|
On April 16 2012 00:51 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2012 00:47 SolonTLG wrote:On April 16 2012 00:39 JingleHell wrote:On April 16 2012 00:28 SolonTLG wrote:On April 15 2012 23:43 JingleHell wrote:On April 15 2012 23:24 SolonTLG wrote:On April 15 2012 23:17 Nevermind86 wrote:On April 15 2012 08:52 Redox wrote:
Dogs are highly social animals. They have not been bred to live under the conditions of mass livestock farming. They just go mad if kept under certain conditions, it is animal cruelty.
One just has to look up certain videos from China to know what is the problem with farming dogs.
Really, now society cares about the feelings of the animals we eat?, it's total nonsense you either care about ALL of them or none of them and since nobody really cares about chicken's or pig's feelings, then why would dogs be any different? Chickens are social animals too man but at the end of the day it's just meat, period. Dogs don't care about the feelings of the animals they eat, why would we care for their feelings? 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! 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. 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, 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?
The "consciousness" part is key. It is not reasonable to argue that plants have consciousness, while it is completely reasonable to argue that animals have consciousness. Stop relying on the "plants" argument this is a discussion about animals.
My dogs are NOT slaves because I do not extract labor from them, like one would a slave. I feed, house, and care for them regardless.
|
On April 15 2012 09:33 OptimusYale wrote:
Its delicious!
I don't care how its prepared, I don't care what animal it is, I will eat it at least once
and I've eaten dog twice...not a single fuck was given
As for the morals...we are omnivores, basically we're designed to eat anything in a survival situation...and if you are like 'awwwww that animals cute' in a survival situation then you deserve to die....the only difference between survival and eating normally is that we can 'choose' different foods to eat...but it's less morals and people just thinking 'awww but they're so cute'
I guess that means you would eat homo sapiens as well ?
One question for the brutal efficiency type of answers a lot of people are giving. Why do we bury our dead instead of serving them for dinner ? It would certainly lessen the demand for food in the world if we could recycle human beings.
Mind you I want serious answers to the question, as I am genuinely curious as to what the " meat is meat " people think on this subject.
|
Alright, this is my opinion. Now, I've had dogs as pets. I grew up with a pit bull and I am currently living with a husky. I have a fondness for cats as well.
I do not believe it is unethical to eat dog meat, no more than any other animal currently being eaten by the Western world. I would find it incredibly disturbing to eat the meat of a dog I helped raise, however, simply because it was 'family' and we don't eat our own. We just don't.
On the other hand, a dog is not a human. A dog is a dog. If my dog went against all of my training and decided to hurt another human, that dog would be put down, family or no.
|
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.
they are 'cared for and respected' for a reason and that reason happens to be: 'because they're important to us'.
|
On April 16 2012 00:40 SolonTLG wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2012 00:29 dmfg wrote:On April 15 2012 23:24 SolonTLG wrote:On April 15 2012 23:17 Nevermind86 wrote:On April 15 2012 08:52 Redox wrote:
Dogs are highly social animals. They have not been bred to live under the conditions of mass livestock farming. They just go mad if kept under certain conditions, it is animal cruelty.
One just has to look up certain videos from China to know what is the problem with farming dogs.
Really, now society cares about the feelings of the animals we eat?, it's total nonsense you either care about ALL of them or none of them and since nobody really cares about chicken's or pig's feelings, then why would dogs be any different? Chickens are social animals too man but at the end of the day it's just meat, period. Dogs don't care about the feelings of the animals they eat, why would we care for their feelings? 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. 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!
My mother kept a lot of cats, dogs and chickens, though I wasn't particularly attached to them. My view of this subject is mostly based on neurobiology rather than my interpretations of what my mum's menagerie were doing.
Thing is, there's a separation between "consciousness" and "problem solving ability", and one does not necessarily imply the other. You could write a computer program that could solve incredibly complex problems, even in ways that seem innovative to an observer who is unaware of how it works, but a computer program doesn't have "consciousness".
