and what constitutes the fine line between torture and a quick kill? 5 seconds? 10? Since it's subjective and cannot be proven, it's stupid to argue over. It's on the same level as whether you think a painting by Dali is better or worse than a Picasso.
Click to expand...

Ah, it's all a fine line. So I suppose you see no difference between stabbing a man in the heart, and tying him down and repeatedly stabbing his arms over and over over the course of 20 minutes until they look like ground beef and he's been screaming in agony so loud he has blood gushing up from his throat suffocating him until he finally passes out and dies?[/quote]

uhhhh....doing that is called 'murder' and is pretty much illegal...

boiling a lobster is considered cooking dinner.

hey mr apple, meet mr orange....

 
Originally posted by: spacejamz
uhhhh....doing that is called 'murder' and is pretty much illegal...

boiling a lobster is considered cooking dinner.

hey mr apple, meet mr orange....
Click to expand...

Oh really? I could swear people get harsher punishments for torturing someone to death than for killing them quickly... oh wait, they do!

1. First Degree Murder: Murder involving special circumstances, such as murder of a police officer, judge, fireman or witness to a crime, multiple murder, the use of torture or especially heinous means, or means requiring great preparation, such as poison or lying in wait.
2. Second Degree Murder: Any premeditated murder or felony murder that does not involve special circumstances.
3. Third Degree Murder: All other murder.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by: kogase
Originally posted by: spacejamz
uhhhh....doing that is called 'murder' and is pretty much illegal...

boiling a lobster is considered cooking dinner.

hey mr apple, meet mr orange....
Click to expand...

Oh really? I could swear people get harsher punishments for torturing someone to death than for killing them quickly... oh wait, they do!

1. First Degree Murder: Murder involving special circumstances, such as murder of a police officer, judge, fireman or witness to a crime, multiple murder, the use of torture or especially heinous means, or means requiring great preparation, such as poison or lying in wait.
2. Second Degree Murder: Any premeditated murder or felony murder that does not involve special circumstances.
3. Third Degree Murder: All other murder.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

😕

we are talking about lobsters here (see title of OP), not torturing or killing human beings...there is a big difference...
 
Originally posted by: spacejamz
😕

we are talking about lobsters here (see title of OP), not torturing or killing human beings...there is a big difference...
Click to expand...

*Point*





























*Your Head*
 
Originally posted by: kogase
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
This is the part that many on this board seem to miss.
Click to expand...
Torture smorture. Any method of killing them is going to be painful, and what constitutes the fine line between torture and a quick kill? 5 seconds? 10? Since it's subjective and cannot be proven, it's stupid to argue over. It's on the same level as whether you think a painting by Dali is better or worse than a Picasso.
Click to expand...

Ah, it's all a fine line. So I suppose you see no difference between stabbing a man in the heart, and tying him down and repeatedly stabbing his arms over and over over the course of 20 minutes until they look like ground beef and he's been screaming in agony so loud he has blood gushing up from his throat suffocating him until he finally passes out and dies?[/quote]
The discussion has to do with whether the specific example of boiling a lobster alive is considered "torture". Not hanging it by a string for your little cousins to play live lobster pinata (i.e. clear cut). Not putting it in the microwave and watching it explode (clear cut).

I don't think boiling is torture (it's called cooking my dinner), PETA activists do. It can't be proven either way so it's a moot point. Your analogy to humans, when we're discussing animals has no relevance to the specific example. We don't need definitions of what clear cut torture is (or maybe you had to look it up lol).
 
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
The discussion has to do with whether the specific example of boiling a lobster alive is considered "torture". Not hanging it by a string for your little cousins to play live lobster pinata (i.e. clear cut). Not putting it in the microwave and watching it explode (clear cut).

I don't think boiling is torture (it's called cooking my dinner), PETA activists do. It can't be proven either way so it's a moot point. Your analogy to humans, when we're discussing animals has no relevance to the specific example. We don't need definitions of what clear cut torture is (or maybe you had to look it up lol).
Click to expand...

Yes, the overall discussion has to do with that, but your post clearly is dismissing the very idea that an animal could be tortured, because in your mind there's no difference between torture and a quick kill. My analogy to murder is apt, as it has little to do with humans and animals and more to do with the fact that society recognizes there is a difference between torture and a quick kill. The fact that animal cruelty laws exist (and have actually existed in one form or another for thousands of years) is another testament to this fact.
 
Originally posted by: kogase
Originally posted by: Heen05
why dont people just kill them first and then boil them
Click to expand...

How do you quickly kill a lobster anyway? I mean... look at it. Where does the killing apparatus go?
Click to expand...

I chop the frontal portion of their head off with one whack of a cleaver.

Of course, I totally stopped boiling them when I discovered how far superior the flavor is when you cut em in half and BBQ them. *drool*
 
Originally posted by: kogase
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
The discussion has to do with whether the specific example of boiling a lobster alive is considered "torture". Not hanging it by a string for your little cousins to play live lobster pinata (i.e. clear cut). Not putting it in the microwave and watching it explode (clear cut).

