|
If it tasted any good, it would be hypocritical to eat other animals like pigs, cow, chicken, horse, fish, venison (you name it) and then be adamant against dog meat. Hell the French even eat frog and snails.
|
On April 16 2012 01:28 misspo wrote:
How it is possible to have 861 peaple that think eat dog is ok? Sad day
I tought that new generation was more modern.
It is because we are modern that we understand that there is no difference between eating cows/pigs and eating dogs. It's just a cultural thing.
|
On April 16 2012 01:39 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2012 01:38 Sneakyz wrote:On April 16 2012 01:34 JingleHell wrote:On April 16 2012 01:32 Sneakyz wrote:On April 16 2012 00:51 JingleHell wrote:
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 really don't see what the difference would be in keeping a pet compared to keeping a child then? It's not like my dog runs away if I open the door, lol. My toddler does, there's a difference. Also, the child gains legal rights after reaching the point decided by law that they can also have legal responsibility for those rights. The animal never can attain legal responsibility within the law. Sure, but my intention with that post was that most pets are not actually kept against their will, they want to be with their owner. Can you prove that? Maybe they're just afraid they'd starve if they didn't stay around. Plenty of slaves didn't try to run away because they didn't want to starve or die of exposure trying to escape. Was that ok? Honestly, I don't consider it slavery, but if you give them rights and responsibilities within the law, it would be. Either they're forced to stay where we put them, or they become responsible for crimes that they don't even know they're comitting, like trespass and vandalism. We can't make them pay for plants they destroy, we can't confine them without their permission, what do we do? Incarcerate them for breaking the law? At tremendous expense and zero gain? They can't be legal entities in a sane society, so they NEED to be property. And being property suggests strongly that we have the right to use them to our gain.
Of course I can't prove it for every pet, but my own dog walks outside all day and has never even left the yard during her 8 years(I live on a farm). And she eats everything she can find when we go for a walk so I'm sure she knows there's plenty of food around. And if I go anywhere she will follow without me saying anything.
But scientifically I can of course not prove anything.
|
On April 16 2012 01:52 Sneakyz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2012 01:39 JingleHell wrote:On April 16 2012 01:38 Sneakyz wrote:On April 16 2012 01:34 JingleHell wrote:On April 16 2012 01:32 Sneakyz wrote:On April 16 2012 00:51 JingleHell wrote:
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 really don't see what the difference would be in keeping a pet compared to keeping a child then? It's not like my dog runs away if I open the door, lol. My toddler does, there's a difference. Also, the child gains legal rights after reaching the point decided by law that they can also have legal responsibility for those rights. The animal never can attain legal responsibility within the law. Sure, but my intention with that post was that most pets are not actually kept against their will, they want to be with their owner. Can you prove that? Maybe they're just afraid they'd starve if they didn't stay around. Plenty of slaves didn't try to run away because they didn't want to starve or die of exposure trying to escape. Was that ok? Honestly, I don't consider it slavery, but if you give them rights and responsibilities within the law, it would be. Either they're forced to stay where we put them, or they become responsible for crimes that they don't even know they're comitting, like trespass and vandalism. We can't make them pay for plants they destroy, we can't confine them without their permission, what do we do? Incarcerate them for breaking the law? At tremendous expense and zero gain? They can't be legal entities in a sane society, so they NEED to be property. And being property suggests strongly that we have the right to use them to our gain. Of course I can't prove it for every pet, but my own dog walks outside all day and has never even left the yard during her 8 years(I live on a farm). And she eats everything she can find when we go for a walk so I'm sure she knows there's plenty of food around. And if I go anywhere she will follow without me saying anything. But scientifically I can of course not prove anything.
Like I said, I do NOT have an ethical issue with keeping pets. I have an intellectual issue with the argument that animals are ethically equivalent to humans when they can't be (rationally) given societal responsibility to match the rights people claim they should have.
|
On April 16 2012 01:28 misspo wrote:
How it is possible to have 861 peaple that think eat dog is ok? Sad day
I tought that new generation was more modern.
