Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Saturday January 13 2018, @11:51AM   Printer-friendly
from the lobster-prod dept.

You can no longer boil a lobster alive in Switzerland, unless you stun it first:

The Swiss government has ordered an end to the common culinary practice of throwing lobsters into boiling water while they are still alive, ruling that they must be knocked out before they are killed.

As part of a wider overhaul of Swiss animal protection laws, Bern said that as of 1 March, "the practice of plunging live lobsters into boiling water, which is common in restaurants, is no longer permitted". Lobsters "will now have to be stunned before they are put to death," the government order read.

According to Swiss public broadcaster RTS, only electric shock or the "mechanical destruction" of the lobster's brain will be accepted methods of stunning the animals once the new rule takes affect.

Also at BBC.


Original Submission

Related Stories

Into the Pot You Go: Maine Restaurant Sedates Lobsters With Cannabis Smoke 45 comments

Into the pot you go: Maine restaurant sedates lobsters with marijuana smoke

Lobsters in one Maine restaurant go out in a blaze of glory once they hit the pot. The owner of a lobster joint is sedating her crustaceans with marijuana smoke before cooking them – granting them, she says, a blissfully humane death.

Charlotte Gill, owner of Charlotte's Legendary Lobster Pound in Southwest Harbor, told the Portland Press Herald that she had been looking for a way to reduce the suffering of her signature menu item. She experimented with blowing marijuana smoke into a tank with one lobster, Roscoe (basically, she hot-boxed him). When Gill then removed Roscoe's claw bands and returned him to a tank with the other lobsters, she says, he was less aggressive. Gill has a medical marijuana license.

She plans to offer this cooking method as an option for customers who want their lobsters to be baked before they're boiled. But that doesn't mean customers will get stoned from their dinner.

"THC breaks down completely by 392 degrees, therefore we will use both steam as well as a heat process that will expose the meat to 420-degree extended temperature, in order to ensure there is no possibility of carry-over effect," Gill told the Press Herald. So where some see a humane death for the lobster, others see a waste of perfectly good weed.

Related: Switzerland Bans Lobster Boiling Without Stunning or Killing Them


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by acid andy on Saturday January 13 2018, @12:50PM (11 children)

    by acid andy (1683) on Saturday January 13 2018, @12:50PM (#621773) Homepage Journal

    Queue the resident trolls and sociopaths bitching about what a terrible affront to our personal freedoms this is...

    --
    If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
    • (Score: 5, Touché) by fyngyrz on Saturday January 13 2018, @01:06PM (5 children)

      by fyngyrz (6567) on Saturday January 13 2018, @01:06PM (#621776) Journal

      Queue the resident trolls and sociopaths

      How long a queue should we assemble them in? Or are you wanting to braid their hair?

      Please help me with this, I need a cue.

      • (Score: 3, Funny) by acid andy on Saturday January 13 2018, @02:02PM (4 children)

        by acid andy (1683) on Saturday January 13 2018, @02:02PM (#621789) Homepage Journal

        Dammit! I had a hunch I'd got that wrong but I just went with it. Touché Sir, touché!

        --
        If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
        • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Monday January 15 2018, @10:59PM (3 children)

          by fyngyrz (6567) on Monday January 15 2018, @10:59PM (#622824) Journal

          Our kingdoms for a post editing function, eh? :)

          • (Score: 2) by acid andy on Monday January 15 2018, @11:51PM (2 children)

            by acid andy (1683) on Monday January 15 2018, @11:51PM (#622851) Homepage Journal

            Absolutely but such a feature, if ever implemented, should have a timeout of a couple of minutes at most or I fear it would be greatly misused on a site like this for rewriting history and self-censorship. I can just see someone for fear of losing an argument, hastily pasting in extra points or altering their post just enough to render an objection invalid!

            --
            If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
            • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Tuesday January 16 2018, @12:12AM

              by fyngyrz (6567) on Tuesday January 16 2018, @12:12AM (#622867) Journal

              such a feature, if ever implemented, should have a timeout of a couple of minutes at most

              Yes, agreed. Many's the time I've edited and edited, certain that I've caught all of it (and believe me, there's usually a lot of it, I'm a sloppy typist these days among other failings) but... no. There it is, with errors that would shame a 6th grader. Unfixable. Phbbbbt.

              An editable post with a short (5-10 minutes or so, I think) timeout would be a blessing, IMHO.

            • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Tuesday January 16 2018, @12:51AM

              by fyngyrz (6567) on Tuesday January 16 2018, @12:51AM (#622894) Journal

              Also, as on Reddit, if a post's been edited, a little asterisk somewhere to indicate that.

    • (Score: 5, Touché) by halcyon1234 on Saturday January 13 2018, @04:08PM (3 children)

      by halcyon1234 (1082) on Saturday January 13 2018, @04:08PM (#621831)
      You may have to wait a while. All the sociopath trolls are in the article about raising the minimum wage, going into histrionics at the thought of "the poors" destroying the economy.
      --
      Original Submission [thedailywtf.com]
    • (Score: 2) by jdavidb on Saturday January 13 2018, @10:55PM

      by jdavidb (5690) on Saturday January 13 2018, @10:55PM (#621972) Homepage Journal

      Make it global; nothing to be afraid of when there's a global government that can tell everybody to do. Think of the children; think of the lobsters.

      What could possibly go wrong?

      --
      ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by turgid on Saturday January 13 2018, @01:05PM (51 children)

    by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Saturday January 13 2018, @01:05PM (#621775) Journal

    Nature is cruel. Animals eat other animals with no consideration given to pain and suffering.

    I often think that eating meat is wrong, but I still do it. I'm too greedy and selfish not to. However, Nature obviously uses animal life as a food source.

    I've never killed a chicken, but I've often killed fish.

    Help (discuss, 25 marks).

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Saturday January 13 2018, @01:11PM (31 children)

      by fyngyrz (6567) on Saturday January 13 2018, @01:11PM (#621777) Journal

      Nature is cruel. Animals eat other animals with no consideration given to pain and suffering.