I don't think boiling is torture (it's called cooking my dinner), PETA activists do. It can't be proven either way so it's a moot point. Your analogy to humans, when we're discussing animals has no relevance to the specific example. We don't need definitions of what clear cut torture is (or maybe you had to look it up lol).
Click to expand...

Yes, the overall discussion has to do with that, but your post clearly is dismissing the very idea that an animal could be tortured, because in your mind there's no difference between torture and a quick kill. My analogy to murder is apt, as it has little to do with humans and animals and more to do with the fact that society recognizes there is a difference between torture and a quick kill. The fact that animal cruelty laws exist (and have actually existed in one form or another for thousands of years) is another testament to this fact.
Click to expand...
Yes, I acknowledge that there is a difference between torture and a quick kill (pinata, microwave). However, the point is that death by boiling is a grey area and purely subjective. I don't see how you can apply any human laws related to torture considering that we don't eat humans and pets for food, and we cannot prove if lobsters feel pain like our pets.

I think since it dies quickly by boiling, it's not torture, and don't see the difference between that and gutting it with a knife. Pain will be inflicted either way, and to debate which is less cruel is moot IMO. Again, considering the fact that I'm eating it (essential for my survival i.e. food) and not just killing for fun (which I do with wasps).

If you think death by boiling is torture, then you should be an advocate for banning deer hunting, where a deer will definitely feel more pain than a lobster in a pot (unless deer is hit with a kill shot but that's rare). Many times the deer will still be alive and on the ground after the shot, and usually it's killed with knife at that point. But remember, society will never consider this torture because most of the time the deer is consumed for food. I see nothing inhumane about either method.
 
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: kogase
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
The discussion has to do with whether the specific example of boiling a lobster alive is considered "torture". Not hanging it by a string for your little cousins to play live lobster pinata (i.e. clear cut). Not putting it in the microwave and watching it explode (clear cut).

I don't think boiling is torture (it's called cooking my dinner), PETA activists do. It can't be proven either way so it's a moot point. Your analogy to humans, when we're discussing animals has no relevance to the specific example. We don't need definitions of what clear cut torture is (or maybe you had to look it up lol).
Click to expand...

Yes, the overall discussion has to do with that, but your post clearly is dismissing the very idea that an animal could be tortured, because in your mind there's no difference between torture and a quick kill. My analogy to murder is apt, as it has little to do with humans and animals and more to do with the fact that society recognizes there is a difference between torture and a quick kill. The fact that animal cruelty laws exist (and have actually existed in one form or another for thousands of years) is another testament to this fact.
Click to expand...
Yes, I acknowledge that there is a difference between torture and a quick kill (pinata, microwave). However, the point is that death by boiling is a grey area and purely subjective. I don't see how you can apply any human laws related to torture considering that we don't eat humans and pets for food, and we cannot prove if lobsters feel pain like our pets.

I think since it dies quickly by boiling, it's not torture, and don't see the difference between that and gutting it with a knife. Pain will be inflicted either way, and to debate which is less cruel is moot IMO. Again, considering the fact that I'm eating it (essential for my survival i.e. food) and not just killing for fun (which I do with wasps).

If you think death by boiling is torture, then you should be an advocate for banning deer hunting, where a deer will definitely feel more pain than a lobster in a pot (unless deer is hit with a kill shot but that's rare). Many times the deer will still be alive and on the ground after the shot, and usually it's killed with knife at that point. But remember, society will never consider this torture because most of the time the deer is consumed for food. I see nothing inhumane about either method.
Click to expand...

It looks like I misunderstood your original post, I'm sorry. I agree with you, it doesn't appear as though boiling lobsters is torturous.
 
regardless, It's whole foods choice. They know the demographic of people who shop there, in reality it was probally because lobsters wern't profitable to sell... but *Shrugs* if you say it like this - bam good publicity (among the fraction of the type of people who don't shop there already i guess)
 
Originally posted by: dartworth
lobsters have feelings too...
Click to expand...

Indeed. I heard one of their most common feelings is self loathing brought on by childhood obesity and sometimes guilt over elder abuse.
 
Originally posted by: Pastore


They. Have. No. Central. Nervous. System. Like. You. And. I. Therefore. They. Don't. Feel. Pain.
Click to expand...

They certainly feel pain. Otherwise they'd constantly hurt themselves.

They have to avoid being injured somehow, they need feedback.
 
Originally posted by: dullard

Nope. I eat beef, the occasional chicken, and very rarely bacon. Other than that I don't eat meat.
Click to expand...

I eat lots of beef, chicken, pork, fish, and any other tasty animal. But other than all the meat eating I do, I'm a vegetarian also.
 
Whole Foods is an organisation that caters to a very liberal crowd, so they're catering to that crowd. Walking into Whole Foods is like walking into a hippie convention.

And by the way- if you feel bad for killing the lobster before you eat it, I have a couple of suggestions:

1. Don't eat anything for a couple of days until you are so hungry that you don't mind killing it.
2. Let it get you with its claws. After that you'll gladly throw it in a pot of boiling water after beating it to death.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top