CreateDebate


Debate Info

25
34
Yes, this pratice is immoral. No, I reject the resolution.
Debate Score:59
Arguments:56
Total Votes:66
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes, this pratice is immoral. (23)
 
 No, I reject the resolution. (30)

Debate Creator

vegan(77) pic



It is immoral for humans to raise bees and steal their honey.

Bees are born into slavery and work very hard to produce honey. Then gigantic humans smoke the bees and steal their honey. Is this immoral?

Yes, this pratice is immoral.

Side Score: 25
VS.

No, I reject the resolution.

Side Score: 34
2 points

Stealing from sentient beings is wrong.

Humans are sentient beings.

Bees are sentient beings.

Side: Yes, this pratice is immoral.
Jace(4706) Disputed
1 point

Stealing from sentient beings is wrong.

Why.

Side: No, I reject the resolution.
vegan(77) Disputed
1 point

Nobody wants to be stolen from. This is a universal concept.

Side: Yes, this pratice is immoral.
SlapShot(2607) Disputed
0 points

Well, it's a good thing that bees are not considered sentient beings. We consider sentient creatures to be those who have evolved to the level where they are imbued with self-awareness (consciousness) and emotions. Like us!

And although bees have indeed shown us to posses keen levels or planning and organization abilities--for insects, that is--they do NOT have those requisite traits that define "sentience."

So we can use their honey all we want. I love honey, it is a super food. I use it ALWAYS in place of refined sugar--on my cereal, in my coffee and tea, on a banana for a quick snack, or best of all, on a peanut butter and honey sandwich on whole wheat bread. My favorite sandwich ever!

The bees don't need all the honey they make. Far from it. Raising them and breeding them and using their produced honey from the natural combs does not harm then in any way. I was afraid for awhile that honey prices were going to skyrocket due to the disorder that was eradicating much of their colonies over the past several years here in the US. But..thanks to biologists like us, we have gotten the problem under control and the colonies should be back to their pre-2008 level in a couple years or so.

We called this "CCD" for Colony Collapse Disorder.

Please note: CCD was NOT caused by man, or pesticides, as many people first thought. (those laymen outside of the entomology/biology disciplines.) Rather, we think the problem was due to a mite infestation, or even a genetic abberration in some of the western honeybees.

BUT...man fixed it. You're welcome. LOL

Oh..here is the true def. of "sentient" in case you doubt me..........

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sentient

And here is a science article that backs what I say about the bees not needing that excess honey.

http://grist.org/food/when-i-eat-honey-do-i-hurt-bees/

SO...I effectively defined "sentient" and then I provided a credible source showing no harm is done to the bees. I am now wondering how you're gonna come back at me and accuse me of failing to answer the question--or "word fencing" as you usually do. LOL But please feel free, I have more info and sources supporting my claims and definitions if you insist.

Side: No, I reject the resolution.
vegan(77) Disputed
2 points

"Well, it's a good thing that bees are not considered sentient beings. " SlapShot

Bees are sentient. By the definition you supplied bees have perception by the senses. Antenna and eyes just for starters. Copied from another post of mine.

"After 2,500 Studies, It's Time to Declare Animal Sentience Proven"

1

"The head houses the brain, a collection of about 950,000 neurons. These neurons are specialized"

2

"The bees passed with flying colors, heading straight for the pattern that matched what they saw at the entrance. Moreover, other experiments revealed that the insects could even transfer their knowledge across the senses"

3

"Honeybees, we can probably assume, are not among the world's greatest thinkers. But they are capable of a surprising degree of higher cognitive function"

4

I have supplied evidence that bees are indeed sentient.

"And although bees have indeed shown us to posses keen levels or planning and organization abilities--for insects, that is--they do NOT have those requisite traits that define "sentience."" SlapShot

What animals are considered sentient by you then?

"I love honey, it is a super food." Slapshot

What do you base your claim that honey is a super food on?

"The bees don't need all the honey they make. Far from it. Raising them and breeding them and using their produced honey from the natural combs does not harm then in any way." Slapshot

I've heard that bees are often fed sugar water in lieu of honey. The bees are smoked and then gigantic humans crush some of them when moving the honey combs.

"The easiest way I have found to feed my bees is to use sugar syrup – sugar water is mixed in differing ratios depending on how it is used. Typically I mix 1:1 but sometimes I use a 2:1 ratio to make a thicker syrup. The water has to be fanned out of the mixture for the bees to turn it to sugar – so a thinner mix is harder on the bees in humid weather."

5

"Rather, we think the problem was due to a mite infestation, or even a genetic abberration in some of the western honeybees."

