|
On April 15 2012 15:37 whereyouat wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 15:33 Ercster wrote:On April 15 2012 15:04 Abort Retry Fail wrote:
If you're ok with eating beef or pork or chicken, I see no reasong why dogs are much different Because most people don't consider cows, pigs, or chickens as pets. So.. since YOU consider only dogs from that list as pets means that an entire culture of people should conform to your standards and see it that eating dogs is wrong?
My point wasn't to the ethics of eating dog, but rather the argument he posed which is that basically since dogs are animals too, why are they any different from cows or pigs? In western culture (anywhere outside of eastern Asia really), people consider dogs as higher life forms than pigs or cows. For example, in the US, pets are so close to being considered as "human", that there are people who argue that they deserve the same rights as we do.
And just to answer your question, yes, I think entire cultures should conform to my standards. Maybe not about eating dog, but how the animals are treated when they're going to be used for meat. Things such as living conditions, nutritional needs, health, and how they are killed.
As a meat eater, I can't necessarily object to the idea of killing dogs for meat, but when you torture and hurt these animals, I will oppose to it. I do also recognize that this isn't a special case with dogs, as cows, pigs, and chickens are treated similarly, but they seem to get more attention because of our culture and they're usually in worse conditions then what we subject our meat providers to.
|
Probably chinese and korean people kill and eat dogs because of a misunderstanding, just as japanese people eat dolphin and whale instead of chicken and cow like us normal people!
|
|
|
On April 15 2012 23:17 Nevermind86 wrote:Show nested quote +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?
Society has always cared about how animals are treated. It's just that most people are ignorant to the world around them, so they don't realize that these animals we eat are killed and treated the way they are.
|
On April 16 2012 02:59 JeffS wrote:
Because dogs are pets.
You can say that dogs are pets, but you can also say that pigs, cows and even fish are also pets. There isn't a difference between a dog and a cow when you look at it from a starving carnivore's point of view.
|
On April 16 2012 02:50 Ercster wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 15:37 whereyouat wrote:On April 15 2012 15:33 Ercster wrote:On April 15 2012 15:04 Abort Retry Fail wrote:
If you're ok with eating beef or pork or chicken, I see no reasong why dogs are much different Because most people don't consider cows, pigs, or chickens as pets. So.. since YOU consider only dogs from that list as pets means that an entire culture of people should conform to your standards and see it that eating dogs is wrong? My point wasn't to the ethics of eating dog, but rather the argument he posed which is that basically since dogs are animals too, why are they any different from cows or pigs? In western culture (anywhere outside of eastern Asia really), people consider dogs as higher life forms than pigs or cows. For example, in the US, pets are so close to being considered as "human", that their are people who argue that they deserve the same rights as we do. And just to answer your question, yes, I think entire cultures should conform to my standards. Maybe not about eating dog, but how the animals are treated when they're going to be used for meat. Things such as living conditions, nutritional needs, health, and how they are killed. As a meat eater, I can't necessarily object to the idea of killing dogs for meat, but when you torture and hurt these animals, I will oppose to it. I do also recognize that this isn't a special case with dogs, as cows, pigs, and chickens are treated similarly, but they seem to get more attention because of our culture and they're usually in worse conditions then what we subject our meat providers to.
Sure. I think most people here can agree upon that whatever animal is being consumed should not be subjected to a tortured, brutal death after living in horrendous conditions.
What irks me is people who say altogether eating dogs is wrong because they are cute, furry, creatures with loyal personality & cuteness than that of a pig or cow.
This thread seems to be a based off of the ethics of eating DOG and not how consumed animals are being treated in the industrialized setting.
|
On April 16 2012 01:12 dmfg wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2012 00:51 absalom86 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. 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.
Define the "actual" love. Is it based on no mechanical substance and there are no hormones to play a significant role in it? What century are we living in again?
The difference between a dog and an insect is that the if the insect is hurt, the receptors are directly connected to its muscles to cause a reaction, whereas in a dog (and in us), the link isn't direct and causes us to feel pain first and then react. Whether the dog experiences the pain in the same way we do is always up for debate since the dog won't tell us. But there's little to no reason to believe it's different, since the same mechanisms, same hormones are involved as in us.
|
It's a cultural thing. I would never eat dog meat, but that doesn't make it unethical for other cultures to eat it. That's just how it is.
|
On April 16 2012 02:47 JingleHell wrote:
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.
Ok something tells me you just aren't reading my posts very carefully after the first one to you :/
Don't you at least realize I stressed multiple times that it's not directly useful in this discussion? Suggesting you read that piece was merely in response to your opinion that there is no ethical basis for considering animals similarly to considering humans. You said "I have an intellectual problem with equating animals and humans ethically". It's not an intellectual problem. It's that in your opinion the information is not useful. Look closely at my other posts and you'll see that I employ "animal integrity" to say, if anything, that there is no difference between eating a cow vs. eating a pig.
|
On April 16 2012 02:55 evilm0nkey wrote:
Probably chinese and korean people kill and eat dogs because of a misunderstanding, just as japanese people eat dolphin and whale instead of chicken and cow like us normal people!
Wow. "Us normal people"
Sorry but I don't want to be categorized as normal with someone of your mentality. There is no misunderstanding, your culture and people are not superior to another because of their food. The world does not revolve around you or the western world so screw off with your stupid statement.
|
Cows, chickens etc just spend their days wandering around grazing/scratching for food, which they basically do whether they are captive or wild. Dogs, on the other hand, are social animals that need to be part of a family group, and raising them and other carnivores in cages or even enclosures where they are just thown food until they are slaughtered is vile animal abuse. Eating dog meat (or fois gras, using anything with bear bile etc) is just evil, no other word for it. Unless you're some starving peasant killing stray dogs to stay alive (which is probably where the practise began), choose to eat animals that don't have to suffer their whole short lives for 'tradition' or a tourist's curiosity.
