EPTEthics of dog meat? - Page 19
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Wolf
Korea (South)3290 Posts
| ||
|
SolonTLG
United States299 Posts
On April 15 2012 23:43 JingleHell wrote: Why should we care, though? It's logistically impossible to treat all animals as humans. Would you prefer for all the livestock to be killed off and wasted, or should we subsidize the upkeep of the animals without getting any use out of them? If you look at it reasonably, they can't be given sufficient legal rights to be anything but property, as they're incapable of meeting societally functional levels of legal responsibility. You can't evict them or make them pay rent in any way that wouldn't be considered unethical if they're treated as legal entities. Ethically, we either kill off entire species, or continue getting use out of them as under the current system. It's not perfect, but I can't see it being better to wipe them all out, and it's not really feasible to keep them around without taking advantage of animal products. We should care because animals are sentient beings. I disagree that it is impossible to treat all animals with respect, which means not killing them for our own pleasure. The vast majority of humans can survive perfectly well eating a plant-based diet (example: ME!). Since it is a CHOICE for humans to eat meat, then we must be doing it for pleasure at the expense of a sentient life. That is something I fundamentally disagree with and think should end. All domesticated animals can be kept as companions, including pigs, cows, and chickens. There is no need logically to "kill off" the entire species just because I don't choose to eat them. As the demand for meat slows, farms will slow the reproduction rate of these types of animals, so the needs to be no "kill off". In the end, the animal population will be smaller, but that might not be such as bad thing. | ||
|
absalom86
Iceland1770 Posts
That said, As long as the fur trade in Asia is going strong and dogs are being killed for their fur, I have no problem with the bodies being used as food instead of being discarded, although I do highly disagree with the fur trade overall. Where dog meat comes from is another question... Often it's stolen pets that end up as food for someone, othertimes it's the fur farms. Fur farm video ( NOT for the squeemish ) : | ||
|
dmfg
United Kingdom591 Posts
On April 15 2012 23:24 SolonTLG wrote: I agree, and argue the we SHOULD care about the feeling of all animals and thus NOT EAT ANY ANIMALS!!!! Furthermore, if you really care about animals, then don't eat eggs or dairy! These industries keep animals alive and torture them to feed humans! Example: Egg Laying Hens Suffer in Filth on Kreider Farms Go VEGAN 2012! There's no good reason to believe that animals of any kind "feel" anything, including pain. They are capable of sensing and producing stereotyped responses to damaging stimuli, but so are insects and I don't know of anyone who argues that insects should enjoy the same level of protection as other animals. They are capable of being trained to produce certain (potentially complex) responses to certain types of stimuli (such as dogs wagging their tails in response to recognising a certain person such their owner), but there is no evidence that there is consciousness involved, rather than a simply re-wiring of their brains in response to Pavlovian conditioning (on a similar level to a simple reflex) The only species we have reason to believe is capable of "conscious" thought, and hence feeling, is humans. And even then it's only because each individual person believes they are conscious, and is capable of directly and unambigiously communicating this fact to other humans. | ||
|
SolonTLG
United States299 Posts
On April 15 2012 23:53 Competent wrote: I am not okay with eating any animals in general. So, I would have to say that I am not okay with eating dogs... As a vegetarian working toward vegan... I fully support your work toward being vegan. It is nice to know there are others of us on TL!  | ||
|
dmfg
United Kingdom591 Posts
| ||
|
Competent
United States406 Posts
On April 15 2012 23:43 JingleHell wrote: Why should we care, though? It's logistically impossible to treat all animals as humans. Would you prefer for all the livestock to be killed off and wasted, or should we subsidize the upkeep of the animals without getting any use out of them? If you look at it reasonably, they can't be given sufficient legal rights to be anything but property, as they're incapable of meeting societally functional levels of legal responsibility. You can't evict them or make them pay rent in any way that wouldn't be considered unethical if they're treated as legal entities. Ethically, we either kill off entire species, or continue getting use out of them as under the current system. It's not perfect, but I can't see it being better to wipe them all out, and it's not really feasible to keep them around without taking advantage of animal products. Wow, what an incredibly stupid and unlettered post. Might I suggest reading a book? On April 16 2012 00:29 dmfg wrote: There's no good reason to believe that animals of any kind "feel" anything, including pain. They are capable of sensing and producing stereotyped responses to damaging stimuli, but so are insects and I don't know of anyone who argues that insects should enjoy the same level of protection as other animals. They are capable of being trained to produce certain (potentially complex) responses to certain types of stimuli (such as dogs wagging their