      Is there a reasonable argument to be made from that that we should do no better?

      We do, after all, have a sophisticated ability to reason, and with that comes a comparatively sophisticated ability to understand the suffering of other beings.

      If we are not to moderate our behavior with reasoned empathy, in this case with attempts to ameliorate or eliminate suffering, then are we any better than animals? Is that the best we can aspire to?

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 13 2018, @01:16PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 13 2018, @01:16PM (#621780)

        Considering how people treat each other all the time, we definately are just plain animals.

        • (Score: 2) by unauthorized on Saturday January 13 2018, @05:19PM

          by unauthorized (3776) on Saturday January 13 2018, @05:19PM (#621856)

          Considering how people treat each other all the time, we definately are just plain animals.

          I am a fungus Ork-kin you insensitive clod.

        • (Score: 2) by Wootery on Monday January 15 2018, @10:12AM

          by Wootery (2341) on Monday January 15 2018, @10:12AM (#622510)

          Not really, no. The very fact that you're able to disdainfully conclude that we're animals, hints that we're not 'just' animals.

          That we're able to exist in such relative peace is truly remarkable. Not something other species would be capable of. (If you doubt that we now live in relative peace, I leave it as an exercise to the reader to learn about how increasingly peaceful our species has become.)

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Saturday January 13 2018, @01:41PM (27 children)

        by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Saturday January 13 2018, @01:41PM (#621785) Journal

        Before I say the following, I'll start by saying I'm predisposed not to make animals have unnecessary pain as well, and what you say is a reasonable intuitive argument. If it were my choice, I'd tend toward methods of killing animals for food that cause less pain.

        On the other hand, you use words like "suffer" here for animals. Is there not some sort of personification happening here? You speak of "empathizing" with animals. Do we have any idea what it is like to be an animal, to "feel" as an animal does? You mention the ability of humans to have conscious reasoning, but the assumption is usually that animals do not have the same sort of conscious self-awareness, or at least at a much more limited level (particularly for something like a lobster).

        So how can you "empathize" with someone that doesn't have conscious awareness? Is it actually "suffering" in the way that a conscious human might, or is "pain" in this case more akin to a sort of "reflex" reaction... We observe the lobster flinch or squeal or whatever, but could that just be like a doctor hitting your knee and your leg flying up? From an evolutionary perspective, the lobster's flinching could help it avoid death, thereby creating more offspring... It doesn't necessarily mean it "feels pain" or even that nervous impulses that cause avoidance are endowed with the kind of thing that humans would self-reflect on as "pain" let alone "suffering."

        If animals' "pain" responses are sometimes more like unconscious human reflexes and less like conscious "pain" and "suffering" (this is at least possible in some instances), do we still have a duty toward your imagined "empathy"? Or should we merely treat the animal like any other physical system or tool or whatever, that responds according to basic physical laws?

        (My personal opinion here is to side with you at least somewhat and say -- without clear evidence, we should ASSUME there might be some sort of conscious-like ability to reflect on pain and maybe even "suffering" in many animals, so we should err on the side of trying to cause less physical responses that appear to LOOK like they are akin to human "pain" responses. But until we can probe the "consciousness" (such as it may be) of a lobster, I'm not sure we have any good to reason to make such a blanket assumption toward "empathy.")

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by turgid on Saturday January 13 2018, @02:00PM (3 children)

          by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Saturday January 13 2018, @02:00PM (#621788) Journal

          You make some good points, but some animals have more capacity for human-like thought than others. For example, the great apes, monkeys, whales and dolphins, many birds such as corvids and parrots, octopuses, dogs etc. The harder we look, the more surprises we find. We should err on the side of caution.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 13 2018, @05:26PM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 13 2018, @05:26PM (#621859)

            Great apes? I guess that's why I'm not supposed to cook and eat my neighbor? Except, he's not so great an ape. His daughter, though - she's pretty great if you ask me! She doesn't even need cooking!

        • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Saturday January 13 2018, @02:02PM (7 children)

          by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Saturday January 13 2018, @02:02PM (#621790) Journal

          Oh, and to be clear, I understand we have the means to look at "pain receptors" in animals and notice physiological similarities to human pain receptors, etc. The question is not whether animals are capable of having a nervous impulses, but what it means for beings with no consciousness or limited consciousness of whatever to "feel pain," "experience suffering,"... and whether it is meaningful to talk of "empathizing" with them. If their experience of sensations is qualitatively different or less "meaningful" or whatever, do the same moral duties apply that we'd apply to treatment of conscious humans?

          • (Score: 5, Insightful) by lx on Saturday January 13 2018, @02:39PM (2 children)

            by lx (1915) on Saturday January 13 2018, @02:39PM (#621802)

            On the other hand, I have no hard guarantee that you are capable of suffering in a meaningful way, after all you might just be a bunch of spinal reflexes imitating consciousness. Does that mean that I can drop you in boiling water without feeling empathy?

            • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday January 13 2018, @05:29PM

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday January 13 2018, @05:29PM (#621861) Journal

              Empathy. OK, I'm dropped into the boiling water. There is a flash of pain, then a warm fuzzy feeling, and then nothing. That's why they drop the lobster in the pot head first - his brain solidifies not-quite-instantly. Crack an egg into boiling water. Or, don't even crack it - just drop a raw egg into boiling water. The shell will almost certainly burst, and all that protein will kinda swirl out, already solidified. If we're going to empathize, you gotta really empathize.

            • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday January 18 2018, @04:32PM

              by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Thursday January 18 2018, @04:32PM (#624191) Journal

              No "hard guarantee," true... If you are willing to go down the road to solipsism.

              My assumption when I posted initially in a thread about philosophy is that some here might be familiar with basic philosophical literature on this issue, such as Thomas Nagel's seminar essay, "What is it like to be a bat?"