Because if you break it down, the stronger arguments in favor of recognizing the moral status of animals appeal to the concept of animal integrity (Bovenkirk et al. 2002). In line with that, it follows that if you're okay with eating animals as a permissible violation of animal integrity, then there is no underlying moral protection granted to any particular animal type. Why should there be? That's a question for you. Why is it that you could be okay with eating a cow, but not a dog? Is it that dogs seem to make better pets? That's about as strong of argument I can see, but even then, it's not strong because it doesn't appeal to animal integrity. in my opinion
|
On April 16 2012 01:57 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2012 01:28 misspo wrote:
How it is possible to have 861 peaple that think eat dog is ok? Sad day
I tought that new generation was more modern. Because if you break it down, the stronger arguments in favor of recognizing the moral status of animals appeal to the concept of animal integrity (Bovenkirk et al. 2002). In line with that, it follows that if you're okay with eating animals as a permissible violation of animal integrity, then there is no underlying moral protection granted to any particular animal type. Why should there be? That's a question for you. Why is it that you could be okay with eating a cow, but not a dog? Is it that dogs seem to make better pets? That's about as strong of argument I can see, but even then, it's not strong because it doesn't appeal to animal integrity. in my opinion
I actually know a person who had a pig for a pet once, too. They still eat pork.
|
On April 16 2012 01:55 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2012 01:52 Sneakyz wrote:On April 16 2012 01:39 JingleHell wrote:On April 16 2012 01:38 Sneakyz wrote:On April 16 2012 01:34 JingleHell wrote:On April 16 2012 01:32 Sneakyz wrote:On April 16 2012 00:51 JingleHell wrote:
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 really don't see what the difference would be in keeping a pet compared to keeping a child then? It's not like my dog runs away if I open the door, lol. My toddler does, there's a difference. Also, the child gains legal rights after reaching the point decided by law that they can also have legal responsibility for those rights. The animal never can attain legal responsibility within the law. Sure, but my intention with that post was that most pets are not actually kept against their will, they want to be with their owner. Can you prove that? Maybe they're just afraid they'd starve if they didn't stay around. Plenty of slaves didn't try to run away because they didn't want to starve or die of exposure trying to escape. Was that ok? Honestly, I don't consider it slavery, but if you give them rights and responsibilities within the law, it would be. Either they're forced to stay where we put them, or they become responsible for crimes that they don't even know they're comitting, like trespass and vandalism. We can't make them pay for plants they destroy, we can't confine them without their permission, what do we do? Incarcerate them for breaking the law? At tremendous expense and zero gain? They can't be legal entities in a sane society, so they NEED to be property. And being property suggests strongly that we have the right to use them to our gain. Of course I can't prove it for every pet, but my own dog walks outside all day and has never even left the yard during her 8 years(I live on a farm). And she eats everything she can find when we go for a walk so I'm sure she knows there's plenty of food around. And if I go anywhere she will follow without me saying anything. But scientifically I can of course not prove anything. Like I said, I do NOT have an ethical issue with keeping pets. I have an intellectual issue with the argument that animals are ethically equivalent to humans when they can't be (rationally) given societal responsibility to match the rights people claim they should have.
You should read this:
Bernice Bovenkerk, et al., “Brave new Birds: The Use of ‘Animal Integrity’ in Animal Ethics,” Hastings Center Report, January-February, 2002, pp. 16-22.
http://www.jstor.org.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/stable/3528292
It's a way to view animals as having some moral status, at least on a broader scale
|
On April 16 2012 02:01 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2012 01:55 JingleHell wrote:On April 16 2012 01:52 Sneakyz wrote:On April 16 2012 01:39 JingleHell wrote:On April 16 2012 01:38 Sneakyz wrote:On April 16 2012 01:34 JingleHell wrote:On April 16 2012 01:32 Sneakyz wrote:On April 16 2012 00:51 JingleHell wrote:
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 really don't see what the difference would be in keeping a pet compared to keeping a child then? It's not like my dog runs away if I open the door, lol. My toddler does, there's a difference. Also, the child gains legal rights after reaching the point decided by law that they can also have legal responsibility for those rights. The animal never can attain legal responsibility within the law. Sure, but my intention with that post was that most pets are not actually kept against their will, they want to be with their owner. Can you prove that? Maybe they're just afraid they'd starve if they didn't stay around. Plenty of slaves didn't try to run away because they didn't want to starve or die of exposure trying to escape. Was that ok? Honestly, I don't consider it slavery, but if you give them rights and responsibilities within the law, it would be. Either they're forced to stay where we put them, or they become responsible for crimes that they don't even know they're comitting, like trespass and vandalism. We can't make them pay for plants they destroy, we can't confine them without their permission, what do we do? Incarcerate them for breaking the law? At tremendous expense and zero gain? They can't be legal entities in a sane society, so they NEED to be property. And being property suggests strongly that we have the right to use them to our gain. Of course I can't prove it for every pet, but my own dog walks outside all day and has never even left the yard during her 8 years(I live on a farm). And she eats everything she can find when we go for a walk so I'm sure she knows there's plenty of food around. And if I go anywhere she will follow without me saying anything. But scientifically I can of course not prove anything. Like I said, I do NOT have an ethical issue with keeping pets. I have an intellectual issue with the argument that animals are ethically equivalent to humans when they can't be (rationally) given societal responsibility to match the rights people claim they should have. You should read this: Bernice Bovenkerk, et al., “Brave new Birds: The Use of ‘Animal Integrity’ in Animal Ethics,” Hastings Center Report, January-February, 2002, pp. 16-22. http://www.jstor.org.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/stable/3528292
Requires a login. Mind giving a summary?
