World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
- Blogsites are treated in the same manner as social media sites. Medium, Blogger, Substack, etc. are not valid news links regardless of who is posting them. Yes, legitimate news sites use Blogging platforms, they also use Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube and we don't allow those links either.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Lobsters eat each other.
What's more cruel?
Boiled for 35-45 seconds before death?
Or
Being crushed and dismembered bit by bit, being gnawed on, for many minutes, and possibly even being left in parts, to suffer on for longer yet, after the other lobster had its fill?
When I eat prawns, I often think of this, often putting it context how I'm not doing anything they don't do to each other, simply meaning they know how tasty they are, and eat each other... but seeing this, makes me realise how much less cruel what I'm doing to them is, than they do to each other.
I'm open to even more humane ways to dispatch them, of course, not resting on any "lesser evil" fallacy, but also, lets not remove this context entirely.
Also, while we're talking context...
The government in the UK, last decade, committed assault and fraud, dereliction of duty of care, torturing and starving and denying medication, transport, and nearly every human right, to the disabled poor, propagandising against them to drum up hate with more fraud, to cull over 130,000 people in a very slow cruel way. So it's a little rich to think these tories (no matter if blue, yellow, or red), now "care". Those who were Killing people over durations often into the months and years of suffering, are now concerned for lobsters suffering for seconds?
Lobsters (probably) don't understand the concept of other animals feeling pain but we can. Lobsters don't have any other more merciful methods/tools in their disposal for survival whereas humans do this entirely because "it is more delicious that way". This is the right context.
Even the comparison "lesser of two evils" is not in the right context because it becomes more evil to the degree that you understand the other side's suffering.
Good reply.
Though...
is that the reason given? That it's more delicious to boil them alive rather than kill them at their head? If so, what's the reasoning behind that reasoning? Like... do some more of the tasty juices remain in the lobster if not peircing/smashing their head first? I had imagined it was done that way simply because it was easier (/ safer, like if the claws were not adequately banded shut before taking the knife towards their heads).
Agree. To an extent. (At least one) Exception warrants caution, in so far as induced ignorance is used to excuse atrocities. Though then the active point of contention's merely around the word "evil", and the many reams that can be written exploring and critiquing it, with or without missing the harms beyond that.
Which one is natural? A lobster fighting another lobster in its natural environment, or a human stuffing them into a pot of boiling water?
Here, let's meet up and we can test both on you to see which you think is more cruel.
Then you wrap it up with a fat paragraph of whataboutism. You're dwindeling.
I reject the claim that natural is good. Appeal to Nature is a common logical fallacy.
both. unless you think humans are supernatural.
Humans putting anything alive into a boiling pot of water is not natural. You're a dillusional nutcase.
so humans aren't natural?
Learned cognitive skills are a part of evolution. Monkeys using sharp sticks to spear fish, birds using bread to lure prey, or fishing spitting water to kill insects by your definition is unnatural
Interesting attempt to call out a whataboutism (I'll check on that in a moment), after making your own appeal-to-nature fallacy, wrapped in red-herring fallacy.
And, strikingly:
Besides that being a vile proposal, it seems a thought experiment you've not thought through.
Okay, lets see where I made a whataboutism...
After some careful consideration... nope. Not a whataboutism fallacy. Was not deflecting. Was showing context to draw even more attention to the matter. Was not an attempt to make one thing seem okay by some other equivalent or worse thing. Was drawing the point of the implausibility that the government are caring for lobsters, given their past actions [Though, can steelman that argument better, if even only just on the face value of "the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing" aspect of big clumsy government, or even (I find incredulous) that this is under a New Labour government, not a Conservative or Conservative&LibDem coalition government]. And I certainly was not at any point trying to make it sound like it's okay to boil lobsters alive. Sorry for whatever lack of clarity about that which I may have caused by neglectful omission of explicitly stating my position on that. ... I do not think it's right to boil lobsters alive, especially when there are other less cruel means to dispatch them. Though, I do remain open to more scientific scrutiny and reasoning on the matter, and can entertain other possibilities (like, maybe their nerve endings shut off from boiling and they dont actually suffer? And perhaps the knife through the head leaves them in an effective eternal state of suffering felt all over? Or other unknowns.).
::: spoiler If you're as into pastes of fairly lengthy discussions with an LLM to analyse fallacies in interactions as I am, click here Oh bugger... It's too lengthy to paste to lemmy. I forgot, this is not diaspora. okies, pasting to a file on my kimsufi... http://ks392457.kimsufi.com/stuff/llmpaste20251224fallacyanalysis it's only about a thousand lines long. I will add though... despite my efforts to counter the llm sycophancy corruption effect, it's probably still leaning too lenient and biased.