              There are certainly objections to his essay, but my main point was about the use of terms like "empathy" and "suffering" which presume an ability of a human mind to comprehend what it may be like to experience the subjective world as a lobster might. It seems like a reasonable supposition that a lobster experiences "pain" and on that argument alone we may alter our behavior toward them. But claiming that we can feel "empathy" or understand how exactly they might experience "suffering" is a much greater epistemological and psychological leap. That was my point.

          • (Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday January 13 2018, @10:25PM (2 children)

            by frojack (1554) on Saturday January 13 2018, @10:25PM (#621960) Journal

            The question is not whether animals are capable of having a nervous impulses, but what it means for beings with no consciousness or limited consciousness of whatever to "feel pain," "experience suffering,"

            Nervous impulse usually means a flight or fight response. Not necessarily screaming.

            Lobsters an crabs squeal when they hit the hot water. It upsets some people.
            So the question becomes will they squeal less when you hit them with a stun gun before they go in the pot?

            --
            No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 14 2018, @02:23AM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 14 2018, @02:23AM (#622053)

              Steam escaping the shell

              • (Score: 2) by Pav on Sunday January 14 2018, @06:58AM

                by Pav (114) on Sunday January 14 2018, @06:58AM (#622110)

                If they're anything like painted crayfish on the great barrier reef the squeel is meant to attracts sharks, so perhaps it's like the light flashes of deep sea creatures. The predator of your predator is your friend.

          • (Score: 2) by Wootery on Monday January 15 2018, @10:23AM

            by Wootery (2341) on Monday January 15 2018, @10:23AM (#622514)

            It seems pretty clear that other species of ape must experience pain at least somewhat similarly to how we do - we're just so similar.

            The difference in intelligence does indeed hint (though it's not a bullet-proof association) that their form of consciousness is probably less rich than our own, but I see little reason to entertain the idea that, say, gorillas can't suffer in a meaningful sense.

            As we stray further and further from our fellow primates, the question becomes harder to answer. How about ants? Jellyfish? Those damnably delicious lobsters? There are important differences. They still respond to physical harm, and they even respond to some pain-killers used to treat humans, but they're far less intelligent.

            Additionally their hardware architecture is quite different - as I understand it, lobsters have a number of independent 'ganglia', rather than one central brain. Whether that should impact our estimations of their level of consciousness and ability to suffer, isn't obvious.

            (Related question: are Blade Runner's 'simulants' conscious? Are you going to tell me they can't be conscious simply because their braints are made of silicon rather than grey mush?)

        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Immerman on Saturday January 13 2018, @06:31PM (2 children)

          by Immerman (3985) on Saturday January 13 2018, @06:31PM (#621885)

          One of the indicators used to determine "suffering" in other species is excessive grooming of injuries. Dogs, cats, horses, etc. will worry at injuries or amputations for prolonged periods after the damage is done. Insects on the other hand will just vary their stride until the damage is compensated for. Lobsters fall into the grooming category.

          As for speculating on whether other animals actually feel pain (we are after all just particularly smart animals - there's a large and growing body of evidence that pretty much everything else we credit as "human" is actually shared by many other species) - I would challenge you to prove that you yourself feel pain, and don't just behave in a manner I associate with how I react to pain. Can't be done. And in the absence of an objective way to measure subjective experience, the compassionate person will give others the benefit of the doubt, and do what they can to avoid needless suffering.

          And it's not like zapping a lobster's head with a taser before tossing it in the pot is going to raise the price appreciably.

          • (Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday January 13 2018, @10:33PM (1 child)

            by frojack (1554) on Saturday January 13 2018, @10:33PM (#621964) Journal

            If it stops the lobster from squealing that's all you need from the restaurant, right?

            Have you reduced the lobster's pain, or merely prevented it from squealing?

            Most people do not scream from a stun gun shock (because they are incapacitated) - but they report it to be very painful.
            Still, you can buy them on Amazon beginning under $10. Why? Because they are said to be non lethal.

            --
            No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
            • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Immerman on Sunday January 14 2018, @05:03AM

              by Immerman (3985) on Sunday January 14 2018, @05:03AM (#622098)

              Most people don't get a stun-gun shock directly across the brain. And for good reason.

              I suspect you don't stop it from squealing, as I suspect that's the same outgassing phenomena as for crab. The point is to disrupt/destroy neural function beforeboiling them alive. Does it actually work? I would hope so, but in a way that's actually a secondary concern. Once you've established that they should get a merciful death, then if it's shown that the specific method used doesn't actually grant one, then you can change the method. Better a misguided attempt at compassion than a ruthless disregard for suffering - mistakes can be corrected.

        • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 13 2018, @06:48PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 13 2018, @06:48PM (#621892)

          Who are we to judge what can or cannot "suffer"? We are barely grasping how the brain works even today.
          It is well within our power and therefore reasonable to inflict as little suffering as possible upon other creatures.
          Maybe someday we'll be able to prove that lobsters are in fact capable of complex thought or suffering. We've already proven as much in cows.
          I'm personally very happy to see Switzerland take a small step toward being just a little more considerate towards our fellow creatures.

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Saturday January 13 2018, @08:16PM (7 children)

          by fyngyrz (6567) on Saturday January 13 2018, @08:16PM (#621919) Journal

          On the other hand, you use words like "suffer" here for animals. Is there not some sort of personification happening here?

          No. The observation that animals can suffer comes from my many decades of direct and careful observation of, and interaction with, cats, dogs, other pets, farm animals and humans.

          Do we have any idea what it is like to be an animal, to "feel" as an animal does?

          We are animals. In any case, we certainly have enough of an idea. Non-human animals react pretty much the same way we do when injured, within the limits of their ability to express themselves.

          the assumption is usually that animals do not have the same sort of conscious self-awareness, or at least at a much more limited level (particularly for something like a lobster).

          That assumption is outright baseless WRT to capacity to suffer, and those who use it that way, as a foundation for their actions, are operating without a clue.