|
United Kingdom16710 Posts
On April 16 2012 01:28 misspo wrote:
How it is possible to have 861 peaple that think eat dog is ok? Sad day
I tought that new generation was more modern.
Because they're not ignorant? The dogs being consumed in korea are not people's pet chihuahuas or golden retrievers. They are dogs born and bred for consumption. Tell me how that's any different than countless other animals we slaughter for sustenance everyday.
|
On April 16 2012 01:47 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2012 01:34 dmfg wrote:On April 16 2012 01:20 JingleHell wrote: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: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. I think you'd have a hard time arguing that plants are "sentient" or "conscious" or whichever word you want to use to that effect. Although consciousness/sentience isn't well defined, I think most people would say that the key factor is the idea of a "subjective experience" - in other words, the idea that there exists a "self". I don't particularly like the definition you quoted, because "perceive" merely implies that there is a "self" that does the perceiving, rather than explicitly stating so. I don't know of any plants that even have the biological mechanisms to monitor all (or even some) parts of the plant for damage. Without such a mechanism, the plant cannot recognise "self", and so cannot be conscious or sentient. Roots and branches grow around objects that obstruct them--unless the objects seems weak enough or small enough, then the tree just breaks through it. Bark hardens when there is a fire, to preserve moisture, unlike cut up timber that simply ignites. Vines (and all plants actually) grow towards the sun. As in they'll climb towards a position that is near the sun as not simply try to travel te hypotenuse towards the sun. Most plants grow better when they listen to music. Some communicate to each other by way of pollen. Plants are very much aware of themselves.
Let's just stick with "responses to damage", since any object can produce a stereotyped response to neutral/beneficial outside stimuli.
Water flows around objects blocking its path, unless the object is weak or it is given enough time, then the water just breaks through it. Ketchup softens and takes on more liquid-like properties when struck, to allow it to flow around attackers (!). Magnets move towards each other.
Anyway the bark hardening example is interesting, but it sounds like a localised response. A localised response such as "my hand is cut and a clot is forming to stop the bleeding" doesn't suggest any awareness of self. A whole body response such as "my hand is cut and I am now running away from the maniac with an axe who cut it" might (but not necessarily!) involve a notion of self.
|
On April 15 2012 15:57 Robinsa wrote:I think a bit worse than regular meat since dogs have been bred to be companions and thats what theyve become. It not only how we perceive it but its also most likely true that they make other bonds with humans. That being said, I still think ALL meat consumption is wrong and its extremely difficult to give any good moral arguments why eating meat would be ok. Humans CAN live without eating meat but we simply chose to kill for food. I guess a lot of people value a steak over an animal life... (I eat meat myself) Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 08:32 TwilightStar wrote:
I never understood why people didn't like others eating dog meat. Dogs are animals, no? As are cows, pigs, and chickens.
They've been used for food for more than thousands of years. And that makes it right? I dont get your point if you have one.