I'll break it down for you, since reading comprehension is difficult.
Whatbaoutism does not mean (X is worse, therefore Y is fine)
Whataboutism is also anything that shifts the context of the narrative. As you did by switching it from lobsters to disabled people in the UK. One has nothing to do with the other. You are attempting whataboutism wrapped in a hypocrisy tortilla.
Thank you for also noting that the proposal was vile, so you can agree its a vile act to boil lobsters alive as you finally noted in the end of your response, yes?
Its also nice to see you claim that appeal to nature fallacy, but it is clear you again have no reading comprehension or you would have landed in the ballpark of what I did is called descriptive contrast.
You entirelt deflected because nothing you added was context related to the topic.
You d-e-f-l-e-c-t-e-d
Humans have moral agency. Lobsters have not been proven or shown to have that, therefore we can not judge or dictate what or how a lobster does anything. We can, however, demand ethical scrutiny regardless of their own behavior.
Wow.
Several strawman arguments, misrepresenting whataboutism (sounded more like a definition or red herring or moved goal post) and another fallacious accusation of whataboutism, appeal to definition, begging the question, false dichotomy, non-sequitur and self-contradiction, red herring, ad-hominems and deflection (ironically even in your hypocritical emphatic repetition of accusation of deflection (which was already refuted, and nothing done to tackle the refutation, as with other parts in this exchange)), appeal to ignorance, vague jargon, projection, dismissiveness, evasiveness, sophistry... and was that even another (at least) couple appeal to nature fallacies too, one of which wrapped in one of the strawman arguments, offering a redundant subtly moved-goal post?
That's a hefty brandolini's-law workload to expand upon each fallacy (and malady) to offer counter-explanations and refutations to. So much so... I don't think we're going to make much progress here. Bowing out.
That was a lot of word salad with no citations. Good on you for maintaining how you move the goal posts. Its a certain level of ignorance to maintain that lifestyle. Good on you for commitment.
Both. Humans are animals, everything we do is natural.
That is completely incorrect. Operating a car is not natural, it is learned and a privilege. Flying a plane is not natural, it is earned, and heavily regulated which is why not everyone can be a pilot.
Even replying on here though a magic rock that somehow converse to any area of the earth, not natural.
You need to open a dictionary and start learning words. I hate to shit on you in a reddit behavior way, but you sound dillusional.
We're an animal using the skills our species is born with. If making a fire and boiling water is unnatural, so is foxes digging holes, leaf cutter ants farming mold, and woodpeckers drilling into trees.
You as a human are just as much of an animal as any of them and everything you evolved to do is natural. But at least you're a self righteous asshole, so you've got that going for you I guess.
It was never stated or implied that boiling water is unnatural. You're putting a notion in that was never there. Feel free to quote me where I said boiling water is unnatural.
A self righteous asshole with better reading comprehension than you have apparently.
So anyways, boiling a living creature ---> alive <---- is not a 'natural' thing in human nature.
There is some interesting evidence which suggests early humans and related species may have used naturally occurring hot springs to boil food, so it's not exactly out of the question. It's not DEFINITIVE by any means, but interesting.
https://www.sci.news/othersciences/anthropology/olduvai-gorge-hot-springs-08858.html
I'm not arguing that humans use boiling water to cook things. My argument is, and stands, that it not natural to take something living, and boil it alive.
That is interesting research though, thanks for the link.
Using boiling water to cook food is also natural.
Pardon me going a little off topic, but I can't get over how bad this sentence is.
Work on your writing next.
Is 'natural' in single quotes because you're using your own personal definition of 'natural'?
Looking at every other carnivore on the planet, I'd say that empathizing with our food is less 'natural' than killing it painfully.
That response was everything I needed to read to understand exactly how smooth your brain is. Good luck
That's fine, I'm still trying to figure out what you were trying to say with "putting a notion in". Is that an idiom somewhere? Maybe somewhere that doesn't speak English?
Maybe try using some AI software to ask it what it means, as reading comprehension is hard for you. Also, if you are going to paraphrase, you should do it correctly. Since you're changing the topic of the conversation to one regarding writing. Weak deflection, but youre trying none the less.
Smooooottthhh as ice.
Never heard the "Nothing unnatural exists" perspective asserted?
If doing naive realism (as certainly seems could be the case), that'd be wild to jump from one to the other. :)
As worth quibbling our way out of tautologies and naive realist definitions of "magic" as for "natural".
