• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EST 19:25
CET 01:25
KST 09:25
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
RSL Season 3 - Playoffs Preview0RSL Season 3 - RO16 Groups C & D Preview0RSL Season 3 - RO16 Groups A & B Preview2TL.net Map Contest #21: Winners12Intel X Team Liquid Seoul event: Showmatches and Meet the Pros10
Community News
RSL Season 3: RO16 results & RO8 bracket9Weekly Cups (Nov 10-16): Reynor, Solar lead Zerg surge1[TLMC] Fall/Winter 2025 Ladder Map Rotation14Weekly Cups (Nov 3-9): Clem Conquers in Canada4SC: Evo Complete - Ranked Ladder OPEN ALPHA12
StarCraft 2
General
RSL Season 3: RO16 results & RO8 bracket SC: Evo Complete - Ranked Ladder OPEN ALPHA RSL Season 3 - Playoffs Preview Mech is the composition that needs teleportation t GM / Master map hacker and general hacking and cheating thread
Tourneys
StarCraft Evolution League (SC Evo Biweekly) RSL Revival: Season 3 $5,000+ WardiTV 2025 Championship Constellation Cup - Main Event - Stellar Fest 2025 RSL Offline Finals Dates + Ticket Sales!
Strategy
Custom Maps
Map Editor closed ?
External Content
Mutation # 500 Fright night Mutation # 499 Chilling Adaptation Mutation # 498 Wheel of Misfortune|Cradle of Death Mutation # 497 Battle Haredened
Brood War
General
soO on: FanTaSy's Potential Return to StarCraft Data analysis on 70 million replays FlaSh on: Biggest Problem With SnOw's Playstyle [ASL20] Ask the mapmakers — Drop your questions BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/
Tourneys
Small VOD Thread 2.0 [BSL21] GosuLeague T1 Ro16 - Tue & Thu 22:00 CET [BSL21] RO16 Tie Breaker - Group B - Sun 21:00 CET [BSL21] RO16 Tie Breaker - Group A - Sat 21:00 CET
Strategy
Current Meta Game Theory for Starcraft How to stay on top of macro? PvZ map balance
Other Games
General Games
Path of Exile [Game] Osu! Should offensive tower rushing be viable in RTS games? Clair Obscur - Expedition 33 Nintendo Switch Thread
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Deck construction bug Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread SPIRED by.ASL Mafia {211640}
Community
General
Russo-Ukrainian War Thread US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine The Games Industry And ATVI About SC2SEA.COM
Fan Clubs
White-Ra Fan Club The herO Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Anime Discussion Thread Korean Music Discussion
Sports
2024 - 2026 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion NBA General Discussion MLB/Baseball 2023 TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
The Health Impact of Joining…
TrAiDoS
Dyadica Evangelium — Chapt…
Hildegard
Saturation point
Uldridge
DnB/metal remix FFO Mick Go…
ImbaTosS
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 2141 users

Ethics of dog meat? - Page 25

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 23 24 25 26 27 35 Next All
Thingdo
Profile Joined August 2009
United States186 Posts
April 15 2012 19:49 GMT
#481
I don't have a problem with anyone else eating it.

However, growing up in the west and always viewing dogs as pets, I would be somewhat reluctant to actually eat it myself. I don't see anything wrong with it, I just have a bit of a mental block there because dogs fall into the cute/fuzzy category in my mind rather than the delicious food one.
FallDownMarigold
Profile Blog Joined December 2010
United States3710 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-04-15 19:53:35
April 15 2012 19:50 GMT
#482
On April 16 2012 04:33 JingleHell wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 16 2012 04:24 FallDownMarigold wrote:
On April 16 2012 03:14 JingleHell wrote:
On April 16 2012 03:04 FallDownMarigold wrote:
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.


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.