I absolutely hate when people try to use this argument. "Eating meat is wrong." No, it isn't. What makes you think that? Animnals eat other animals, it's nature. It's the food chain. It's science.
|
On April 16 2012 02:10 dmfg wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2012 01:47 lorkac wrote:On April 16 2012 01:34 dmfg wrote:On April 16 2012 01:20 JingleHell wrote: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: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:
[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! 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. I think you'd have a hard time arguing that plants are "sentient" or "conscious" or whichever word you want to use to that effect. Although consciousness/sentience isn't well defined, I think most people would say that the key factor is the idea of a "subjective experience" - in other words, the idea that there exists a "self". I don't particularly like the definition you quoted, because "perceive" merely implies that there is a "self" that does the perceiving, rather than explicitly stating so. I don't know of any plants that even have the biological mechanisms to monitor all (or even some) parts of the plant for damage. Without such a mechanism, the plant cannot recognise "self", and so cannot be conscious or sentient. Roots and branches grow around objects that obstruct them--unless the objects seems weak enough or small enough, then the tree just breaks through it. Bark hardens when there is a fire, to preserve moisture, unlike cut up timber that simply ignites. Vines (and all plants actually) grow towards the sun. As in they'll climb towards a position that is near the sun as not simply try to travel te hypotenuse towards the sun. Most plants grow better when they listen to music. Some communicate to each other by way of pollen. Plants are very much aware of themselves. Let's just stick with "responses to damage", since any object can produce a stereotyped response to neutral/beneficial outside stimuli. Water flows around objects blocking its path, unless the object is weak or it is given enough time, then the water just breaks through it. Ketchup softens and takes on more liquid-like properties when struck, to allow it to flow around attackers (!). Magnets move towards each other. Anyway the bark hardening example is interesting, but it sounds like a localised response. A localised response such as "my hand is cut and a clot is forming to stop the bleeding" doesn't suggest any awareness of self. A whole body response such as "my hand is cut and I am now running away from the maniac with an axe who cut it" might (but not necessarily!) involve a notion of self.
So you expect plants to respond in a way they're physiologically incapable of to prove awareness? Isn't that like saying humans aren't aware because we can't manifest telekinesis to prevent physical harm to self?
|
On April 16 2012 02:02 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2012 02:01 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 16 2012 01:55 JingleHell wrote:On April 16 2012 01:52 Sneakyz wrote:On April 16 2012 01:39 JingleHell wrote:On April 16 2012 01:38 Sneakyz wrote:On April 16 2012 01:34 JingleHell wrote:On April 16 2012 01:32 Sneakyz wrote:On April 16 2012 00:51 JingleHell wrote:
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 really don't see what the difference would be in keeping a pet compared to keeping a child then? It's not like my dog runs away if I open the door, lol. My toddler does, there's a difference. Also, the child gains legal rights after reaching the point decided by law that they can also have legal responsibility for those rights. The animal never can attain legal responsibility within the law. Sure, but my intention with that post was that most pets are not actually kept against their will, they want to be with their owner. Can you prove that? Maybe they're just afraid they'd starve if they didn't stay around. Plenty of slaves didn't try to run away because they didn't want to starve or die of exposure trying to escape. Was that ok? Honestly, I don't consider it slavery, but if you give them rights and responsibilities within the law, it would be. Either they're forced to stay where we put them, or they become responsible for crimes that they don't even know they're comitting, like trespass and vandalism. We can't make them pay for plants they destroy, we can't confine them without their permission, what do we do? Incarcerate them for breaking the law? At tremendous expense and zero gain? They can't be legal entities in a sane society, so they NEED to be property. And being property suggests strongly that we have the right to use them to our gain. Of course I can't prove it for every pet, but my own dog walks outside all day and has never even left the yard during her 8 years(I live on a farm). And she eats everything she can find when we go for a walk so I'm sure she knows there's plenty of food around. And if I go anywhere she will follow without me saying anything. But scientifically I can of course not prove anything. Like I said, I do NOT have an ethical issue with keeping pets. I have an intellectual issue with the argument that animals are ethically equivalent to humans when they can't be (rationally) given societal responsibility to match the rights people claim they should have. You should read this: Bernice Bovenkerk, et al., “Brave new Birds: The Use of ‘Animal Integrity’ in Animal Ethics,” Hastings Center Report, January-February, 2002, pp. 16-22. http://www.jstor.org.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/stable/3528292 Requires a login. Mind giving a summary?
I Googled and found it posted on a site: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go2103/is_1_32/ai_n6776235/?tag=content;col1
It's in response to emerging biotech-animal concerns, but it outlines a moral premise for judging animals. In this discussion it's not too useful since eating animals isn't likely considered to be a violation of animal integrity, but I figured you might want to read about animal ethics from a non-so-nonsensical perspective. Sometimes when people talk about animal morals stemming from animal rights, it does seem a little absurd, but I think animal morality in the context of animal integrity can be used in a number of useful ways
|
I don't think I'll ever eat dog meat unless I was to starve and I really wouldn't want other people to eat dog meat (unless they were starving themselves).