tails in response to recognising a certain person such their owner), but there is no evidence that there is consciousness involved, rather than a simply re-wiring of their brains in response to Pavlovian conditioning (on a similar level to a simple reflex) The only species we have reason to believe is capable of "conscious" thought, and hence feeling, is humans. And even then it's only because each individual person believes they are conscious, and is capable of directly and unambigiously communicating this fact to other humans. There is very good reason. Considering that there is no reason to assume us humans are not animals as well and that we can suffer because of our nervous system. Other animals--like us--have nervous systems--like ours--and thus the only reasonable conclusion is they can feel pain--like us. Granted the pain that they feel might not be as intense, and will surely degrade as we travel down the chain of species with less developed nervous systems, this doesn't mean it shouldn't be acknowledged. Obviously there might be situations in a world where no one consumed meat that might cause problems, and obviously those would have to be dealt with. The issue, though, is that I don't think those problems will be as bad as the current problems. 90 billion animals in circulation to be killed, means a lot of suffering and a lot of environmental damage. This is evident. | ||
|
Stratos
Czech Republic6104 Posts
| ||
|
tMomiji
United States1115 Posts
| ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On April 16 2012 00:28 SolonTLG wrote: We should care because animals are sentient beings. I disagree that it is impossible to treat all animals with respect, which means not killing them for our own pleasure. The vast majority of humans can survive perfectly well eating a plant-based diet (example: ME!). Since it is a CHOICE for humans to eat meat, then we must be doing it for pleasure at the expense of a sentient life. That is something I fundamentally disagree with and think should end. All domesticated animals can be kept as companions, including pigs, cows, and chickens. There is no need logically to "kill off" the entire species just because I don't choose to eat them. As the demand for meat slows, farms will slow the reproduction rate of these types of animals, so the needs to be no "kill off". In the end, the animal population will be smaller, but that might not be such as bad thing. Depending on which definition of "sentient" you use, you're either not going to be able to prove it, or you're ignoring the fact that plants can also have a measure of sentience. If you're going by self-awareness, we don't know if all animals ARE self-aware, and if you're going by capacity for sensation, many plants react to stimuli in a way that would suggest just such a thing. In other words, what makes a plant less valuable than an animal, by your logic? You can't say we shouldn't kill animals because it's cruel and then discuss keeping them as pets. Keeping them as pets implies bending them to our will, a form of slavery, if you will. Unless they're free to wander, at which point they're capable of trespass and property damage. Do we incarcerate them at this point? They can't have rights as a legal entity without responsibility as one. | ||
|
SolonTLG
United States299 Posts
On April 16 2012 00:29 dmfg wrote: There's no good reason to believe that animals of any kind "feel" anything, including pain. They are capable of sensing and producing stereotyped responses to damaging stimuli, but so are insects and I don't know of anyone who argues that insects should enjoy the same level of protection as other animals. They are capable of being trained to produce certain (potentially complex) responses to certain types of stimuli (such as dogs wagging their tails in response to recognising a certain person such their owner), but there is no evidence that there is consciousness involved, rather than a simply re-wiring of their brains in response to Pavlovian conditioning (on a similar level to a simple reflex) The only species we have reason to believe is capable of "conscious" thought, and hence feeling, is humans. And even then it's only because each individual person believes they are conscious, and is capable of directly and unambigiously communicating this fact to other humans. Serious question: have you ever lived with an animal (dog/cat/etc.)? If so, I think you would notice that each animal has its own personality. A personality based on nature and nurture, just like humans! I have seen my dogs do crazy smart things. They have figured out, WITHOUT training, how to open doors, steal food, and even try to disguise their stealing of food! Animals absolutely have conscious thought! | ||
|
BerserKr
Chile101 Posts
| ||
|
AgentChaos
United Kingdom4569 Posts
would try if i have the chance in fact | ||
|
Patriot.dlk
Sweden5462 Posts
For me personally I have tried it and I liked the dish but I was unaware that it was dog. I would never go for dog if I have alternatives such as for example chicken | ||
|
absalom86
Iceland1770 Posts
On April 16 2012 00:41 BerserKr wrote: Please stop derrailing the thread into things such as categorizing animals from your point of view, and skin farms. The thread has a specific subject "the ethics and viewpoints of the consumption of an animal that is widely regarded as something we care for and respect", imposing your alimentary thoughts down other people's throats and going on and making a list (...?) of animals as in how important they are is absurd, same as skin farms, its a completley out of the subject discussion. When you are talking about ethics and the history of human development along with dogs, I don't see how you can actually distinguish between the two. They are intertwined. | ||