Here's the thing - what you really want to do, is to be able to ask your dog "are you conscious of self?" "do you feel pain?" "do you love your owner?" etc. The problem is, we are not able to teach dogs concepts at this level - we're only really able to train them that if they receive X stimulus, and perform Y action, they are rewarded.
So we're not able to communicate with animals on a (scientifically) meaningful level, and instead we're forced to interpret their responses through our own expectations of what those responses mean. This is a pretty reasonable thing to do for humans communicating with humans, since you can put yourself in the other person's shoes and think "if I did that, it would mean ...", and reasonably expect it to be true since our brains are sufficiently similar.
The problem is when we're forced to do that with animals. Then we're forcing human thinking onto an animal's actions - "if I were my dog doing X, that means I'd be thinking Y". It's not necessarily a valid step to take.
Animal nervous systems are wired up rather differently to ours, with proportionally much more of their actions dependent on simple reflexes compared to humans whose brains can directly control limb actions. You've probably heard about the chicken that had its head and most of its brain cut off and survived for 9 months, able to carry out most activities of living such as walking, running, digestion, pooing, etc. Experiments on decerebrate cats shows that cats are also able to walk and adjust their speed without the part of the brain thought to be important for conscious thought.
In essence, don't underestimate just how much is possible without conscious thought - even complex, coordinated movements in response to a changing stimulus are possible. Now that's not evidence that animals lack consciousness. It's just a caution against what evidence there is to suggest they do have consciousness.
|
Any argumet about sentience and consciousness is silly.
Animals are alive, plants are alive. We kill and eat them both and there really is no difference between them when it comes to our guilt. To believe that there is this heirarchy of some living things being more living or less living than other living things is just silly.
|
On April 16 2012 01:01 SolonTLG wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2012 00:51 JingleHell wrote:On April 16 2012 00:47 SolonTLG wrote:On April 16 2012 00:39 JingleHell wrote:On April 16 2012 00:28 SolonTLG wrote:On April 15 2012 23:43 JingleHell wrote:On April 15 2012 23:24 SolonTLG wrote:On April 15 2012 23:17 Nevermind86 wrote:On April 15 2012 08:52 Redox wrote:
Dogs are highly social animals. They have not been bred to live under the conditions of mass livestock farming. They just go mad if kept under certain conditions, it is animal cruelty.
One just has to look up certain videos from China to know what is the problem with farming dogs.
Really, now society cares about the feelings of the animals we eat?, it's total nonsense you either care about ALL of them or none of them and since nobody really cares about chicken's or pig's feelings, then why would dogs be any different? Chickens are social animals too man but at the end of the day it's just meat, period. Dogs don't care about the feelings of the animals they eat, why would we care for their feelings? 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! 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. 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, 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? The "consciousness" part is key. It is not reasonable to argue that plants have consciousness, while it is completely reasonable to argue that animals have consciousness. Stop relying on the "plants" argument this is a discussion about animals. My dogs are NOT slaves because I do not extract labor from them, like one would a slave. I feed, house, and care for them regardless.
How do you prove consciousness, exactly? Hell, science is still having epic trouble determining when to treat humans as conscious and legal entities, so how do we do it with animals?
Just because you dislike the plants argument doesn't make it invalid. If there's something demonstrably wrong with that argument, please feel free to show me empirical evidence. Either we do or do not have the right to exploit other life for our own well-being.
Also, you say your pets aren't slaves because you don't extract labor from them. Slavery isn't about the use, it's about the ownership. Or is it ok to own a person as long as you only make them do things you assume they like?
|
On April 16 2012 00:40 SolonTLG wrote:
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!