None the less, if I'm in some country in Asia and there are people eating dog somewhere near me, I won't go up to them, slap it out of their hands and start yelling at them. I'd keep to myself, maybe feeling a little sad, its the other person's choice, not mine.
|
On April 16 2012 02:15 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2012 02:02 JingleHell wrote:On April 16 2012 02:01 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 16 2012 01:55 JingleHell wrote:On April 16 2012 01:52 Sneakyz wrote:On April 16 2012 01:39 JingleHell wrote:On April 16 2012 01:38 Sneakyz wrote:On April 16 2012 01:34 JingleHell wrote:On April 16 2012 01:32 Sneakyz wrote:On April 16 2012 00:51 JingleHell wrote:
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 really don't see what the difference would be in keeping a pet compared to keeping a child then? It's not like my dog runs away if I open the door, lol. My toddler does, there's a difference. Also, the child gains legal rights after reaching the point decided by law that they can also have legal responsibility for those rights. The animal never can attain legal responsibility within the law. Sure, but my intention with that post was that most pets are not actually kept against their will, they want to be with their owner. Can you prove that? Maybe they're just afraid they'd starve if they didn't stay around. Plenty of slaves didn't try to run away because they didn't want to starve or die of exposure trying to escape. Was that ok? Honestly, I don't consider it slavery, but if you give them rights and responsibilities within the law, it would be. Either they're forced to stay where we put them, or they become responsible for crimes that they don't even know they're comitting, like trespass and vandalism. We can't make them pay for plants they destroy, we can't confine them without their permission, what do we do? Incarcerate them for breaking the law? At tremendous expense and zero gain? They can't be legal entities in a sane society, so they NEED to be property. And being property suggests strongly that we have the right to use them to our gain. Of course I can't prove it for every pet, but my own dog walks outside all day and has never even left the yard during her 8 years(I live on a farm). And she eats everything she can find when we go for a walk so I'm sure she knows there's plenty of food around. And if I go anywhere she will follow without me saying anything. But scientifically I can of course not prove anything. Like I said, I do NOT have an ethical issue with keeping pets. I have an intellectual issue with the argument that animals are ethically equivalent to humans when they can't be (rationally) given societal responsibility to match the rights people claim they should have. You should read this: Bernice Bovenkerk, et al., “Brave new Birds: The Use of ‘Animal Integrity’ in Animal Ethics,” Hastings Center Report, January-February, 2002, pp. 16-22. http://www.jstor.org.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/stable/3528292 Requires a login. Mind giving a summary? I Googled and found it posted on a site: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go2103/is_1_32/ai_n6776235/?tag=content;col1It's in response to emerging biotech-animal concerns, but it outlines a moral premise for judging animals. In this discussion it's not too useful since eating animals isn't likely considered to be a violation of animal integrity, but I figured you might want to read about animal ethics from a non-so-nonsensical perspective. Sometimes when people talk about animal morals stemming from animal rights, it does seem a little absurd, but I think animal morality in the context of animal integrity can be used in a number of useful ways
I'm working on it, but so far it seems to be a lot of waffle dedicated to the same arguments that people have been making already. Just because it's formatted well and uses impressive sounding language doesn't change the fact that it still boils down to "there's something ethically wrong with using other life for our own gains, but this time it sounds scientific!"