No see it was in response to the part in this thread where you clearly say:

"Humans can't be equated ethically to animals"

I don't care what the context was. It's an incorrect statement given that there exists an example where animals and humans can be equated, ethically. Saying they can't is incorrect, no matter how right it feels in the context of this little particular discussion. It's not some end-all fact that animals and humans can't be compared ethically just because it doesn't sit well with you "intellectually" or w/e
JingleHell
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
United States11308 Posts
April 15 2012 20:00 GMT
#483
On April 16 2012 04:50 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 16 2012 04:33 JingleHell wrote:
On April 16 2012 04:24 FallDownMarigold wrote:
On April 16 2012 03:14 JingleHell wrote:
On April 16 2012 03:04 FallDownMarigold wrote:
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.


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.


No see it was in response to the part in this thread where you clearly say:

"Humans can't be equated ethically to animals"

I don't care what the context was. It's an incorrect statement given that there exists an example where animals and humans can be equated, ethically. Saying they can't is incorrect, no matter how right it feels in the context of this little particular discussion. It's not some end-all fact that animals and humans can't be compared ethically just because it doesn't sit well with you "intellectually" or w/e


You seem to have forgotten the point you were trying to argue, since the statement you took issue with originally was
I have an intellectual issue with the argument that animals are ethically equivalent to humans


That isn't a statement that we can not be compared ethically, that is a statement that we are not EQUIVALENT ethically. Just because some parallels can be drawn does NOT mean that all things are equal (equivalent) ethically between humans and animals.

In other words, you're so busy trying to win an argument that you've forgotten what the fuck the discussion started it's life as. Thanks for proving this for me, and unless you say something that actually makes sense next, don't expect me to waste any time letting you try to redirect things until what you say makes sense.
StickyFlower
Profile Joined March 2011
Sweden68 Posts
April 15 2012 20:09 GMT
#484
Animals are animals, who are we to discriminate? I am on my way of starting up a Human Farm. It taste like chicken but have the same Nutritional value as a pig. All I need to do now is to pick a race that less people would have problem eating then others and start the breeding process. Its OK to do because I breed them for the soul perpous of being eaten.

Poll: What human race would you be most OK eating?

European (4)
 
36%

African (3)
 
27%

North American (2)
 
18%

Asian (1)
 
9%

Oceanian (1)
 
9%

South American (0)
 
0%

11 total votes

Your vote: What human race would you be most OK eating?

(Vote): European
(Vote): North American
(Vote): Asian
(Vote): South American
(Vote): African
(Vote): Oceanian





+ Show Spoiler +
If you have too thick of a skull to understand, this is irony. It sickens me that there are people doing this. If you dont distinguish Dogs from Cows or Pigs why would you distinguish a Chicken from a Human?


User was temp banned for this post.
By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail.
Corsica
Profile Joined February 2011
Ukraine1854 Posts
April 15 2012 20:15 GMT
#485
I am against it. Historically animals like horses and dogs were helpful to humanity (helping raise ship, guard, do heavy work, transportation), hence its not eaten in EU (in general)
Marcus420
Profile Joined January 2011
Canada1923 Posts
April 15 2012 20:18 GMT
#486
On April 16 2012 05:09 StickyFlower wrote:
Animals are animals, who are we to discriminate? I am on my way of starting up a Human Farm. It taste like chicken but have the same Nutritional value as a pig. All I need to do now is to pick a race that less people would have problem eating then others and start the breeding process. Its OK to do because I breed them for the soul perpous of being eaten.

Poll: What human race would you be most OK eating?

European (4)
 
36%

African (3)
 
27%

North American (2)
 
18%

Asian (1)
 
9%

Oceanian (1)
 
9%

South American (0)
 
0%

11 total votes

Your vote: What human race would you be most OK eating?

(Vote): European
(Vote): North American
(Vote): Asian
(Vote): South American
(Vote): African
(Vote): Oceanian





+ Show Spoiler +
If you have too thick of a skull to understand, this is irony. It sickens me that there are people doing this. If you dont distinguish Dogs from Cows or Pigs why would you distinguish a Chicken from a Human?