Dude I've had dogs, I loved my dog from when I was a kid, I have a cat right now, I've had fishes and birds. But do you realize that dogs are a very low life form? at the end of the day the strong eat the weak and we're on top of the food chain it's only natural to eat dogs.
|
On April 16 2012 00:51 absalom86 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2012 00:29 dmfg wrote:On April 15 2012 23:24 SolonTLG wrote:On April 15 2012 23:17 Nevermind86 wrote:On April 15 2012 08:52 Redox wrote:
Dogs are highly social animals. They have not been bred to live under the conditions of mass livestock farming. They just go mad if kept under certain conditions, it is animal cruelty.
One just has to look up certain videos from China to know what is the problem with farming dogs.
Really, now society cares about the feelings of the animals we eat?, it's total nonsense you either care about ALL of them or none of them and since nobody really cares about chicken's or pig's feelings, then why would dogs be any different? Chickens are social animals too man but at the end of the day it's just meat, period. Dogs don't care about the feelings of the animals they eat, why would we care for their feelings? 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. 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.
I'm not arguing that "no animals can have feelings". I'm arguing that there is no scientific evidence that they do have feelings.
Social intelligence is not the same thing as feelings. Dogs are certainly capable of exhibiting behaviour that, if seen in humans, would be interpreted as love. But we cannot know whether this behaviour is because
- their brains connections changed so that absence of the other organism results in release of chemicals associated with a negative outcome, or
- they actually feel love for the other organism
I guess you can believe whichever you want and noone can really call you out on it. Personally I believe the evidence favours the first explanation.
|
On April 16 2012 01:06 dmfg wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2012 00:40 SolonTLG wrote:On April 16 2012 00:29 dmfg wrote:On April 15 2012 23:24 SolonTLG wrote:On April 15 2012 23:17 Nevermind86 wrote:On April 15 2012 08:52 Redox wrote:
Dogs are highly social animals. They have not been bred to live under the conditions of mass livestock farming. They just go mad if kept under certain conditions, it is animal cruelty.
One just has to look up certain videos from China to know what is the problem with farming dogs.
Really, now society cares about the feelings of the animals we eat?, it's total nonsense you either care about ALL of them or none of them and since nobody really cares about chicken's or pig's feelings, then why would dogs be any different? Chickens are social animals too man but at the end of the day it's just meat, period. Dogs don't care about the feelings of the animals they eat, why would we care for their feelings? 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. 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! My mother kept a lot of cats, dogs and chickens, though I wasn't particularly attached to them. My view of this subject is mostly based on neurobiology rather than my interpretations of what my mum's menagerie were doing. Thing is, there's a separation between "consciousness" and "problem solving ability", and one does not necessarily imply the other. You could write a computer program that could solve incredibly complex problems, even in ways that seem innovative to an observer who is unaware of how it works, but a computer program doesn't have "consciousness". Here's the thing - what you really want to do, is to be able to ask your dog "are you conscious of self?" "do you feel pain?" "do you love your owner?" etc. The problem is, we are not able to teach dogs concepts at this level - we're only really able to train them that if they receive X stimulus, and perform Y action, they are rewarded. So we're not able to communicate with animals on a (scientifically) meaningful level, and instead we're forced to interpret their responses through our own expectations of what those responses mean. This is a pretty reasonable thing to do for humans communicating with humans, since you can put yourself in the other person's shoes and think "if I did that, it would mean ...", and reasonably expect it to be true since our brains are sufficiently similar. The problem is when we're forced to do that with animals. Then we're forcing human thinking onto an animal's actions - "if I were my dog doing X, that means I'd be thinking Y". It's not necessarily a valid step to take. Animal nervous systems are wired up rather differently to ours, with proportionally much more of their actions dependent on simple reflexes compared to humans whose brains can directly control limb actions. You've probably heard about the chicken that had its head and most of its brain cut off and survived for 9 months, able to carry out most activities of living such as walking, running, digestion, pooing, etc. Experiments on decerebrate cats shows that cats are also able to walk and adjust their speed without the part of the brain thought to be important for conscious thought. In essence, don't underestimate just how much is possible without conscious thought - even complex, coordinated movements in response to a changing stimulus are possible. Now that's not evidence that animals lack consciousness. It's just a caution against what evidence there is to suggest they do have consciousness.