          We don't know in any detail at what level some form of consciousness is no longer present. Clearly, for cats and dogs, consciousness is present; it seems exceedingly unlikely that it is present in a blade of grass, but entirely possible that it is present in a lobster, which interacts with its environment in a much more sophisticated manner. The bottom line though, is that we don't know, and so my takeaway is that we should assume it is, so as to not cause needless conscious suffering. All of which doesn't address the possibility that consciousness may not even be required in order to suffer.

          So how can you "empathize" with someone that doesn't have conscious awareness?

          Very easily: You start with the certain knowledge that you can't be sure it isn't aware of its circumstance, and then you act in order to prevent yourself from causing the potential problem. If you're in a hotel room with a gun, you won't shoot a gun through the wall, because although you're not sure there's someone in the path of the bullet, you don't know, and so you elect not to take the chance of shooting anyone. This is simple sanity based on lack of knowledge. Same thing for animal suffering: if you don't know, you should not act in such a way that your lack of knowledge corrupts your actions.

          If animals' "pain" responses are sometimes more like unconscious human reflexes and less like conscious "pain" and "suffering" (this is at least possible in some instances), do we still have a duty toward your imagined "empathy"? Or should we merely treat the animal like any other physical system or tool or whatever, that responds according to basic physical laws?

          It comes down to knowing, or not knowing. Until we know – and we most certainly do not for lower animals, although we just as certainly do for higher ones - the high ground is clearly not to do things that would cause suffering if the animal actually has the capacity to suffer. Don't shoot through hotel room walls.

          until we can probe the "consciousness" (such as it may be) of a lobster, I'm not sure we have any good to reason to make such a blanket assumption toward "empathy.")

          I say we do have a good reason. If we don't make that assumption, we may be acting in an evil manner - shooting the person in the next hotel room. That's not okay. If we refrain, then we are sure to not be acting in an evil manner in this regard - just we are sure not to shoot someone on the other side of a hotel room wall if we never fire a gun in a hotel room.

          If it turns out that in fact, there is no consciousness present in some set of lower animal life forms, no harm was done by refraining from damaging them while they are (were) living. Turns out that there is (was) consciousness, much less harm was done. So clearly, at least to me, the only correct path is to refrain from causing living animals damage.

          Whereas if you do damage them, if they are not conscious, no harm done; if they are conscious, then harm was done.

          So the former approach is clean regardless of outcome; the latter clean in only one of the two outcomes. That leaves only one certain path free of having been an asshole, and that's the one I choose.

          • (Score: 2) by turgid on Saturday January 13 2018, @09:32PM

            by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Saturday January 13 2018, @09:32PM (#621941) Journal
          • (Score: 1) by Barenflimski on Sunday January 14 2018, @12:15AM

            by Barenflimski (6836) on Sunday January 14 2018, @12:15AM (#622004)

            Well Spoken

          • (Score: 2) by Wootery on Monday January 15 2018, @12:03PM (4 children)

            by Wootery (2341) on Monday January 15 2018, @12:03PM (#622535)

            Good post. My one issue:

            If it turns out that in fact, there is no consciousness present in some set of lower animal life forms, no harm was done by refraining from damaging them while they are (were) living.

            Not really. Our efforts to avoid cruelty are costly. Free range food is far more expensive, and consumes more land, etc. If our tradeoffs are grounded on what turns out to be the false assumption that chickens can suffer, then we've cost ourselves in the process.

            (I'm ignoring that free range is higher quality, but nitpicking the specific example isn't the point. Ultimately, there's a tradeoff going on here.)

            • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Monday January 15 2018, @07:01PM (3 children)

              by fyngyrz (6567) on Monday January 15 2018, @07:01PM (#622664) Journal

              You're talking about an entirely different kind of harm. My position is that imposing suffering on A cannot be excused by earning, or saving, money by B.

              "Tradeoffs" at the non-consensual expense of others are actually exercises of abuse. To the extent they can be avoided, they should be avoided.

              • (Score: 2) by Wootery on Monday January 15 2018, @08:46PM (2 children)

                by Wootery (2341) on Monday January 15 2018, @08:46PM (#622718)

                You're talking about an entirely different kind of harm.

                Not really. If our efforts to minimise animal suffering are in fact misguided, then we've paid a human price for nothing. That's all I'm saying.

                I've seen a very similar fallacy with global warming: Maybe man-made climate-change is real, maybe not. If it is, we'll be glad we acted. If not, we lose nothing.

                It's nonsense, of course. We pay a huge price in our efforts against man-made climate change, such as insisting that third-world countries don't build coal-powered power plants. (Of course, the important point in that case is that there's no real question about man-made climate-change anyway.)

                My position is that imposing suffering on A cannot be excused by earning, or saving, money by B.

                How on Earth can you think I was suggesting otherwise? Are you deliberately talking past me? I quoted you very specifically.

                To the extent they can be avoided, they should be avoided.

                Obviously... Did you not read what I wrote?

                • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Monday January 15 2018, @10:56PM (1 child)

                  by fyngyrz (6567) on Monday January 15 2018, @10:56PM (#622823) Journal

                  If our efforts to minimise animal suffering are in fact misguided, then we've paid a human price for nothing.

                  I'll bite. Elaborate, please: What human price will we have paid?

                  It's nonsense, of course. We pay a huge price in our efforts against man-made climate change, such as insisting that third-world countries don't build coal-powered power plants.

                  It is idiocy to build coal-fired power plants at this point in time, or to encourage same, knowing what we now know about the consequences - quite aside from the speculations about the potential consequences of rising CO2 levels - that coal burning brings about, as well as the presently growing ability to go in other directions.

                  100 years ago, we really didn't know that coal was as bad as it is. Now we do. The human price we've paid was based on ignorance initially, and social momentum later. We should stop paying it ASAP. We certainly shouldn't encourage others to follow in those footsteps.

