EPTEthics of dog meat? - Page 24
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
PenguinWithNuke
250 Posts
| ||
|
sc4k
United Kingdom5454 Posts
| ||
|
whereyouat
United States65 Posts
On April 16 2012 03:37 sc4k wrote: I hate anyone who eats dog meat, they are our best friends. Abhorred in England, and should be everywhere. I hate anyone who eats shepards pie, it contains beef which is from cows which are revered in India. Abhorred in India and should be everywhere. | ||
|
Marcus420
Canada1923 Posts
On April 16 2012 03:37 sc4k wrote: I hate anyone who eats dog meat, they are our best friends. Abhorred in England, and should be everywhere. I hate anyone who eats pig/cow/horse meat, they are our best friends. Its fine to eat dog meat. They are no different from other animals when it comes to the food chain. | ||
|
Feridan
Denmark33 Posts
On April 16 2012 03:54 Marcus420 wrote: I hate anyone who eats pig/cow/horse meat, they are our best friends. Its fine to eat dog meat. They are no different from other animals when it comes to the food chain. You're only thinking of the killing and eating, not the life they lead prior to slaughter. You're basically saying 'we allow goldfish to live in small enclosures their whole lives, therefore it must be fine for any living being to be happy living their lives in small enclosures'. Obviously, there is a massive difference between dogs and cows. | ||
|
SoylentCreep
Korea (South)176 Posts
Anyways if you have the chance to eat dog meat dont do it because it tastes kinda bad. | ||
|
froggynoddy
United Kingdom452 Posts
On April 16 2012 03:37 sc4k wrote: I hate anyone who eats dog meat, they are our best friends. Abhorred in England, and should be everywhere. You vegetarian? | ||
|
whereyouat
United States65 Posts
On April 16 2012 04:09 Feridan wrote: You're only thinking of the killing and eating, not the life they lead prior to slaughter. You're basically saying 'we allow goldfish to live in small enclosures their whole lives, therefore it must be fine for any living being to be happy living their lives in small enclosures'. Obviously, there is a massive difference between dogs and cows. What? This thread is about the notion and ethics of EATING DOG, not the living conditions and slaughter methods of livestock because that deserves its own thread. Also whats different between a crammed up slaughtered dog and a crammed up slaughtered cow? Nothing, they're both being subjected to crappy environment. Just because one is perceived as a "cute, furry pet" doesn't mean its even more cruel to the dog. | ||
|
STDfan
United States207 Posts
It's a part of our culture, just a bit different than Western culture. | ||
|
Alejandrisha
United States6566 Posts
| ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On April 16 2012 03:14 JingleHell wrote: 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. You *can* equate on various levels humans, ecosystems, and animals by invoking animal integrity as shown by the authors. The context is important in determining whether or not you'd want to invoke the concept. Literally, it is a way to equate animals with humans, ethically. Am I saying you must always consider animals and humans equally in all aspects including their "rights/privileges"? No, because as the authors point out, that doesn't really make sense. There is a basis for animal integrity though, demonstrated by comparisons to human and ecosystem integrity, and this concept is useful in bioethical discussions, particularly on animal engineering. I'm really not sure why you're still responding to me on this one little thing, once again, I'm merely correcting you for wrongly stating that you can't "equate" animals with humans by any moral basis (simply based on the observation that animals can't partake in society, which I won't even bother to address) | ||
|
RedDeckWins
United States123 Posts
Dog meat is a culture thing. If you can be objective, how is it any morally worse than eating another animal that is commonly used as meat in the western world. Hell, pigs can be pets and we eat those! | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On April 16 2012 04:24 FallDownMarigold wrote: You *can* equate on various levels humans, ecosystems, and animals by invoking animal integrity as shown by the authors. The context is important in determining whether or not you'd want to invoke the concept. Literally, it is a way to equate animals with humans, ethically. Am I saying you must always consider animals and humans equally in all aspects including their "rights/privileges"? No, because as the authors point out, that doesn't really make sense. There is a basis for animal integrity though, demonstrated by comparisons to human and ecosystem integrity, and this concept is useful in bioethical discussions, particularly on animal engineering. I'm really not sure why you're still responding to me on this one little thing, once again, I'm merely correcting you for wrongly stating that you can't "equate" animals with humans by any moral basis (simply based on the observation that animals can't partake in society, which I won't even bother to address) I'm still responding because you're still attempting to "correct" me based on blatant misinterpretation of my point. If you understand so thoroughly that the paper has absolutely zero bearing on what I'm saying, why do you keep trying to force me to accept their subjective interpretation of ethical responsibility? The argument that animals ethically deserve rights akin to our own due to being alive is central to what was being debated at the time. I stated several flaws in the logic used to argue that point, and you brought in a paper you now admit is utterly irrelevant, and started trying to misuse it to disprove my points, all of which your paper actually AGREES with or doesn't pertain to. Explain to me how my statements about the impossibility of integrating animals into our society in a capacity based on rights have anything to do with animal integrity, please. Or, failing that, (you will), show me a flaw in the logic. | ||
|
thezanursic
5500 Posts
On April 15 2012 08:26 gnr9292 wrote: Yes except my dogs meat :D | ||
|
Aelip
Denmark321 Posts
| ||
|
mYiKane
Canada1772 Posts
as a vegetarian, i am not okay with eating dog meat or any other kind of meat. | ||
|
boppel
140 Posts
as long as they dont want to nibble on me i dont care :D | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On April 16 2012 04:42 boppel wrote: i dont care if anyone eats dog, cat, mouse, or whatever meat :D as long as they dont want to nibble on me i dont care :D What if they're sexy and it really is only a nibble? | ||
|
Ksi
357 Posts
Granted, I think we in the developed world should probably cut back a bit on the meat consumption, both for health and environmental reasons. We eat far more meat as a proportion of our diet than we probably should. | ||
|
nihlon
Sweden5581 Posts
On April 16 2012 04:09 Feridan wrote: You're only thinking of the killing and eating, not the life they lead prior to slaughter. You're basically saying 'we allow goldfish to live in small enclosures their whole lives, therefore it must be fine for any living being to be happy living their lives in small enclosures'. Obviously, there is a massive difference between dogs and cows. There is obviously not that big of a difference for some people. Some cultures doesn't east pigs, some doesn't east cow. Some do eat dog. Ethic isn't universal. | ||
| ||