|
SolonTLG
United States299 Posts
On April 16 2012 00:39 JingleHell wrote: Depending on which definition of "sentient" you use, you're either not going to be able to prove it, or you're ignoring the fact that plants can also have a measure of sentience. If you're going by self-awareness, we don't know if all animals ARE self-aware, and if you're going by capacity for sensation, many plants react to stimuli in a way that would suggest just such a thing. In other words, what makes a plant less valuable than an animal, by your logic? You can't say we shouldn't kill animals because it's cruel and then discuss keeping them as pets. Keeping them as pets implies bending them to our will, a form of slavery, if you will. Unless they're free to wander, at which point they're capable of trespass and property damage. Do we incarcerate them at this point? They can't have rights as a legal entity without responsibility as one. Wait, your best response is that plants are "sentient" under some weird definition of sentience? I think that we can all agree that plants are entirely different from animals, and we are talking about animals here. The weakness of your defense shows itself! With regards to the "pet" thing, I don't have pets, I have companion animals that I care for just like I would a child. They are my responsibility, not my "slave", because I choose that burden for myself. I feed my dogs good food, play with and teach them, and provide medical care. As I would my own child. Humans CHOSE to domestic animals, and thus all domesticated animals are our responsibility, not our slaves. | ||
|
najreteip
Belgium4158 Posts
On April 16 2012 00:27 Wolf wrote: It didn't taste very good to me. Makes sense, it's almost cannibalism for you | ||
|
BerserKr
Chile101 Posts
On April 16 2012 00:46 absalom86 wrote: When you are talking about ethics and the history of human development along with dogs, I don't see how you can actually distinguish between the two. They are intertwined. You can make a relation between why could it be wrong to consume the meat relating it to the bonds we've created with the animal in question, but always sticking to the thread, tell me whats the relation between a subjective categorization of animals and a fur farm, with the ethics of consuming dog meat. | ||
|
absalom86
Iceland1770 Posts
On April 16 2012 00:29 dmfg wrote: There's no good reason to believe that animals of any kind "feel" anything, including pain. They are capable of sensing and producing stereotyped responses to damaging stimuli, but so are insects and I don't know of anyone who argues that insects should enjoy the same level of protection as other animals. They are capable of being trained to produce certain (potentially complex) responses to certain types of stimuli (such as dogs wagging their tails in response to recognising a certain person such their owner), but there is no evidence that there is consciousness involved, rather than a simply re-wiring of their brains in response to Pavlovian conditioning (on a similar level to a simple reflex) The only species we have reason to believe is capable of "conscious" thought, and hence feeling, is humans. And even then it's only because each individual person believes they are conscious, and is capable of directly and unambigiously communicating this fact to other humans. This post is pretty crazy. Are you arguing that no animals can have feelings ? You do realize that we humans are animals as well correct ? Socially dogs are more intelligent than chimpanzees and other animals have empathy as well. I'm guessing a lot of people here either think only in terms of brutal efficiency or have never been around animals. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On April 16 2012 00:47 SolonTLG wrote: Wait, your best response is that plants are "sentient" under some weird definition of sentience? I think that we can all agree that plants are entirely different from animals, and we are talking about animals here. The weakness of your defense shows itself! With regards to the "pet" thing, I don't have pets, I have companion animals that I care for just like I would a child. They are my responsibility, not my "slave", because I choose that burden for myself. I feed my dogs good food, plays, teach, and give medical care to. As I would a child. Humans CHOSE to domestic animals, and thus all domesticated animals are our responsibility, not our slaves. sen·tient [sen-shuhnt] Show IPA adjective 1. having the power of perception by the senses; conscious. That's not a weird definition of sentience. Perception by the senses, or conscious. Plants can perceive things via senses, a good example would be a venus flytrap, which uses sensation to respond to the stimulus of a bug landing on it to close and eat it. Consciousness, well, I'm not entirely qualified on that one, but I'd bet there's some hefty studies. As for "pets vs slaves", if you're keeping it against it's will, regardless of how much you take care of it, or your use, it's still a slave. Back when human slavery was legal, slaves were treated as livestock, with the owner responsible for the medical well-being of their valuable property. If someone treated their slaves better, with decent food and medicine, to make them more productive, did that change the nature of them being kept? | ||
| ||