Half tempted to dispell the magic, and elaborate on the physics, chemistry, basics of hardware design, machine code, assembly, the various programming languages and their compilers, network infrastructure, packets, monitors, keyboards, ascii/utf8, font design (and accessibility interfaces), web protocols, federation, etc etc etc etc etc
Mhmm. Presumptive, arrogant, condescending, ad-hominem flinging... I wonder if there's some narcissism here, besides the smugnorance born of naive realism and wilful ignorance and lack of curiosity or humility. Could learn so much more, if took that plank out of your eye, rather than chastising others for what you presume in theirs.
Lord Vetinari in Unseen Academicals by Terry Pratchett
Lobsters only do that when locked in cages with eachother.
Animals tend to have incredibly efficient ways of murdering other animals.
Boiling to death is probably worse than being dismembered too.
Not so. They've been observed in the ocean doing that too. Though, I don't know enough about the particular conditions they need to be in before they start doing that, or stop. Presumably (plausibly, at least, as far as I have seen (~ or at least can remember at least half clearly)), this may only occur while they're crammed in a crevice, and while they're still young and soft enough.
Wat. How widespread is this perception?
I genuinely do not think people are thinking this thought experiment through...
In being dropped into boiling water, how long before the pain's so much it triggers the happy endorphins (if that even happens for lobsters as I hear it does for humans), and how long before death and the ordeal is over entirely [someone said 40 seconds, right?] ... compared to however many orders of magnitude longer, being eaten alive, having parts of you crushed, and gnawed on, and then other parts, and more... and no guarantee of an end any time soon, and quite plausibly suffering this from tail to head, for the longest time in the ordeal still alive for it... Chances are you may not even die by the claws and gnashers of the one (or several) eating you in that first round, and may go on to suffer, maybe even a fate of starvation eventually killing you. FAR more cruel. Surely. Or does someone have a counter proposal to what it's like, from how they conceive of the thought experiment?
Anyways, still, better we just "*bosh*" on the head, over in an instant.
And, sorry to say, but, from
Sounds like you've been "Disneyed". There are many a horrendous animal on animal killings that are FAR from "incredibly efficient". ... Honestly, I do not even want to start reiterating some of the stories. There's a lot of really gruesome suffering going on that goes not get anywhere near consideration for inclusion in nature documentaries. ... But just for a few hints... Bear fights(NSFW:"chunks",brutal,srsly). Shark bites. Large cats (for some reason) eating their prey from the back end while still alive (~ and they're said to be among the most efficient apex predators? When even they will simply wear the animal down...). Non predatory animals goring and galling threat risks and leaving them there. All the horrible things that can happen from various insects, spiders, snakes, etc. Komodo Dragons... that's "efficient", for the Komodo Dragon... just one bite then waits around for ages for you to die from the horrible parasitic bacteria in their mouth. Okay, I'm going to stop. This goes on and on and on and on. Humans, in media, with advertisers and bosses and careers and audiences and run-times and attention spans etc to consider, tend to depict animals dispatching other animals, biased to the "incredibly efficient" kills. That bias is misleading.
According to a quick search it said the dismembering is a thing which happens in captivity. Maybe sporadically in nature but not common.
You are severely underestimating the pain of heat. Hold your hand above the stove for 0.5 seconds or dip it in hot water very quickly and tell me how nice that was. 40 seconds of that is unbearable. Anything boiling or burning is probably the worst way to go.
Yes, that (
) would be very painful [and I do have a small burn on my thumb from when I slipped and rested the edge of a hot heavy tawa on it for a couple seconds a few days ago ~ so am quite aware], and far short of the burn euphoria one can toggle into when experiencing burns over (so an LLM tells me when I asked for the % since I didn't remember) 20% of the body (~ I could have swore it was more, over 60%). But like I think I alluded to somewhere at least once in this conversation, I don't know if lobsters have a similar flood of endorphins from vast coverage of their body in burns. But it's plausible. I don't know how deep in the evolutionary tree that started, or how consistent a convergent evolutionary trait it is. It's plausible that boiling lobsters could send them off in euphoria. Gets me wondering how this could be tested.
Burns can be biphasic. The dose makes the poison. But like with many a thing studied in toxicology, there may be an upper and lower phase with a middle sweet (or unsweet) spot. Could be that 100% is too much for the endorphins to ... catch up.
But again, I don't even know if lobsters have that at all.
True but crustaceans are pretty brutal and there are plenty of animals that don't wait until their prey is dead to start eating (Coconut crabs tick all those boxes). Boiling to death is defintely fucked up though.
Whataboutism
Because humanly killing them with a blade instead of boiling them alive is just too unreasonable!
(/s)