                  I don't disagree that there are human costs lurking in this issue, but abandoning coal-fired power generation isn't one of them. That's a gold-plated benefit. Those countries would be far better off building power infrastructure using modern decentralized, low ongoing-pollution generating tech such as solar. For one thing, the infrastructure costs are largely decentralized, or can be, and for another, that means that they are much more easily approached incrementally, and for another, they are much faster, albeit inherently uneven, to establish.

                  What we should be doing, and really aren't doing near as much of as we should, is developing energy storage solutions faster. Lithium batteries aren't going to be doing anyone any favors in the long run, for example.

                  How on Earth can you think I was suggesting otherwise?

                  That's how I read it, honestly. I went back, and that's still how I read it. You are welcome to elaborate and correct my misunderstanding(s.) I do not claim to always accurately get the point of everything I read.

                  • (Score: 2) by Wootery on Tuesday January 16 2018, @09:50AM

                    by Wootery (2341) on Tuesday January 16 2018, @09:50AM (#623058)

                    What human price

                    Fewer people will be eating what they like - lobster - now that this law has passed. The chefs that continue to offer it will be inconvenienced by the new requirements. If the assumption that lobsters can suffer, is mistaken, then there's been a small human cost paid for nothing.

                    Some people like wearing fur, and hunting foxes with a pack of blood-crazed dogs, but we stop them doing both in our effort to minimise animal suffering.

                    Some British vegetarians and Hindus got awfully worked-up [theguardian.com] about the use of a microscopic amount of animal fat in the UK's new paper money. Their displeasure is, really, the result of the assumption that animals have moral status.

                    To be absolutely clear, I think it would be absurd to suggest that animals don't have moral status. My point is that you seem to think that significant movements like this are otherwise totally cost-free. Not so. It would in many ways be far easier for society if animals weren't conscious.

                    Cruel farming practices are the most economically efficient. Sadly we've not really pushed the trade-off very far there, as many factory-farmed animals have an awful existence.

                    We certainly shouldn't encourage others to follow in those footsteps.

                    I thought I was clear that this was just an example. I also thought I was clear that I'm not actually pro-coal.

                    I don't care about the nuances of global power-generation, my point is that if the downsides of coal power somehow turned out not to exist, we'd have been really holding back a number of countries in insisting they reject coal power. The same applies to animal welfare.

        • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 13 2018, @09:58PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 13 2018, @09:58PM (#621952)

          On the other hand, you use words like "suffer" here for animals. Is there not some sort of personification happening here? You speak of "empathizing" with animals. Do we have any idea what it is like to be an animal, to "feel" as an animal does?

          On the other hand, you use words like "suffer" here for jews. Is there not some sort of personification happening here? You speak of "empathizing" with jews. Do we have any idea what it is like to be a jew, to "feel" as a jew does?

          Careful there, champ.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 14 2018, @12:22AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 14 2018, @12:22AM (#622007)

          why should animal suffering be different than human, which can merely have more abstract reasons for suffering? expanding your objection why should we treat sociopaths or schizoid or narcissists or aspergers like our own? it is documented they don't feel the same way normies do....

        • (Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Sunday January 14 2018, @10:35PM

          by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Sunday January 14 2018, @10:35PM (#622300)

          On the other hand, you use words like "suffer" here for animals. Is there not some sort of personification happening here? You speak of "empathizing" with animals. Do we have any idea what it is like to be an animal, to "feel" as an animal does? You mention the ability of humans to have conscious reasoning, but the assumption is usually that animals do not have the same sort of conscious self-awareness, or at least at a much more limited level (particularly for something like a lobster).

          I'm an animal, and I suffer from pain. I assume that suffering is as much an evolutionary response to pain as a reflex from a doctor hitting my knee with a hammer.

    • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 13 2018, @01:31PM (12 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 13 2018, @01:31PM (#621783)

      For anyone that hasn't seen this, the lobsters try to climb out of the boiling water, typically the cook holds a cover down over the pot. Is this just a reflex, or do crustaceans feel pain/agony the same way that we do?

      I saw it first as a kid, along the Maine coast where it is very common. I felt bad for the lobster, and I don't think I ate any that time. Later I must have rationalized away any empathy, because I eat lobster occasionally.

      Practical question, will zapping the lobster's brain before boiling have any effect on the cooked meat?

      • (Score: 4, Informative) by acid andy on Saturday January 13 2018, @02:21PM

        by acid andy (1683) on Saturday January 13 2018, @02:21PM (#621796) Homepage Journal

        Later I must have rationalized away any empathy, because I eat lobster occasionally.

        Whatever thought process you went through, I struggle to see how rigorously rational it could have been.

        Most meat eating in humans is mainly a monkey see, monkey do, process. The behavior is subconsciously validated through social norms.

        --
        If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 13 2018, @03:58PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 13 2018, @03:58PM (#621827)

        You sir, are full of it. As soon as the lobster hits the boiling water, they die and do not move.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt8YUNaKrFA [youtube.com]

        Bonus points for horrific examples of dysfunctional parenting.

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Saturday January 13 2018, @10:39PM

          by frojack (1554) on Saturday January 13 2018, @10:39PM (#621967) Journal

          Nearly frozen lobster.

          Truly fresh Lobsters and crabs do generally do move about for a second or three.

          --
          No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 4, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Saturday January 13 2018, @05:40PM (8 children)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday January 13 2018, @05:40PM (#621865) Journal

        If the lobster is trying to get out of the water, then you've fucked up. Badly.

        The water is supposed to be BOILING, not tepidly warm, not simmering. BOILING. You drop the lobster(s) one at a time into the water, HEAD FIRST. No, that little dude never makes the least effort to climb back out - he is dead, dead, DEAD in about half a second after hitting the surface of the water.

        I lived in Winter Harbor, Maine, and attended two lobster festivals as a volunteer cook, in addition to a number of smaller parties and feasts. Not once did I ever see a lobster attempt to escape the pot. Where do people get these silly stories from?