Imagine all the dogs you know, how much they need companionship, exercise, games or jobs - how the hell can someone claim that sticking them in a cage or whatever they do isn't animal torture? I highly doubt they're raised in a secure pack with adequate exercise and attention if they're just going to be slaughtered. People who torture animals are right down there with child molesters imo.
|
Fine, eating dogs is a cultural thing. But the whole "let's skin them alive and beat them before we kill them" is wrong. But cruelty to animals runs rampant in Asia.
|
People eat monkey brain... I'm fine with that, so I'm fine with dog ribs.
|
On April 16 2012 03:04 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2012 02:47 JingleHell wrote:
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. Ok but don't you at least realize I stressed multiple times that it's not directly useful in this discussion? It was in response to your opinion that there is no ethical basis for considering animals similarly to considering humans. You said "I have an intellectual problem with equating animals and humans ethically". It's not an intellectual problem. It's that in your opinion the information is not useful.
No, it is an intellectual problem. You have to address the full thing I have a problem with. Tell me how you can equate them ethically when you can't equate privelege, right, and responsibility under the law, REGARDLESS of what laws you use?
They can not fit into our societal structure as equals. I've already outlined the difficulties with doing so. And since law is the social means for enforcing the (hopefully) accepted ethics of the land, if they can not fit within our societal structure as a legal entity with the same rights, priveleges, and responsibilities as us, they are not, in fact, our equals from an ethical perspective.
|
Consumption of dog meat is perfectly fine.
Inhumane treatment of "higher" animals before slaughter is unacceptable, if alternatives exist. But that's a totally different issue.
|
On April 16 2012 03:09 Feridan wrote:
Cows, chickens etc just spend their days wandering around grazing/scratching for food, which they basically do whether they are captive or wild. Dogs, on the other hand, are social animals that need to be part of a family group, and raising them and other carnivores in cages or even enclosures where they are just thown food until they are slaughtered is vile animal abuse. Eating dog meat (or fois gras, using anything with bear bile etc) is just evil, no other word for it. Unless you're some starving peasant killing stray dogs to stay alive (which is probably where the practise began), choose to eat animals that don't have to suffer their whole short lives for 'tradition' or a tourist's curiosity.
Imagine all the dogs you know, how much they need companionship, exercise, games or jobs - how the hell can someone claim that sticking them in a cage or whatever they do isn't animal torture? I highly doubt they're raised in a secure pack with adequate exercise and attention if they're just going to be slaughtered. People who torture animals are right down there with child molesters imo.
Well that's a fun "Would you rather".
Would you rather torture, kill, and eat a dog or rape a 5 year old child?
People with opinions like yours are what make the ASPCA more profitable than the SACS foundation...
|
Subjective. Therefore I am "ok" with it i guess.
Though I would never ever x 100000 stand such a thing in my close proximity.
|
On April 16 2012 03:09 Feridan wrote:
Cows, chickens etc just spend their days wandering around grazing/scratching for food, which they basically do whether they are captive or wild. Dogs, on the other hand, are social animals that need to be part of a family group, and raising them and other carnivores in cages or even enclosures where they are just thown food until they are slaughtered is vile animal abuse. Eating dog meat (or fois gras, using anything with bear bile etc) is just evil, no other word for it. Unless you're some starving peasant killing stray dogs to stay alive (which is probably where the practise began), choose to eat animals that don't have to suffer their whole short lives for 'tradition' or a tourist's curiosity.
Imagine all the dogs you know, how much they need companionship, exercise, games or jobs - how the hell can someone claim that sticking them in a cage or whatever they do isn't animal torture? I highly doubt they're raised in a secure pack with adequate exercise and attention if they're just going to be slaughtered. People who torture animals are right down there with child molesters imo.
What about wild dogs/wolves? All they do is wander around in packs looking for food. I'm sure they would eat you up as well? There is no moral high ground when it comes to dogs vs. cow or chicken. Do people in India say hey you shouldn't eat cow and call you evil because we revere them and treat them like royalty here? Its all about perspective and if your gonna hold your beliefs to be higher than someone elses and call them evil because of it, than your in the absolute wrong.
Another thing is no don't imagine all the dogs you know because there is a specific breed of consumed dog and its not your typical german shepard, golden retriever, or poodle thats being consumed.
|
On April 16 2012 03:08 whereyouat wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2012 02:55 evilm0nkey wrote:
Probably chinese and korean people kill and eat dogs because of a misunderstanding, just as japanese people eat dolphin and whale instead of chicken and cow like us normal people! Wow. "Us normal people" Sorry but I don't want to be categorized as normal with someone of your mentality. There is no misunderstanding, your culture and people are not superior to another because of their food. The world does not revolve around you or the western world so screw off with your stupid statement.
It's a joke. Watch South Park.
|
On April 16 2012 03:21 RifleCow wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2012 03:08 whereyouat wrote:On April 16 2012 02:55 evilm0nkey wrote:
Probably chinese and korean people kill and eat dogs because of a misunderstanding, just as japanese people eat dolphin and whale instead of chicken and cow like us normal people! Wow. "Us normal people" Sorry but I don't want to be categorized as normal with someone of your mentality. There is no misunderstanding, your culture and people are not superior to another because of their food. The world does not revolve around you or the western world so screw off with your stupid statement. It's a joke. Watch South Park.
Yeah with the amount of sheer ignorance that goes around, wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't a joke. Also no thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