I appreciate your well written and thoughtful reply, but I just disagree. It seems to me the problem is that you cannot prove that animals are NOT consciousness. I have to think (from my experiences) and believe (from what I've read) that animals are conscious, and thus I don't want to kill them for food. You can disagree, but it appears that no one can "conclusively" prove it either way. Wouldn't you want to error on the side of caution and not eat animals? Despite no "proof"?
|
On the subject of cannibalism - one of the very reasons we don't 'recycle' our dead is because of kuru.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0002355/
"Kuru
Kuru is a disease of the nervous system.
Causes, incidence, and risk factors
Kuru is a very rare disease. It is caused by an infectious protein (prion) found in contaminated human brain tissue."
Hard science. Kuru is essentially BSE for humans, resulting in death. Then you might say, well, don't eat their brains, then! It's only rare now because we've stopped eating our own. We can assume, perhaps, that Kuru has died out with the last of the New Guinea people that it killed, but maybe it didn't, and perhaps we would suffer another outbreak if we started eating our own again.
Of course, that's just an argument for those that would ignore the ethical reasons for not eating humans.
Regardless, absalome86, you've pulled us off topic. Dog =/= human, and we are not discussing the consumption of humans.
|
On April 16 2012 00:51 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2012 00:47 SolonTLG wrote:On April 16 2012 00:39 JingleHell wrote:On April 16 2012 00:28 SolonTLG wrote:On April 15 2012 23:43 JingleHell wrote:On April 15 2012 23:24 SolonTLG wrote:On April 15 2012 23:17 Nevermind86 wrote:On April 15 2012 08:52 Redox wrote:
Dogs are highly social animals. They have not been bred to live under the conditions of mass livestock farming. They just go mad if kept under certain conditions, it is animal cruelty.
One just has to look up certain videos from China to know what is the problem with farming dogs.
Really, now society cares about the feelings of the animals we eat?, it's total nonsense you either care about ALL of them or none of them and since nobody really cares about chicken's or pig's feelings, then why would dogs be any different? Chickens are social animals too man but at the end of the day it's just meat, period. Dogs don't care about the feelings of the animals they eat, why would we care for their feelings? 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! 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. 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, 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?
I don't think you're correct in your interpretation of that definition of "sentience". You need to consider the word "perception". Is it accurate to say that plants "perceive" via their senses? They might respond to sensory stimuli, as in your example, but there is a clear difference between responding to sensory input and perceiving sensory input. I don't think you can just randomly presume an alternate meaning of "perception". A Venus Flytrap responding automatically to a stimulus is not a clear example of perception, consciousness, or sentience.
Since you're pretty familiar with the dictionary, you probably know that "perception" entails consciousness. Perception (Perceive) 1) a: to attain awareness or understanding of; b: to regard as being such; 2) to become aware through the senses.
A thing doesn't perceive just because it responds to input via sensory stimulation. Notice how "perception" is totally contingent on consciousness, or "awareness"? Nothing about a plant shutting on a fly it "senses" suggests "sentience". If I made a rubber limb with a functional reflex circuit out of synthetic motor and sensory neurons -- and if it responded functionally to sensory input -- could I call it a sentient thing? Seems like I could by your Venus Flytrap example...
In any case I'd have to agree that your counter that "plants are sentient too" is pretty weak, if that's in fact what you were saying
|
I wouldn't eat dog meat because I love dogs and have always kept them as pets. At the same time, if you're raised with thinking of them as food, then they are food. It's all perspective and I don't see anything wrong with cultures that eat dog meat. Same as any other animal in reality.
|
It is either okay to eat animals--dogs included. Or it's not okay to eat animals.