        Those were the days, though. Hanging out with the "Mudflat Five", spend the afternoon digging clams, send someone to town for some potatoes, butter, and corn on the cob, and send someone else down to meet the lobster boats as they come in to harbor. Start a bonfire, fill a couple pots with water, and wait for people to show up to eat. Someone almost always brought some oysters to add to the mix - some of those got cooked, others didn't.

        Damn, I'm getting hungry just thinking about it!

        • (Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday January 13 2018, @06:11PM (7 children)

          by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Saturday January 13 2018, @06:11PM (#621872) Homepage

          This is like how people say that lobsters "scream" when you drop them in the pot, but that "screaming" is actually some mechanical/thermodynamic action of the temperature gradient on the lobster's body (escaping air or some shit) rather than the lobster's reaction to whatever "pain" it may be feeling.

          It would be equally silly to suggest that you broke your own hand just because you cracked your knuckles.

          Jesus Christ, it's basically a fucking bug. A sweet, tasty bug, with lots of garlic and drawn butter. Would you feel bad for swatting a fly?

          • (Score: 2, Disagree) by frojack on Saturday January 13 2018, @10:42PM (1 child)

            by frojack (1554) on Saturday January 13 2018, @10:42PM (#621969) Journal

            Bullshit with that temperature gradient nonsense, Next time you cook one drop it in slowly tail first. You'l change your mind in one go.

            --
            No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
            • (Score: 2) by Wootery on Monday January 15 2018, @12:13PM

              by Wootery (2341) on Monday January 15 2018, @12:13PM (#622539)

              No, they do not scream. They don't have lungs, for heaven's sake. The sound is produced by escaping bubbles. This isn't up for debate.

              (The pain question is, of course, a totally separate matter.)

          • (Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday January 13 2018, @10:57PM

            by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Saturday January 13 2018, @10:57PM (#621974) Journal

            I prefer human meat. Yum.

            --
            [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
          • (Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday January 13 2018, @10:57PM (3 children)

            by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Saturday January 13 2018, @10:57PM (#621975) Journal

            Why in the hell would you want to eat bugs when you can eat human meat?

            --
            [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 0, Offtopic) by SanityCheck on Saturday January 13 2018, @02:59PM (2 children)

      by SanityCheck (5190) on Saturday January 13 2018, @02:59PM (#621814)

      I often think that eating meat is wrong, but I still do it.

      I do not. So please keep your beliefs out of my life.

      • (Score: 2, Touché) by turgid on Saturday January 13 2018, @04:46PM

        by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Saturday January 13 2018, @04:46PM (#621845) Journal

        I would not allow my precious beliefs to be soiled by your grotty little life. So there.

      • (Score: 2) by Wootery on Tuesday January 16 2018, @09:55AM

        by Wootery (2341) on Tuesday January 16 2018, @09:55AM (#623060)

        please keep your beliefs out of my life.

        I agree with you that we shouldn't categorically ban meat farming, but I'll play, uh, Devil's advocate: that isn't a knock-down argument.

        I presume you agree that the government should ban outright deliberate animal cruelty, right? For that matter, we should keep slavery and murder illegal too, right? There you go, you're 'imposing your beliefs'. That's what every law does, and it doesn't make them automatically illegitimate.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by acid andy on Saturday January 13 2018, @08:26PM

      by acid andy (1683) on Saturday January 13 2018, @08:26PM (#621922) Homepage Journal

      Nature is cruel. Animals eat other animals with no consideration given to pain and suffering.

      Nature is wonderfully complex and incredibly diverse. There is great cruelty and great suffering but also in other places great kindness and great pleasure. Many animals are arguably capable of some degree of empathy. When mammals look after their own young they experience positive emotions and some animals have arguably been observed to grieve (elephants for example I understand).

      Of course I understand that for the purposes of your argument, the cruel indifference is what's relevant. I just think it's important to remember that, on balance, "Nature is cruel" is an oversimplification.

      Humanity too, is capable of great kindness as well as great cruelty but the difference is that we, usually, have the intellectual capacity to understand the full implications of our actions in terms of the pleasure or suffering of those organisms they affect.

      --
      If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 14 2018, @10:26AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 14 2018, @10:26AM (#622149)

      So I suppose you also decline the protection of courts of law and law enforcement agencies. After all, there are no such things in nature. No, you make a point of living as a baboon, as mother nature wants you to.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 14 2018, @06:39PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 14 2018, @06:39PM (#622231)

        "protection of courts of law and law enforcement agencies"

        lmao!

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by turgid on Saturday January 13 2018, @01:28PM (8 children)

    by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Saturday January 13 2018, @01:28PM (#621782) Journal

    There has been all sorts of nonsense said over the years about animals and pain. In fact, I once read that some professional association of veterinary surgeons used some pretty flimsy reasoning to conclude that animals don't really get affected by pain because they're not "conscious" or self-aware or some drivel and therefore don't require pain killers...

    I've also heard of people who catch crabs to sell as food ripping off their claws before throwing them alive into the freezer. The "logic" goes something like, "crabs can regrow lost limbs in the wild so it can't be that distressing for them."

    Insects, on the other hand, are said to experience pain completely differently.

    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 13 2018, @01:53PM (6 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 13 2018, @01:53PM (#621787)

      In fact, I once read that some professional association of veterinary surgeons used some pretty flimsy reasoning to conclude that animals don't really get affected by pain because they're not "conscious" or self-aware or some drivel and therefore don't require pain killers...

      That was doctors and human babies up until the late 1980s (it still continues to this day in many places):
      https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150421084812.htm [sciencedaily.com]

      The "null hypothesis" was that babies can't feel pain, and until proven otherwise there was no reason (or even dangerous) to give them pain killers or even be careful/gentle during medical procedures like tracheal intubation. Most parents had no idea, but if they found out and tried complaining the hospital would send them to a psychiatrist who would call them crazy.