|
On April 16 2012 02:25 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2012 02:15 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 16 2012 02:02 JingleHell wrote:On April 16 2012 02:01 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 16 2012 01:55 JingleHell wrote:On April 16 2012 01:52 Sneakyz wrote:On April 16 2012 01:39 JingleHell wrote:On April 16 2012 01:38 Sneakyz wrote:On April 16 2012 01:34 JingleHell wrote:On April 16 2012 01:32 Sneakyz wrote:
[quote]
I really don't see what the difference would be in keeping a pet compared to keeping a child then? It's not like my dog runs away if I open the door, lol. My toddler does, there's a difference. Also, the child gains legal rights after reaching the point decided by law that they can also have legal responsibility for those rights. The animal never can attain legal responsibility within the law. Sure, but my intention with that post was that most pets are not actually kept against their will, they want to be with their owner. Can you prove that? Maybe they're just afraid they'd starve if they didn't stay around. Plenty of slaves didn't try to run away because they didn't want to starve or die of exposure trying to escape. Was that ok? Honestly, I don't consider it slavery, but if you give them rights and responsibilities within the law, it would be. Either they're forced to stay where we put them, or they become responsible for crimes that they don't even know they're comitting, like trespass and vandalism. We can't make them pay for plants they destroy, we can't confine them without their permission, what do we do? Incarcerate them for breaking the law? At tremendous expense and zero gain? They can't be legal entities in a sane society, so they NEED to be property. And being property suggests strongly that we have the right to use them to our gain. Of course I can't prove it for every pet, but my own dog walks outside all day and has never even left the yard during her 8 years(I live on a farm). And she eats everything she can find when we go for a walk so I'm sure she knows there's plenty of food around. And if I go anywhere she will follow without me saying anything. But scientifically I can of course not prove anything. Like I said, I do NOT have an ethical issue with keeping pets. I have an intellectual issue with the argument that animals are ethically equivalent to humans when they can't be (rationally) given societal responsibility to match the rights people claim they should have. You should read this: Bernice Bovenkerk, et al., “Brave new Birds: The Use of ‘Animal Integrity’ in Animal Ethics,” Hastings Center Report, January-February, 2002, pp. 16-22. http://www.jstor.org.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/stable/3528292 Requires a login. Mind giving a summary? I Googled and found it posted on a site: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go2103/is_1_32/ai_n6776235/?tag=content;col1It's in response to emerging biotech-animal concerns, but it outlines a moral premise for judging animals. In this discussion it's not too useful since eating animals isn't likely considered to be a violation of animal integrity, but I figured you might want to read about animal ethics from a non-so-nonsensical perspective. Sometimes when people talk about animal morals stemming from animal rights, it does seem a little absurd, but I think animal morality in the context of animal integrity can be used in a number of useful ways I'm working on it, but so far it seems to be a lot of waffle dedicated to the same arguments that people have been making already. Just because it's formatted well and uses impressive sounding language doesn't change the fact that it still boils down to "there's something ethically wrong with using other life for our own gains, but this time it sounds scientific!"
Lol, this is a respected and peer-reviewed piece assembled by an academic research group, just so you know (not that that means anything alone, but you seem to be under the impression that it's just a random opinion piece). You didn't actually read it entirely, as you say, so maybe work to the conclusions before dismissing it. The "fluff" to which you refer is the background: it sets the stage for what is at stake when dealing with animal ethics, especially in areas of bio-engineering on animals, etc (which is why I said it's not entirely connected to the topic at hand: eating dogs)
On April 16 2012 02:31 JingleHell wrote:
Also, plenty of peer reviewed pieces assembled by research teams are a lot of waffle, and have plenty of equally peer reviewed dissent.
Well obviously some peer-reviewed pieces aren't very meaningful, but this one is. It's used as an exemplary piece on animal ethics in a bioethics course at a university. It wouldn't be chosen by the faculty if they agreed that it was "waffle".
On April 16 2012 02:31 JingleHell wrote:
I already said I haven't finished it, I wasn't aware this was just the background that I'm suffering through. I would have thought the "I'm working on it" statement implied a lack of finishing it so far, and a hope to do so.
Well to be honest your quick negative reaction sort of baffled me. It's pretty typical in peer-reviewed and especially in science literature to open with background on why the topic matters, what is at stake, where the confusion or uncertainty lies, what needs to be explored, etc. I admit I was confused when I read a response to a piece from someone who had not actually read the piece. My mistake.