That is the only real ethical quandary.
|
On April 16 2012 01:11 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2012 01:01 SolonTLG wrote:On April 16 2012 00:51 JingleHell wrote:On April 16 2012 00:47 SolonTLG wrote:On April 16 2012 00:39 JingleHell wrote:On April 16 2012 00:28 SolonTLG wrote:On April 15 2012 23:43 JingleHell wrote:On April 15 2012 23:24 SolonTLG wrote:On April 15 2012 23:17 Nevermind86 wrote:On April 15 2012 08:52 Redox wrote:
Dogs are highly social animals. They have not been bred to live under the conditions of mass livestock farming. They just go mad if kept under certain conditions, it is animal cruelty.
One just has to look up certain videos from China to know what is the problem with farming dogs.
Really, now society cares about the feelings of the animals we eat?, it's total nonsense you either care about ALL of them or none of them and since nobody really cares about chicken's or pig's feelings, then why would dogs be any different? Chickens are social animals too man but at the end of the day it's just meat, period. Dogs don't care about the feelings of the animals they eat, why would we care for their feelings? 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! 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. 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, 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? The "consciousness" part is key. It is not reasonable to argue that plants have consciousness, while it is completely reasonable to argue that animals have consciousness. Stop relying on the "plants" argument this is a discussion about animals. My dogs are NOT slaves because I do not extract labor from them, like one would a slave. I feed, house, and care for them regardless. How do you prove consciousness, exactly? Hell, science is still having epic trouble determining when to treat humans as conscious and legal entities, so how do we do it with animals? Just because you dislike the plants argument doesn't make it invalid. If there's something demonstrably wrong with that argument, please feel free to show me empirical evidence. Either we do or do not have the right to exploit other life for our own well-being. Also, you say your pets aren't slaves because you don't extract labor from them. Slavery isn't about the use, it's about the ownership. Or is it ok to own a person as long as you only make them do things you assume they like?
See my reply about consciousness to dmfg's comment (above).
And wait! My dogs are now "consciousness" to "care" about being "owned" by me? You can't have it both ways!
And for the record, despite what the government says, I do not own the companion animals that live with me.
|
On April 16 2012 01:14 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2012 00:51 JingleHell wrote:On April 16 2012 00:47 SolonTLG wrote:On April 16 2012 00:39 JingleHell wrote:On April 16 2012 00:28 SolonTLG wrote:On April 15 2012 23:43 JingleHell wrote:On April 15 2012 23:24 SolonTLG wrote:On April 15 2012 23:17 Nevermind86 wrote:On April 15 2012 08:52 Redox wrote:
Dogs are highly social animals. They have not been bred to live under the conditions of mass livestock farming. They just go mad if kept under certain conditions, it is animal cruelty.
One just has to look up certain videos from China to know what is the problem with farming dogs.
Really, now society cares about the feelings of the animals we eat?, it's total nonsense you either care about ALL of them or none of them and since nobody really cares about chicken's or pig's feelings, then why would dogs be any different? Chickens are social animals too man but at the end of the day it's just meat, period. Dogs don't care about the feelings of the animals they eat, why would we care for their feelings? 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! 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. 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, 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? I don't think you're correct in your interpretation of that definition of "sentience". You need to consider the word "perception". Is it accurate to say that plants "perceive" via their senses? They might respond to sensory stimuli, as in your example, but there is a clear difference between responding to sensory input and perceiving sensory input. I don't think you can just randomly presume an alternate meaning of "perception". A Venus Flytrap responding automatically to a stimulus is not a clear example of perception, consciousness, or sentience. Since you're pretty familiar with the dictionary, you probably know that "perception" entails consciousness. Perception (Perceive) 1) a: to attain awareness or understanding of; b: to regard as being such; 2) to become aware through the senses. A thing doesn't perceive just because it responds to input via sensory stimulation. Notice how "perception" is totally contingent on consciousness, or "awareness"? Nothing about a plant shutting on a fly it "senses" suggests "sentience". If I made a rubber limb with a functional reflex circuit out of synthetic motor and sensory neurons -- and if it responded functionally to sensory input -- could I call it a sentient thing? Seems like I could by your Venus Flytrap example... In any case I'd have to agree that your counter that "plants are sentient too" is pretty weak, if that's in fact what you were saying
It's not what I was saying, but I appreciate you actually responding with some sort of valid debate. My point was that we can't prove one way or the other with either, at least not in a satisfactory way, so people telling me there's a significant ethical difference between one and the other needs to demonstrate such, or not use their opinion on the subject as some sort of reason I should agree.