      • (Score: 2) by turgid on Saturday January 13 2018, @02:09PM (5 children)

        by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Saturday January 13 2018, @02:09PM (#621791) Journal

        That's down right psychopathic and cruel.

        • (Score: 3, Funny) by Gaaark on Saturday January 13 2018, @02:15PM (2 children)

          by Gaaark (41) on Saturday January 13 2018, @02:15PM (#621794) Journal

          What i heard was that babies feel the pain, but have no long-term, lasting memory of it, so hey, no problem.

          Circumcise them because, hey yeah they're crying like hell now, but in 5 minutes "Give me boob!", so what me worry?

          --
          --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
          • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 13 2018, @06:27PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 13 2018, @06:27PM (#621884)

            Some of them may remember in other ways. It's just like those people with memory problems: http://www.fearexhibit.org/brain/memory/claparedes_pinprick_experiment [fearexhibit.org]

            In 1911, a French doctor named Edouard Claparede published his observations of an amnesiac patient. Despite repeated interactions with the woman, sometimes only minutes apart, Claparede had to reintroduce himself every time he reentered the room; the patient never recognized him as someone she'd met.

            During one of their "introductions," Claparede hid a tack in his palm and pricked the patient when they shook hands. The next time they "met," the patient refused to shake Claparede's hand though she couldn't explain why since she did not recall ever having met the doctor.

          • (Score: 2) by Wootery on Tuesday January 16 2018, @09:58AM

            by Wootery (2341) on Tuesday January 16 2018, @09:58AM (#623061)

            Circumcision is a great example, actually.

            Babies don't cry after circumcision. Why? They enter a state of shock.

            Some people like to pretend they're 'just sleeping'. Sickening delusion.

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 13 2018, @02:27PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 13 2018, @02:27PM (#621799)

          It took me a bit to find this again, but they would even go so far as to report the mother as abusive if they objected:

          One mother I spoke with who realized anesthesia would not be used for her daughter’s surgery refused to sign the consent form. The operation was performed anyway and the mother was reported to local authorities as an abusive parent.

          http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1523-536X.1986.tb01023.x/full [wiley.com]

          Lots of good sources here:
          http://www.nocirc.org/symposia/second/chamberlain.html [nocirc.org]

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 13 2018, @04:43PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 13 2018, @04:43PM (#621844)

      The problem is that even if we do accept the idea that animals feel pain the way that we do, it's very hard to establish how much medication to give or when they're feeling pain as many animals behave like they're not in pain so as not to become targets for predators.

      Establishing how much pain humans feel is hard enough, what's a relatively minor discomfort for one person might be a very serious pain for somebody else. Since, animals aren't able to communicate in a way we understand, it's hard to establish how much pain they're feeling or even if they're in pain. Some behaviors can be assumed to be a response to pain, but we don't really have any way of knowing for sure.

      The whole situation sucks, but anesthesia is a tricky state to create and maintain. Too much medication and there's brain damage and or death and not enough and the patient is in pain. Up until relatively recently we had medical doctors performing surgery on patients with little or no anesthetic.

  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by theluggage on Saturday January 13 2018, @01:51PM (5 children)

    by theluggage (1797) on Saturday January 13 2018, @01:51PM (#621786)

    So, where's the link to the scientific evidence that shows that "mechanical destruction of the brain" or electrical stunning causes the lobster less suffering to lobsters than being chucked into boiling water? Especially considering the odds of people screwing up the new, unfamiliar, "humane" procedure (so the lobster simply suffers a painful electric shock or being stabbed ~5mm to the left of its brain before being cooked alive anyway) - whereas most chefs can fairly reliably manage to boil a pan of water.

    ...and are they sure that transporting live lobsters "on ice" doesn't put them into torpor so they're pretty much out of it by the time they reach the pot?

    I mean, sure, as a human I know which exit I'd vote for (given the absence of option D) but even that is (fortunately) based on imagination rather than experience - and I believe that there are one or two niggling physiological differences between humans and lobsters (exoskeletons and suchlike).

    There's empathy, and then there's misguided anthropomorphism...

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Gaaark on Saturday January 13 2018, @02:11PM (3 children)

      by Gaaark (41) on Saturday January 13 2018, @02:11PM (#621793) Journal

      And what about putting them in room temp water and bringing the water to a boil? Is that humane? Or is it worse because the pain would last longer?

      Freeze the lobster for an hour, then plunge them into boiling water?

      Cut the head off?

      I hope they have laid out some clear-cut (if only) rules for 'destroying the brain':
      "Am i doing this right? I'm not sure. The lobster isn't moving now, but is it just stunned? Did i just cause it so much pain that it has gone into shock? I dunno." Splooge. (Splash? Plunge?)

      Let's try it on Bobby first to be sure. See what happens, then we'll work on the lobster.

      --
      --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 13 2018, @02:31PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 13 2018, @02:31PM (#621800)

        Are you volunteering to be a test subject in this?

        • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Sunday January 14 2018, @12:36AM

          by Gaaark (41) on Sunday January 14 2018, @12:36AM (#622014) Journal

          No, i'm volunteering Bobby. Learn to read! (or are you Bobby?.......)

          --
          --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
      • (Score: 2) by looorg on Saturday January 13 2018, @03:46PM

        by looorg (578) on Saturday January 13 2018, @03:46PM (#621823)

        That is a point, how hard to you have to hit a lobster over the head for it to become braindead and not just merely stunned? Is it better to boil a braindamaged or in shock lobster then one that isn't? Perhaps they'll start selling certified lobster stunguns cause you just can't really be sure that the mallet did the trick.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Wootery on Tuesday January 16 2018, @10:35AM

      by Wootery (2341) on Tuesday January 16 2018, @10:35AM (#623068)

      there are one or two niggling physiological differences between humans and lobsters (exoskeletons and suchlike)

      The differences go even deeper than that! They have a number of ganglia, rather than single monolithic brain.

