/ck/ - Food & Cooking

[Anonymous No.14180507]

Is there any more disingenuous than being a pescetarian? Like, you want the moral superiority of not eating meat, but suddenly fish and seafood don't count.

[Anonymous No.14180516]

Who mentioned moral superiority? I simply don't like meat or poultry and seafood tastes delicious.
Water is literally required for life bro. why you not appreciating the food that comes from the big blue?

[Anonymous No.14180523]

>>14180516
I can support being pescetarian for dietary and preference reasons, so you're in the clear.

[Anonymous No.14180536]

>>14180523
>so you're in the clear
Well that's just me, but for the sake of others we have to ask,
Is having a special diet for personal reasons like taste preferences or dislike of a certain food from childhood experiences or something, perfectly fine?
If that is fine, then why is it disingenuous then to pick and choose what you eat for subjective moral reasons if personal preferences themselves, which are also subjective are already in the clear?
Or... is it not subjective?
Is there a definite right and wrong to the taking and sparing of animal lives for food?
Many of our ancestors seemed to think so...
Does a fish feel less than a pig? Or its life worth less than a chicken's?
What about this bug? Is this bug food?
A shrimp is just a sea bug, right? Right?

[Anonymous No.14180540]

>>14180536
So if I can eat this shrimp I should be allowed to eat a bug at least. I would think that would be fine.
Bugs aren't (usually) considered to feel emotions to the same depth as mammals, they aren't therefore suffering as much when they are farmed in unsavory conditions, and it's not destructive to the environment or supportive of any harmful corporations to consume them. That's all of the bases right?
What about fish? Can fish feel fear, joy, sadness or love?
Who knows...
Or, maybe... it's as simple as appreciating the meal, not being wasteful, and giving back to society in the ways that count in people's lives directly and sincerely.
Hmm

[Anonymous No.14180550]

>>14180536
Reread your own post mate...

[Anonymous No.14180572]

There's no such thing as a moral pescetarian, people do it for health purposes

[Anonymous No.14180577]

>>14180507
but anon, I don't claim moral superiority. I just don't like the texture of meat.

[Anonymous No.14180579]

>>14180536
>Is there a definite right and wrong to the taking and sparing of animal lives for food?
Yes, it's definitely wrong to take human lives for food.

[Anonymous No.14180799]

It's predicated on the idea that they don't feel pain, though this has been a hard question for years.

[Anonymous No.14180812]

>>14180507
>morals
Hahaha, fuck off, man.

[Anonymous No.14180817]

>>14180536
>A shrimp is just a sea bug, right? Right?
Wrong, retard. Not all arthropods are insects. Crustacea and Hexapoda are completely different taxons.

[Anonymous No.14180827]

Pescatarians are morally the most fucked up bc at least normal people eat all animals, save animals with a close relationship to humans or for culture reasons. But pescs are basically saying
>I value all animal life! Just not these few animals bc fuck em

[Anonymous No.14180866]

>>14180827
If your eating habits are based on moral reasons and not nutrition, you're a fucking idiot.

[Anonymous No.14180881]

>>14180817
So it's just a different kind of bug

[Anonymous No.14180892]

>>14180881
What about the prawns in district 9, are those just another bug to you?

[Anonymous No.14180903]

>>14180507
There is nothing moral about eating fish. Arguably, fishing contributes more to the destruction of the global ecosystem than any other type of food generating activity.

[Anonymous No.14180904]

>>14180827

[Anonymous No.14180906]

>>14180881
No, NIGGER, just like a turtle is not a lizard. They are not the fucking same.

[Anonymous No.14180910]

>>14180866
No, that would by definition make you altruistic. Read a book you stinky, disoriented, shithole of a human.

[Anonymous No.14180914]

>>14180536
Cute spooder

[Anonymous No.14181217]

>>14180507
I am pescetarian for moral and health reasons.

Here's the defense. Obviously, most people put very little moral weight on all animals, broadly speaking. Vegans look at animals and say, they seem to be capable of pain and suffering, and I think it is wrong to inflict pain on suffering, so no meat for me.

However the degree to which animals actually experience things isn't clear. A dogs brain is conspicuously less developed than a human's brain, a cats to a dog, a rat to a cat, a pigeon to a rat, ect. A shrimps nervous system is basically just a few bundles of nerves regulating sensory input and creating a set of pretty predictable behaviors.

Now, all animals, except for, I guess sea sponges, are capable of nociception, which is a triggered response to potentially dangerous stimuli, i.e extreme heat or pressure, ect. But you could hook a single nociceptive neuron to a chunk of muscle and it would trigger when you slapped it, but that single neuron is probably not having any subjective experience.

It seems like the actual ability to subjectively suffer is dependent on some sort of central nervous system complexity. Science is still far away from figuring this out so in the mean time where you draw the line is pretty subjective. I think you could fairly say that you avoid animals with a developed cerebrum, which would put reptiles and amphibians on the table as well, You could also only avoid mammals and eat birds too.

But for me, pesc seems like a pretty fair balance of my ethical, pleasurable and nutritional intuition.

[Anonymous No.14181333]

>>14181217

What is ethical about destroying the oceans and thus virtually every ecosystem which depend on them just so you can feel good about eating animals that "probably don't experience a high degree of suffering"?

Why so much concern over your imagined subjective experiences of individual animals when you are fine with destroying the place they, and we, live?

[Anonymous No.14181499]

>>14181333
well environmental concerns are a different discussion. Fish production doesn't need to be destructive to the oceans. Certain types of fishing can be harmful to fragile species like dolphins and turtles and certain species are overfished. But fish can be caught sustainably and farmed as well which is completely harmless. I bet pollution does more damage to the oceans than fishing.

[Anonymous No.14181860]

>>14181499
It's not a different discussion. If the well being of animals is the concern, the destruction of their environment is definitely relevant. The destruction of entire species is much more important than to what degree you guess an individual fish experiences pain.

>harmless fishing and fish farms
Nearly don't exist. Fish farming methods are also very destructive, mostly through pollution. Also, fishing itself causes a ton of pollution in the oceans.

[Anonymous No.14181932]

>>14181217
But a single fish yields so much less food than a single cow. Even if you argue that a fish doesn't experience as much suffering as mammals doesn't the sheer number of fish it takes to yield the same amount of meat as a cow result in more net suffering?

If I kill a fish I'll only have enough food for a couple days at most. If I kill a cow I have enough food for like 2 years. Doesn't that make red meat the most ethical?

[Anonymous No.14183181]

>>14181932
>Even if you argue that a fish doesn't experience as much suffering as mammals doesn't the sheer number of fish it takes to yield the same amount of meat as a cow result in more net suffering?
Yikes
Yes I would prefer a million people get a speck of dirt in their eyes than one person get crushed by a boulder. There's no collective consciousness, there's no such thing as net pain.

[Anonymous No.14183190]

>>14181860
I guess I can't discuss this aspect because I don't know much about the environmental impact of fishing/fish farming. DO you have any evidence for this?

[Anonymous No.14183245]

>>14180507
ITT: Mental gymnastics