The only thing that can be demonstrably proven is that every human who eats exploits other forms of life that we share a planet with for their own well-being, beyond that, it's all opinion at this point, and forcing those on people is horrendous.
More than anything, I think it's ridiculous when people suggest that we should give animals rights within a system where they cannot accept the responsibilities that go with those rights. There's certainly no rational way to go about it.
On April 16 2012 01:19 SolonTLG wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2012 01:11 JingleHell wrote:On April 16 2012 01:01 SolonTLG wrote:On April 16 2012 00:51 JingleHell wrote:On April 16 2012 00:47 SolonTLG wrote:On April 16 2012 00:39 JingleHell wrote:On April 16 2012 00:28 SolonTLG wrote:On April 15 2012 23:43 JingleHell wrote:On April 15 2012 23:24 SolonTLG wrote:On April 15 2012 23:17 Nevermind86 wrote:
[quote]
Really, now society cares about the feelings of the animals we eat?, it's total nonsense you either care about ALL of them or none of them and since nobody really cares about chicken's or pig's feelings, then why would dogs be any different? Chickens are social animals too man but at the end of the day it's just meat, period. Dogs don't care about the feelings of the animals they eat, why would we care for their feelings? 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! 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. 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, 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? The "consciousness" part is key. It is not reasonable to argue that plants have consciousness, while it is completely reasonable to argue that animals have consciousness. Stop relying on the "plants" argument this is a discussion about animals. My dogs are NOT slaves because I do not extract labor from them, like one would a slave. I feed, house, and care for them regardless. How do you prove consciousness, exactly? Hell, science is still having epic trouble determining when to treat humans as conscious and legal entities, so how do we do it with animals? Just because you dislike the plants argument doesn't make it invalid. If there's something demonstrably wrong with that argument, please feel free to show me empirical evidence. Either we do or do not have the right to exploit other life for our own well-being. Also, you say your pets aren't slaves because you don't extract labor from them. Slavery isn't about the use, it's about the ownership. Or is it ok to own a person as long as you only make them do things you assume they like? See my reply about consciousness to dmfg's comment (above). And wait! My dogs are now "consciousness" to "care" about being "owned" by me? You can't have it both ways! And for the record, despite what the government says, I do not own the companion animals that live with me.
I'm NOT saying they're conscious. You are. You're the one saying they care and we have an ethical responsibility to treat them better than plants, but turning around and justifying slavery.
On April 16 2012 01:14 SolonTLG wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2012 01:06 dmfg wrote:On April 16 2012 00:40 SolonTLG wrote:On April 16 2012 00:29 dmfg wrote:On April 15 2012 23:24 SolonTLG wrote:On April 15 2012 23:17 Nevermind86 wrote:On April 15 2012 08:52 Redox wrote:
Dogs are highly social animals. They have not been bred to live under the conditions of mass livestock farming. They just go mad if kept under certain conditions, it is animal cruelty.
One just has to look up certain videos from China to know what is the problem with farming dogs.