Perhaps the mite infestation was caused by keeping bees too close together in commercial bee farms. The genetic aberration may have been caused by DNA damage which in turn was caused by made-made carcinogens.

This sounds like too many bees "So you want to be a full-time commercial beekeeper and keep 1,000 colonies or more."

6

"LOL But please feel free, I have more info and sources supporting my claims and definitions if you insist." Slapshot

Good, bring it on.

Sentient

Side: Yes, this pratice is immoral.
1 point

This is a pretty stupid discussion, but I will add this....

Do you know why they call them "bees"?

It's because if you leave them be, they will leave you be.

Side: Yes, this pratice is immoral.
SlapShot(2607) Disputed
0 points

Actually, no.

Again, as a Biologist I cannot let this error pass.

Here is the correct etymology of the word "bee".......

BEE (n)---

stinging insect, Old English beo "bee," from Proto-Germanic bion (cognates: Old Norse by, Old High German bia, Middle Dutch bie), possibly from PIE root bhi- "quiver." Used metaphorically for "busy worker" since 1530s.

Sense of "meeting of neighbors to unite their labor for the benefit of one of their number," 1769, American English, probably is from comparison to the social activity of the insect; this was extended to other senses (such as spelling bee, first attested 1809; Raising-bee (1814) for building construction; also hanging bee "a lynching"). To have a bee in (one's) bonnet (1825), said of one who is harebrained or has an intense new notion or fancy, is said in Jamieson to be Scottish, perhaps from earlier expressions such as head full of bees (1510s), denoting mad mental activity.

Side: No, I reject the resolution.
3 points

I define immoral as "the intentional causing of unnecessary suffering."

With that in mind, I reject the resolution as insects are incapable of suffering.

Side: No, I reject the resolution.
vegan(77) Disputed
1 point

Then you are in the scienfic minority. Here is scientific evidence that proves that insects, including bees, are capable of suffering.

"After 2,500 Studies, It's Time to Declare Animal Sentience Proven" 1

"The head houses the brain, a collection of about 950,000 neurons. These neurons are specialized"

2

"The bees passed with flying colors, heading straight for the pattern that matched what they saw at the entrance. Moreover, other experiments revealed that the insects could even transfer their knowledge across the senses"

3

"Honeybees, we can probably assume, are not among the world's greatest thinkers. But they are capable of a surprising degree of higher cognitive function"

4

Struggle as much as you need against the scienfic evidence.

Side: Yes, this pratice is immoral.
Stryker(849) Disputed
2 points

None of the four links provided attempt to claim bees are capable of suffering.

Please try again.

Side: No, I reject the resolution.
Jace(4706) Disputed
1 point

I define immoral as "the intentional causing of unnecessary suffering."

Why is this definition valid?

Side: No, I reject the resolution.

I don't mean this to be deflection, but I want to ask a question before responding to this: What is your opinion on human labor, particularly within a capitalist system? Do you feel just as strongly by those who suffer from what Marx referred to as alienation, particularly when it results from insufficient recompense for labor?

Side: No, I reject the resolution.
vegan(77) Disputed
1 point

I don't know much about Karl Marx's theories. I'm not really sure what alienation means. Yet, I'll take a stab based upon insufficient recompense for labor.

In my opinion there is a large difference between insufficient recompense for labor and slavery. The term wage debt slaves have been thrown around. Yet, freedom and liberty don't mean absolute freedom. For example, you can't go around killing people arbitrarily. Officers of the law will pursue you.

For example if you look at the definition of

slave

Specifically " noun

1.

a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant.

"

Somebody who is simply underpaid does not fit the description of a slave. That person can switch jobs or simply quit and walk away. The person might feel they are a slave, but that's different from physically being a slave.

Let's take the example of an underpaid Walmart employee. That person has $40k in student debts and another $20k in other debts. This is not a slave. Just for starters that person could move to another state and work a different job.

Yet, a bee doesn't have that option. Humans literally have enslaved the queen bee. The entire colony has no freedom. They cannot simply fly to another state and start a new career. The same can be said of other farm yard animals.

Maybe even more importantly is the entire generation after generation. A bee colony might seem to have little freedom within a generation. Yet, the following generation can move to a new location. Humans have stripped that freedom from farm bees.

As a society we treat our worst criminals with far more respect than we do bees and other farm animals. I hope that answers your question.

Side: Yes, this pratice is immoral.
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

It didn't answer anything. He asked how you feel about humans and you told him how you feel about bees.

