Extensive research and debate has taken place over the ethics of placing a living lobster in boiling water, it could no longer be considered a widely accepted practice and many people now kill prior to boiling. The question at hand though, why is cooking a turtle alive so much more unethical than a lobster or crab?

Lobsters have an extremely primitive nervous system, they will react to pain inducing stimuli such as bee venom or electrical shock in a controlled lab environment, but it's questionable whether they experience pain in the same sense as more highly evolved animals. Lobsters have a decentralized nervous system with fifteen ganglia positioned throughout the body, ganglia are like very small and primitive brains that process sensory information and direct the body. Although the ganglia are definitely capable of processing the sensory information we perceive as pain as negative and issuing the command to escape it, the question of whether it's a very basic and purely instinctual response or if some degree of higher order response occurs remains a mystery. I would lean towards thinking it's a very primitive reaction and therefore not that bad to boil a live lobster, but it's still better to kill swiftly before boiling imo.

Turtles are monumentally different and more complex creatures than lobsters, they aren't even in the same phylum; which makes this comparison really a moot point. A turtle is a vertebrate with a complex brain that has multiple structures and the way they respond to stimuli is a reflection of that. It's a very safe assumption that turtles experience a higher order pain response comparable to our own, therefore cooking one alive would induce suffering and is unethical.

What's unethical is a matter of personal opinion, of course. Some people think microwaving cats to watch them die is ethical, just because they're a lower order animal and it's amusing; most people would find microwaving a cat unethical despite it being a lower order animal, because it induces enormous suffering on it. People all subjectively decide which animals are okay to cause suffering and which are not, usually based on the cute and fuzzy coefficient.

that article is fucked up in the sense that its providing wrong info...
for "roasted duck leg" and "dried chicken", its def not done the way the author describes it, dono where he/she got the info. for all else i have no comment.

you think humans care so much about the pain response of animals? Who knows how your beef has gotten to your table. Yes, it is unmoral to kill in a certain manner but deep frying turtles like we deep fry other seafood does not seem bad at all. Food is food, if he is hungry, let him at it.

Yes, the vast majority of humans do care about inflicting pain on fellow animals. Whether an animal is killed by a slaughterhouse or a hunter for food, or a veterinarian due to illness, a great deal of care is generally given towards making it as painless an action as possible. When the care to make it painless is not given, the majority of humans are outraged; the Whistler dog sled massacre is an example.

You've illustrated my final point in the previous post. Some people find inflicting suffering for amusement wrong, some people could care less and don't distinguish animals from one another with any actual logic. A turtle has little to nothing in common with a lobster, you can't justify one based on the other.

I was looking for information on cooking turtles alive, found the article relevant and therefore posted it. I'm not experienced with cooking live animals, so didn't realize there was incorrect info.

:fulloffuck: k I'm going to stop here. Dog sled massacre in a deep drying/food topic? You can not compare a killing to this

My response is completely in line with your question; you asked, "you think humans care so much about the pain response of animals?," dogs are animals, and the response to the massacre was as a result of the pain they experienced. If you dislike the dog example and would now prefer something directly food related, I can easily substitute a whole series of other examples. Subsistence hunters; every well taught hunter will state with no ambiguity, if they cannot strike a blow that will result in a quick and minimally painful death they will not take the animal. Canadian slaughterhouse regulations are set by the Federal government under the Meat Inspection Act, defining the standards for humane handling and slaughter, deviating from those standards will result in criminal charges for animal cruelty. I could continue to provide examples. So once again, the answer to your question is yes, they do care.

i like turtles

Noooooo, Michaelangelo!!!

Looks like one of those pet slider turtles.... Turtle doesn't even look cooked btw.

Are you a vegetarian? You better not be chomping down on a pork chop as you write that.

Yes, I am a vegetarian, but I'm not necessarily opposed to meat raised and slaughtered humanely.

Not even kidding, I just cracked the fuck up when I saw the "roasted duck legs" and the picture is just BBQ duck. SOMEONE CALL THE COPS ON #9! :ilied:

LOLOOOLLLL

I'm one of those foodies. I've eaten a bunch of live seafood...well, live shellfish and mollusks and "live" things like squid (that are dead but still flopping around). I don't think I want to eat a monkey's brains while it's still alive but if I have to be cruel to oysters for them to taste best, well, I'm okay with that.

Oysters can be eaten alive and they won't feel a thing. Go crazy.

Exactly.

Somebody called?

I agree, oysters can be eaten alive without any moral complications. It's not possible to say with definity that oysters do not feel pain, but the likelihood that they do seems infinitesimally small. Even Peter Singer, who is in many ways the most prominent voice of the vegan/vegetarian movement, says it's okay to eat oysters in "Animal Liberation" because the doubts that they feel pain are so significant.

What animal isn't eaten alive in the real world? Are u gonna tell the lion to kill the zebra humanely before ripping its guts out?

this is straight disgusting

In the real world, with very few exceptions, a predator kills it's prey in the most expedient means possible because prolonging the kill would only serve to expend more energy and put it at risk of injury.

Monkey Brains is also not real... it was done in Indi Jones movie temple of doom and was also spoofed by some video made in the 1970s.

That article blows.