Really, now society cares about the feelings of the animals we eat?, it's total nonsense you either care about ALL of them or none of them and since nobody really cares about chicken's or pig's feelings, then why would dogs be any different? Chickens are social animals too man but at the end of the day it's just meat, period. Dogs don't care about the feelings of the animals they eat, why would we care for their feelings? 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. 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! My mother kept a lot of cats, dogs and chickens, though I wasn't particularly attached to them. My view of this subject is mostly based on neurobiology rather than my interpretations of what my mum's menagerie were doing. Thing is, there's a separation between "consciousness" and "problem solving ability", and one does not necessarily imply the other. You could write a computer program that could solve incredibly complex problems, even in ways that seem innovative to an observer who is unaware of how it works, but a computer program doesn't have "consciousness". Here's the thing - what you really want to do, is to be able to ask your dog "are you conscious of self?" "do you feel pain?" "do you love your owner?" etc. The problem is, we are not able to teach dogs concepts at this level - we're only really able to train them that if they receive X stimulus, and perform Y action, they are rewarded. So we're not able to communicate with animals on a (scientifically) meaningful level, and instead we're forced to interpret their responses through our own expectations of what those responses mean. This is a pretty reasonable thing to do for humans communicating with humans, since you can put yourself in the other person's shoes and think "if I did that, it would mean ...", and reasonably expect it to be true since our brains are sufficiently similar. The problem is when we're forced to do that with animals. Then we're forcing human thinking onto an animal's actions - "if I were my dog doing X, that means I'd be thinking Y". It's not necessarily a valid step to take. Animal nervous systems are wired up rather differently to ours, with proportionally much more of their actions dependent on simple reflexes compared to humans whose brains can directly control limb actions. You've probably heard about the chicken that had its head and most of its brain cut off and survived for 9 months, able to carry out most activities of living such as walking, running, digestion, pooing, etc. Experiments on decerebrate cats shows that cats are also able to walk and adjust their speed without the part of the brain thought to be important for conscious thought. In essence, don't underestimate just how much is possible without conscious thought - even complex, coordinated movements in response to a changing stimulus are possible. Now that's not evidence that animals lack consciousness. It's just a caution against what evidence there is to suggest they do have consciousness. I appreciate your well written and thoughtful reply, but I just disagree. It seems to me the problem is that you cannot prove that animals are NOT consciousness. I have to think (from my experiences) and believe (from what I've read) that animals are conscious, and thus I don't want to kill them for food. You can disagree, but it appears that no one can "conclusively" prove it either way. Wouldn't you want to error on the side of caution and not eat animals? Despite no "proof"?
And you saying this justifies my argument that you shouldn't exploit plants either. You can't prove THEY aren't conscious, so shouldn't you err on the side of caution and starve?
My whole point is that the arguments used to try and push the "ethics" of a vegan lifestyle on other people are grounded in nothing but sentiment, and you can use the same arguments to suggest that starvation is the only ethical choice.
|
On April 16 2012 01:14 SolonTLG wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2012 01:06 dmfg wrote:On April 16 2012 00:40 SolonTLG wrote:On April 16 2012 00:29 dmfg wrote:On April 15 2012 23:24 SolonTLG wrote:On April 15 2012 23:17 Nevermind86 wrote:On April 15 2012 08:52 Redox wrote:
Dogs are highly social animals. They have not been bred to live under the conditions of mass livestock farming. They just go mad if kept under certain conditions, it is animal cruelty.
One just has to look up certain videos from China to know what is the problem with farming dogs.