|
On April 16 2012 02:27 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2012 02:25 JingleHell wrote:On April 16 2012 02:15 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 16 2012 02:02 JingleHell wrote:On April 16 2012 02:01 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 16 2012 01:55 JingleHell wrote:On April 16 2012 01:52 Sneakyz wrote:On April 16 2012 01:39 JingleHell wrote:On April 16 2012 01:38 Sneakyz wrote:On April 16 2012 01:34 JingleHell wrote:
[quote]
My toddler does, there's a difference. Also, the child gains legal rights after reaching the point decided by law that they can also have legal responsibility for those rights. The animal never can attain legal responsibility within the law. Sure, but my intention with that post was that most pets are not actually kept against their will, they want to be with their owner. Can you prove that? Maybe they're just afraid they'd starve if they didn't stay around. Plenty of slaves didn't try to run away because they didn't want to starve or die of exposure trying to escape. Was that ok? Honestly, I don't consider it slavery, but if you give them rights and responsibilities within the law, it would be. Either they're forced to stay where we put them, or they become responsible for crimes that they don't even know they're comitting, like trespass and vandalism. We can't make them pay for plants they destroy, we can't confine them without their permission, what do we do? Incarcerate them for breaking the law? At tremendous expense and zero gain? They can't be legal entities in a sane society, so they NEED to be property. And being property suggests strongly that we have the right to use them to our gain. Of course I can't prove it for every pet, but my own dog walks outside all day and has never even left the yard during her 8 years(I live on a farm). And she eats everything she can find when we go for a walk so I'm sure she knows there's plenty of food around. And if I go anywhere she will follow without me saying anything. But scientifically I can of course not prove anything. Like I said, I do NOT have an ethical issue with keeping pets. I have an intellectual issue with the argument that animals are ethically equivalent to humans when they can't be (rationally) given societal responsibility to match the rights people claim they should have. You should read this: Bernice Bovenkerk, et al., “Brave new Birds: The Use of ‘Animal Integrity’ in Animal Ethics,” Hastings Center Report, January-February, 2002, pp. 16-22. http://www.jstor.org.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/stable/3528292 Requires a login. Mind giving a summary? I Googled and found it posted on a site: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go2103/is_1_32/ai_n6776235/?tag=content;col1It's in response to emerging biotech-animal concerns, but it outlines a moral premise for judging animals. In this discussion it's not too useful since eating animals isn't likely considered to be a violation of animal integrity, but I figured you might want to read about animal ethics from a non-so-nonsensical perspective. Sometimes when people talk about animal morals stemming from animal rights, it does seem a little absurd, but I think animal morality in the context of animal integrity can be used in a number of useful ways I'm working on it, but so far it seems to be a lot of waffle dedicated to the same arguments that people have been making already. Just because it's formatted well and uses impressive sounding language doesn't change the fact that it still boils down to "there's something ethically wrong with using other life for our own gains, but this time it sounds scientific!" Lol, this is a respected and peer-reviewed piece assembled by a research team. You didn't actually read it. The "fluff" to which you refer is the background: it sets the stage for what is at stake. Nevermind if your mind is already set and you hold what you think to be the most informed view
I already said I haven't finished it, I wasn't aware this was just the background that I'm suffering through. I would have thought the "I'm working on it" statement implied a lack of finishing it so far, and a hope to do so.
Also, plenty of peer reviewed pieces assembled by research teams are a lot of waffle, and have plenty of equally peer reviewed dissent.
|
On April 16 2012 01:39 nam nam wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2012 01:37 lorkac wrote:On April 16 2012 01:27 StickyFlower wrote:
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.
You don't eat humans for survival reasons. A society that eats its own survives less than a society that doesn't. So we have evolved to be non-cannibalistic creatures because it improves our survival. Favoritism amongst animals is a purely biased mindset and isn't something that is philosophically or morally sound. Sure you do, there are many examples of this. One of the most famous ones were a plane crash in south america (I think, not 100 % sure) where they fed on the passengers who had died to survive. There's been movies and books about it, but it's not a unique event.
I assume he was talking on a macro scale and not just isolated events? A society in which cannibalism is accepted would potentially be worse off than the opposite.
|
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 find there to be 0 reason to assume that birds, or especially mammals would not have a clear consciousnesses, with all the emotions including pain and suffering, when the closest thing to those that we can ask this from human, does have those.
The chicken this also proves nothing. The headless chicken survived out of luck, as after that thing happened, it has been tried to replicate countless times, but it has always failed. There are multiple humans who can live 95% normal life even thou they lost a major part of the brain. Example:
+ Show Spoiler [Ahad Israfil] +
|
Yeah, finished the paper, and quite frankly, I'm still getting a vibe of it being completely useless to discussing the ethics of eating meat. It freely admits over and over to being purely subjective, and the closest it comes to relevance on eating animals is in making a mockery of arguments that there's a difference between pigs and dogs.
Although, I could make the argument that telling OTHER people to go vegan is unethical, since humans evolved omnivorous, and telling me what to do with my body violates my integrity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lwwfxq89DJ1qatnm4o1_500.jpg)
