You're viewing a single thread.
What he did was wrong, a bit because of the animal and a lot because of the spectators. It did not suffer, it was quick. It does however feel a bit like cognitive dissonance to strongly disapprove of his actions, while we systematically without any good reason eat animals and have them in small confined areas for optimal meat production per sqm. Vegans and vegetarians however, they can judge him all they want 😉 I am not one of them
It shows anger issues and a proloclivity towards disproportionate retribution. Most people wouldn't kill an animal for a simple chip/fry heist.
He should not have. But we kill animals all the time simply for eating meat, because we think that tastes a bit better. We don't need to inflict suffering on animals for years, we can abstain from meat. How are we more moral? Just because we outsource the killing? I so not condone his actions, just point out that we are not better.
I think there is a substantial difference though. Meat processing is done in a measured, considered way for a benefit (meat) that cannot be obtained without killing the animal. It is done in isolated facilities away from people who find the process disturbing. Just because people find something gross doesn't mean it shouldn't be done - we have sewage maintenance done out of the public eye too - but it does maybe mean it should be done where people don't have to see it. The only benefit this man gets from killing the animal is some sort of "revenge". But this is in principle completely contradictory to meat processing, where animals are seen as less capable of higher order experiences and therefore more acceptable to kill. To seek revenge, you would need to be assigning more higher order experience to the seagull than we typically see it as having. You have to see the seagull as selfish, stealing, criminal, rude, etc., even though in reality a more reasonable person understands that it's just an animal looking for food. Meat processing is not done out of some emotional vendetta against the animals, rather it is the cold detachment of it that is exactly what makes it acceptable. Can you imagine if we killed the same amount of chickens every day, not to eat them, but just because we hate them? This is much more horrifying! Because that would mean we think chickens are having complex enough inner experiences to warrant hatred, yet still we kill them.
Meat processing maybe isn't great, but it's still much better than this seagull killer. It isn't impulsive, it isn't disproportionate in response to the situation, it acknowledges and conceals its own horrors; thereby paying respect to important social codes. The actions of this man, though, disregarded the well-being of children and others around him, in an impulsive and disproportionate response - your average meat-eater is indeed better than that, I think. When I have a craving for some meat, I don't drag a calf down to the nearest playground, cut it in half and spray blood over the children, and proceed to mock the calf's weakness and inferiority as I beat it to tenderize it before consumption. I just want some food, dude. But what's this guy's beef? It's not beef, and it's not even seagull meat, but rather some frightening notion of swift and decisive revenge, which reveals that he is just waiting for any excuse to get away with brutalizing things around him.
I think you might be debating a person who may refuse to acknowledge the points of their opponents. If they come back again, just sit it out.
The point is the it's not cognitive dissonance, it's just reacting to a different aspect of it than simply the dead animal.
It might not have been the first gull who stole his chips—a man has his limits.
But they will to make gravy and nobody bats an eye.
You don't know it didn't suffer and he didn't kill it so that he could eat it (I'm disagreeing with you on the "cognitive dissonance" thing).
Also im not sure if you are saying that you dont judge him for what he did or just saying youre not vegan, but doing as he did is judge worthy.
Of course he should not have done this. What I am saying is that eating meat when we clearly don't need to is also unnecessary killing. So he killed an animal for no good reason, and we kinda do the same. We have more ethical foods available for us, but we like the taste of meat, and don't care enough about their suffering. Except for those that abstain from meat.
We are a species of cognitive dissonance. I want to know how many of the people reading this story and feeling revolted or horrified were eating meat at the time.
Also not a vegan per-say, but I have reduced my meat intake and try to buy local to avoid giving money to the nightmare hellscapes like Tyson and Perdue the like. That's about the best I can manage in my current lifestyle.
Everyone needs to reconcile and work out this dilemma. It's amazing how many people are dishonest with themselves and others about their reasons for feeling the way they do about eating meat, killing animals, etc. It's okay to say "I love animals but not enough to quit eating meat" and accept it in yourself. It's not a worse moral failing than a hundred other contradictory ideas we all hold in our heads every day. It's okay to say "I find this story distasteful because killing animals should be done behind closed doors to respect others." That's also a fine opinion to have.
I don't get why people have to do backflips to rationalize shit. We are irrational species.
Exactly this, I am not trying to say that it is not allowed to have the opinion that this was distasteful. I just find it interesting how hard people judge this person. There are infinitely amounts of cognitive dissonance we all live with every day. It's not really to judge people for eating meat, it's more to point our that from a logical standpoint this person actually did not do something much more unethical. Kinda like the thing with the female politician who shot her dog. Which I personally feel is insane and a terrible thing to do, but at the same time dogs are kinda like pigs, and we kill them all the time just because we prefer pig meat over lentils, beans, rice etc.
Another thing, I remember when I used to live in a house with a cat and a lot of rodents. Our traps killed a couple a week and our cat killed probably not far from a thousand rodents and birds. We could have protected our house more from animals, and we could have had the cat indoors. Somehow cats killing animals is socially accepted, the same goes for rodents in your house.
I am judging the extreme level of force after something so minor as a stolen chip.
Shouldn't ave stolen me chip. Simple as.
Good point, I concede
I know what you mean, it's disproportionate as hell. I am just saying that we aren't much better morally than him. Unless we abstain from meat.
Let's think about it cold. Kill seagull -> no witnesses, and the next seagull might do the same. I mean, let's get on his level of apeshit crazy, and let's assume seagulls actually understand stuff like humans, morals, and above all, human morals, and on top of that, they even care about those and want to comply. You didn't give it a lesson, because it died before it could learn from it, or before it could let the other seagulls know it's not cool to steal chips.
Hell, even when I'm trying to get on his level, it's still primitively dumb.
If a seagull is stealing chips from someone, odds are there are plenty of other seagulls around to witness their compatriot getting merked.
Seagulls understand that stealing from humans is risky - that's why they generally do it very quickly. The ones who fail suffer consequences for their failure, same as stealing food from any other creature. It's the risk/reward calculation any scavenger has to make.
Sometimes they calculate incorrectly. They get forcibly removed from the gene pool.
Of course, it's also illegal in a lot of countries to harm seagulls, so in that sense, he was in the wrong anyways.
It's not about morals that the seagulls can understand. It is not about teaching something. He acted like a moron and completely disproportionately. However it's not that much unethical than killing for meat, when we don't need to eat meat.
Yeah, the guy should have eaten the seagull, not just killed it.