Really, now society cares about the feelings of the animals we eat?, it's total nonsense you either care about ALL of them or none of them and since nobody really cares about chicken's or pig's feelings, then why would dogs be any different? Chickens are social animals too man but at the end of the day it's just meat, period. Dogs don't care about the feelings of the animals they eat, why would we care for their feelings? 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. 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! My mother kept a lot of cats, dogs and chickens, though I wasn't particularly attached to them. My view of this subject is mostly based on neurobiology rather than my interpretations of what my mum's menagerie were doing. Thing is, there's a separation between "consciousness" and "problem solving ability", and one does not necessarily imply the other. You could write a computer program that could solve incredibly complex problems, even in ways that seem innovative to an observer who is unaware of how it works, but a computer program doesn't have "consciousness". Here's the thing - what you really want to do, is to be able to ask your dog "are you conscious of self?" "do you feel pain?" "do you love your owner?" etc. The problem is, we are not able to teach dogs concepts at this level - we're only really able to train them that if they receive X stimulus, and perform Y action, they are rewarded. So we're not able to communicate with animals on a (scientifically) meaningful level, and instead we're forced to interpret their responses through our own expectations of what those responses mean. This is a pretty reasonable thing to do for humans communicating with humans, since you can put yourself in the other person's shoes and think "if I did that, it would mean ...", and reasonably expect it to be true since our brains are sufficiently similar. The problem is when we're forced to do that with animals. Then we're forcing human thinking onto an animal's actions - "if I were my dog doing X, that means I'd be thinking Y". It's not necessarily a valid step to take. Animal nervous systems are wired up rather differently to ours, with proportionally much more of their actions dependent on simple reflexes compared to humans whose brains can directly control limb actions. You've probably heard about the chicken that had its head and most of its brain cut off and survived for 9 months, able to carry out most activities of living such as walking, running, digestion, pooing, etc. Experiments on decerebrate cats shows that cats are also able to walk and adjust their speed without the part of the brain thought to be important for conscious thought. In essence, don't underestimate just how much is possible without conscious thought - even complex, coordinated movements in response to a changing stimulus are possible. Now that's not evidence that animals lack consciousness. It's just a caution against what evidence there is to suggest they do have consciousness. I appreciate your well written and thoughtful reply, but I just disagree. It seems to me the problem is that you cannot prove that animals are NOT consciousness. I have to think (from my experiences) and believe (from what I've read) that animals are conscious, and thus I don't want to kill them for food. You can disagree, but it appears that no one can "conclusively" prove it either way. Wouldn't you want to error on the side of caution and not eat animals? Despite no "proof"?
Oh that's fine, and I'm not actually trying to change your mind! I just happen to like the topic of consciousness :> really it's a topic where 2 people can look at the exact same data and possibly come to complete opposite conclusions.
Personally, that possibility doesn't have a strong enough effect on me to make me change my meat eating habits. But who knows what the research of tomorrow will bring.
|
At what point do you draw the line of what's acceptable to eat? Lets assume neantherthals had survived to this time, I'd guess we wouldn't be eating them. What about apes and monkeys? Is it about intelligence or simply "closeness" to ourself in different regards?
|
A dog has personality. A cow lack it.
Hence I have no problem eating a cow but would never eat a dog. (Never say never but I would prefer not to.) Humans have domesticided some animals for their talants as living beings, and some for their talants of providing food.
By simplifying it and say "It is either okay to eat animals--dogs included. Or it's not okay to eat animals." Is an error for me, because Humans are animals too. So what you are then saying is "We cant eat meat because we are made of meat ourselves and what would stop us from feasting on eachother?!?!?"
You might call me a racist for favouring some animals to live a long and prosperous life while others are made to make sure the favoured animals will live their long and prosperous life.
|
I'm a vegetarian, and also a veterinary medicine student.
I don't recognize dog meat as inherently unethical by any means. There is little reason to distinguish a dog's life as being more valuable than a pig's life.
So as I'm not against people raising and killing pigs for meat in principle, i am not against the raising of dogs for meat in principle either.
However, the conditions under which meat dogs are kept and raised are the big problem. In practice, the vast majority of dog meat production facilities run under dismal welfare conditions. However, this is the case with a lot of meat production facilities in East Asia and a lot of the world, regardless of animal species..
There is no justification for favouring dogs over animals like pigs. The real issues are always to do with living conditions and slaughter methods.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