Side: No, I reject the resolution.
GenericName(3429) Clarified
1 point

Take the second part, "wholly subject to another". When someone must rely upon an incredibly low paying job offered by another because they have literally no other options around them nor the means to move, they are indeed wholly subject to another person. And that is just talking about this country, let alone the products imported from the third world which are often made by people who are much closer to what you consider slaves. If you hold this stance for non-human animals, do you also refuse to purchase anything made from slave labor (and its equivalent) when humans are involved?

Side: Yes, this pratice is immoral.
1 point

After reviewing the evidence;

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0389790/

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/bee_movie/

I reject your proposal.

Your stance is hyperbolic.

Seriously though the relationship bees have with many apiaries is symbiotic. Those bees benefit by having a constant place to stay that is pest free. When a honey comb is harvested the bees still have a safe place to live. In the wild this is not necessarily so and the survival of the colony depends on having shelter. The colonies suffer much fewer losses with beekeepers too because they are driven away with smoke rather than dying in a futile attack with a bear for instance.

Apiaries are a good resource for food stability. With the currently declining numbers of pollinators worldwide we should be trying to increase our number of bees we currently keep.

Side: No, I reject the resolution.
vegan(77) Disputed
1 point

J-Roc77,

I find your reasoning unsatisfactory. Yes, there is less natural predators, but the same could be said for other farm animals and even humans. Let's take factory farmed chickens for example. The same could be said for those chickens. That factory farms and chickens have a symbiotic relationship. That factory farm chickens are given a safe place to live, and so forth.

Cattle and factory farms have a symbiotic relationship, and so forth. Now to get to why your statement is seriously flawed. What's to stop an oppressor from raising humans in the same conditions? How about a human organ farm? A new pair of kidneys sells for a lot on the black market these days.

Those humans would have a symbiotic relationship with their home and slavers. In the wild human survival relies upon shelter and avoiding predators. I contend that your reasoning J-Roc77 sets a dangerous precedence.

Side: Yes, this pratice is immoral.
J-Roc77(70) Disputed
1 point

Yes, there is less natural predators, but the same could be said for other farm animals and even humans... chickens for example. The same could be said for those chickens...Cattle and factory farms have a symbiotic relationship, and so forth.

To varying degrees, the comparisons are not apples to apples so to speak. Well obviously they aren't bee to bee either they are bee to chicken and cow. You do not demonstrate that bees treatment are similar to either chickens or cattle.

Neither chickens nor cows are declining in numbers worldwide nor do they have the importance of being pollinators. Bees are not harvested for their flesh, they aren't fed to be fat on a diet that is unhealthy and so on.

How about a human organ farm?

So you don't show how the treatment of bees differs from cows and chickens and now you go straight to comparing bees with humans. I mean not only a comparison to humans but a human organ farm. Remember when I said your stance is hyperbolic? It isn't helping your case.

Your comparisons don't match up and are just petitions of principle.

If you really cared for humans or people really why would you not want bees being kept? I noted that bees are declining in the wild, why should we not have more safe places for bees due to their huge importance in pollination? Being pollinators benefits more than just humans too you know.

What's to stop an oppressor from raising humans in the same conditions?

You mean a steady home for the fruits of your labor?

Side: No, I reject the resolution.
1 point

We should continue to exploit them until they object. The bees have no quarrel with us taking their honey. And anyway it's a symbyotic relationship. We keep them from predators and provide a good source of nectar for them. True that is for producing honey for our own ends but it also benefits them. Everybody is happy. In any case, it's not as if they don't know if they are oppressed because they are animals and animals are not sentient beings! Also, animals are not homosexual unlike Cartman would have you believe. He is wrong. Also, in case he thinks this is backside gossipping, it is not! I LOUDLY DEMAND THAT HE RESPOND TO THIS IS HE WANTS TO AS EVIDENCED BY THE CAPITALIZATION OF THIS SENTENCE! I will fight any fool dum enough to disagree with me. (No offense)

Side: No, I reject the resolution.
1-26-14-25(87) Clarified Banned
1 point

If. I meant to write IF but it came out as IS

THIS IS NOT A DUMB JOKE

THIS IS NOT A DUMB JOKE

THIS IS NOT A DUMB JOKE

THIS IS NOT A DUMB JOKE

THIS IS NOT A DUMB JOKE

Side: Yes, this pratice is immoral.
1 point

I think you have been stealing the bees and smoking their honey, and a cheeseburger would be good for you.

Side: No, I reject the resolution.

As a former beekeeper myself, I must say that we don't smoke them when we harvest the honey. Smoking works because the bees think there is a fire and gorge themselves on honey to carry with them as they escape the fire. When they are so busy and full they are less likely to sting me. Needless to say, I don't what they eating all their honey when I go to harvest it. I use a special repellent to chase them out of the honey surplus boxes before I take them away.

Side: No, I reject the resolution.