  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 13 2018, @02:33PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 13 2018, @02:33PM (#621801)

    Will we have to change the way we deal with muslims and other animals too?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 13 2018, @03:56PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 13 2018, @03:56PM (#621825)

    wah! i can see it already: hundreds of middle school german teachers are going to unleash the question about this onto
    thousands of unsuspecting school children and demand a essay ... another "terror" question that is going to hunt them poor children forever.

    it could most certainly be, that there are children that have never thought about this ... after all, boiled lobster is the favorite
    food of school-going children?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 13 2018, @04:01PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 13 2018, @04:01PM (#621828)

    Easy for a tiny landlocked country. Just how much lobster do they eat?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 13 2018, @04:10PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 13 2018, @04:10PM (#621832)

      Easy for a tiny landlocked country. Just how much lobster do they eat?

      You forget, Switzerland, tiny it may be, but it's the land of the Gnomes of Zürich [wikipedia.org]

    • (Score: 2) by deadstick on Saturday January 13 2018, @04:16PM

      by deadstick (5110) on Saturday January 13 2018, @04:16PM (#621835)

      Ummm...here in Denver I'm five times as far from salt water as Switzerland is, and we get plenty.

      Premium seafood is marketed fast-food style all over Europe; google Nordsee.

  • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by chewbacon on Saturday January 13 2018, @04:11PM (2 children)

    by chewbacon (1032) on Saturday January 13 2018, @04:11PM (#621833)

    A place where all the snowflakes can move and be safe from Trump and lobster boilers.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 13 2018, @04:42PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 13 2018, @04:42PM (#621842)

      Go find a board where your "kind" can all bond together in one happy right-wing brainwashing. We don't need any of that here. Mmmmmkay?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 13 2018, @05:48PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 13 2018, @05:48PM (#621868)

        No, you! Go find your own board where all the snowflakes are protected from any possible offense. Facebook, maybe?

  • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 13 2018, @05:23PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 13 2018, @05:23PM (#621858)

    "The Swiss government also said it would no longer be permitted to transport live marine crustaceans like lobsters on ice or in icy water, ruling instead that they should “always be held in their natural environment”.
    The government order also aims to crack down on illegal puppy farms and imports, and ban devices that automatically punish dogs when they bark."

    Looks like a classic case of bleeding hearts imposing their world view on others in order to feel better about themselves.

    So, how does this make the world better in any significant way. And what else did not happen because of this distraction?

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by aclarke on Saturday January 13 2018, @05:34PM (2 children)

      by aclarke (2049) on Saturday January 13 2018, @05:34PM (#621863) Homepage

      That's one of the great things about Switzerland. They pretty much have things together, so they can focus on issues that other, less civilized, countries are a long way from.

      You don't like what the Swiss are doing? OK, don't go there. That's pretty easily resolved, isn't it.

      I don't agree with everything Switzerland (or any country) does. I do, however, respect the fact that overall they've decided what country they want to be, and they're fairly unapologetic about aiming themselves toward that goal. I'd rather have a group of people focus on being kinder to animals than arguing over the most effective way to avoid providing medical care to poor people, or blow up others who don't quite agree their particularly narrow religious outlook.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 13 2018, @10:38PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 13 2018, @10:38PM (#621966)

        I'm happy to hear they have fixed their more pressing problems.

        They certainly had a sorted history to fix, for example:
        The Nobel peace prize exists to rebrand the reputation of Mr Nobel from an inventor of arms.
        Until recently, their banking system was the go to place for laundering and hiding ill gotten gains. Just ask the Germans from WWII.

        Hopefully all that sort of stuff is in the past and you are correct that they are just doing minor tweaks.
        Still, given that the rest of the world is so far behind, could they better use their time thinking of something constructive to help this instead?

        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday January 14 2018, @08:43AM

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Sunday January 14 2018, @08:43AM (#622126) Journal

          The Nobel peace prize exists to rebrand the reputation of Mr Nobel from an inventor of arms.

          What exactly does this have to do with Switzerland?

          Until recently, their banking system was the go to place for laundering and hiding ill gotten gains. Just ask the Germans from WWII.

          What exactly did you not understand from "I don't agree with everything Switzerland (or any country) does. I do, however, respect the fact that overall they've decided what country they want to be, and they're fairly unapologetic about aiming themselves toward that goal."?

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by janrinok on Saturday January 13 2018, @06:23PM

    by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Saturday January 13 2018, @06:23PM (#621881) Journal

    I live in France. Although nowhere near as popular as they once were, snails are still bred for human consumption. Being on the coast, mussels are a common shellfish caught here, and they are frequently eaten. Likewise crabs, including very small crabs. Will the Swiss apply the same law to these and similar animals?

    I'd like to see someone 'mechanically destroy the brain' or stun any of these before cooking. I think this is simply a case of pandering to some animal rights group or other, rather than a well thought out law.

  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 13 2018, @07:15PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 13 2018, @07:15PM (#621904)

    If boiling them live is easier or makes the food taste better, I'd do it.

    The same goes for skinning them alive, or beating them to death, or whatever. Is it easy? Does it taste good? Those are the only concerns.

    If I wasn't grossed out by raw meat, eating right out of the side of a living animal would be fine. If I preferred really fresh raw meat, I'd do it. Tie down the limbs, peel back the skin, and bite right into it.

    With larger animals, like cattle, you could in theory take a bite out of the side and let them recover. Hey, vampire bats do it.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 15 2018, @11:46PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 15 2018, @11:46PM (#622849)

      You'll eat your big macs and cheetos like a gud boi.

    • (Score: 2) by Wootery on Tuesday January 16 2018, @10:38AM

      by Wootery (2341) on Tuesday January 16 2018, @10:38AM (#623070)

      Quick tip for your trolling career: us real people are more likely to take seriously your half-baked contrarianism if you stop posting an AC.

  • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 13 2018, @10:06PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 13 2018, @10:06PM (#621954)

    The Swiss are weak and neutered. Or was that neutral? Either way, no fight in them.
    It's just a bug.

(1)