Defending boiling lobsters alive

Its a small trade-off really, the lobster "endures" like 30 seconds of prolongment of "pain" in exchange for a tastier meal. For animals in general I do not think they have a consciousness and are as Descartes says "automatons", for a comparison of how idiotic "animal welfare" can be, there are people who unironically play vegan lifestyles in minecraft. Besides the lobster was going to be killed and eaten anyways, for it is its destiny to be so, so why does it matter to prolong pain? Especially if there are good outcomes that benefit you, the one whos going to dine?
It is clear God gave us animals for perpetual motion (for what is the difference of peoples walking down streets in an urban area next to that of a praying mantis catching a fly? Both suit their goal of doing what they were programmed to do) in keeping earths ecosystem in tact, and for us to learn from the behaviour of animals (See Aesops fables), and create archetypes/analogie, or even be Gods ourselves and create new beings (see the pug/modern banana).We know this as to our knowledge, no other animal can do what is listed above except humans. Humans are the center of the earth, the only beings with a consciousness.
Thoughts?
Thoughts?

You gud?

Yellowman said:

You gud?

I had a backlog of controversial writings I waited to publish till now, since no side wants a technocracy, deism, male humanism, etc
I just think its silly since its a lobster, a bug that will eventually be eaten anyways, and the result is a tastier dish, so why should there be laws against it? Should fisherman banned from cultivating lobsters in the first place?

Yellowman said:

You gud?

He'd becoming the Schizojak

I'm in agreement over our standing as a species, the dominion it brings and so forth. While yes, we can eat whatever creature we want, for better or worse, I do believe we should always take the quickest route of dispatching what we deem as our next meal. For example, many Asians have a warped concept of eating squid. Every so often, I remember seeing mukbangs of them showing some form of living sea creature off to the audience before killing it, preparing it, and finally eating it. Without fail, I always see them cut the limbs off squid first, letting both split sections writhe for an extended period of time, and they always gookface at the still living tentacle before shoving it into their gaping bug jaws. They refuse to practice the quickest method of least agony for that creature, and it sickens me to see, because all you have to do is back a hammer against that front part once really hard to instantly kill it. They cite the way they currently eat it now as more delicious than other methods because of the agony. While the squid is clearly higher up on the animalia dominance chart than the lobster, the lobster would be ten times better if we kill them in just a mere millisecond before boiling them.

TeeThingus_Bonemantics said:

I'm in agreement over our standing as a species, the dominion it brings and so forth. While yes, we can eat whatever creature we want, for better or worse, I do believe we should always take the quickest route of dispatching what we deem as our next meal. For example, many Asians have a warped concept of eating squid. Every so often, I remember seeing mukbangs of them showing some form of living sea creature off to the audience before killing it, preparing it, and finally eating it. Without fail, I always see them cut the limbs off squid first, letting both split sections writhe for an extended period of time, and they always gookface at the still living tentacle before shoving it into their gaping bug jaws. They refuse to practice the quickest method of least agony for that creature, and it sickens me to see, because all you have to do is back a hammer against that front part once really hard to instantly kill it. They cite the way they currently eat it now as more delicious than other methods because of the agony. While the squid is clearly higher up on the animalia dominance chart than the lobster, the lobster would be ten times better if we kill them in just a mere millisecond before boiling them.

Oh thats fair, people who have a thrill for agony are the worst humanity has to offer, but I believe decapitation and watching its anguish is different from putting a soundless lobster in a pot for a tastier meal, not because of agony, but because its fresher

Bill said:

Its a small trade-off really, the lobster "endures" like 30 seconds of prolongment of "pain" in exchange for a tastier meal. For animals in general I do not think they have a consciousness and are as Descartes says "automatons", for a comparison of how idiotic "animal welfare" can be, there are people who unironically play vegan lifestyles in minecraft. Besides the lobster was going to be killed and eaten anyways, for it is its destiny to be so, so why does it matter to prolong pain? Especially if there are good outcomes that benefit you, the one whos going to dine?
It is clear God gave us animals for perpetual motion (for what is the difference of peoples walking down streets in an urban area next to that of a praying mantis catching a fly? Both suit their goal of doing what they were programmed to do) in keeping earths ecosystem in tact, and for us to learn from the behaviour of animals (See Aesops fables), and create archetypes/analogie, or even be Gods ourselves and create new beings (see the pug/modern banana).We know this as to our knowledge, no other animal can do what is listed above except humans. Humans are the center of the earth, the only beings with a consciousness.
Thoughts?
Thoughts?

I don’t think lobsters feel pain. Not even sure vertebrate fish feel pain in the same complicated way that we do

But they taste REALLY good