Youre hilarious.
[17]Purple
Profile Joined October 2011
United Kingdom3489 Posts
April 15 2012 20:21 GMT
#487
On April 16 2012 05:09 StickyFlower wrote:
Animals are animals, who are we to discriminate? I am on my way of starting up a Human Farm. It taste like chicken but have the same Nutritional value as a pig. All I need to do now is to pick a race that less people would have problem eating then others and start the breeding process. Its OK to do because I breed them for the soul perpous of being eaten.

Poll: What human race would you be most OK eating?

European (4)
 
36%

African (3)
 
27%

North American (2)
 
18%

Asian (1)
 
9%

Oceanian (1)
 
9%

South American (0)
 
0%

11 total votes

Your vote: What human race would you be most OK eating?

(Vote): European
(Vote): North American
(Vote): Asian
(Vote): South American
(Vote): African
(Vote): Oceanian





+ Show Spoiler +
If you have too thick of a skull to understand, this is irony. It sickens me that there are people doing this. If you dont distinguish Dogs from Cows or Pigs why would you distinguish a Chicken from a Human?


There is a difference between being a carnivore and being a cannibal. As a species we have evolved a sense of self-preservation that shows itself in our ability to nurture our young beyond birth, which is rare in anything that isn't a mammal (and in some cases birds). Being a cannibal merely shows that you are hampering our ability to further our own species in a evolutionary progress.

Unless you are talking about domesticating humans for my nearest grocery store, which I am completely fine with.
"Turn Disadvantages into Disadvantages" and "Collect Telephones". The secrets of Chinese success.
froggynoddy
Profile Joined February 2011
United Kingdom452 Posts
April 15 2012 20:21 GMT
#488
On April 16 2012 05:09 StickyFlower wrote:
Animals are animals, who are we to discriminate? I am on my way of starting up a Human Farm. It taste like chicken but have the same Nutritional value as a pig. All I need to do now is to pick a race that less people would have problem eating then others and start the breeding process. Its OK to do because I breed them for the soul perpous of being eaten.

Poll: What human race would you be most OK eating?

European (4)
 
36%

African (3)
 
27%

North American (2)
 
18%

Asian (1)
 
9%

Oceanian (1)
 
9%

South American (0)
 
0%

11 total votes

Your vote: What human race would you be most OK eating?

(Vote): European
(Vote): North American
(Vote): Asian
(Vote): South American
(Vote): African
(Vote): Oceanian





+ Show Spoiler +
If you have too thick of a skull to understand, this is irony. It sickens me that there are people doing this. If you dont distinguish Dogs from Cows or Pigs why would you distinguish a Chicken from a Human?


So how do you distinguish them? They are all animals, similar intelligence (pigs are cleverer than dogs), similar self-awareness. We are talking about dogs who are reared for the sole purpose of being slaughtered for meat, not raising them as pets and cruelly snatching them away from little children.

And even if we were talking about killing pets, the only difference is your emotional attachment to the dog. So its ok to kill and eat things you don't care about, but those you care about WOAH, hands off? Where is the logic there?

PS: I'm veggie. If you eat meat there is no rational argument to distinguish dogs/horse/fluffy bunnies from traditionally reared livestock.
'better still, a satisfied man'
[17]Purple
Profile Joined October 2011
United Kingdom3489 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-04-15 20:29:40
April 15 2012 20:27 GMT
#489
On April 16 2012 05:21 froggynoddy wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 16 2012 05:09 StickyFlower wrote:
Animals are animals, who are we to discriminate? I am on my way of starting up a Human Farm. It taste like chicken but have the same Nutritional value as a pig. All I need to do now is to pick a race that less people would have problem eating then others and start the breeding process. Its OK to do because I breed them for the soul perpous of being eaten.

Poll: What human race would you be most OK eating?

European (4)
 
36%

African (3)
 
27%

North American (2)
 
18%

Asian (1)
 
9%

Oceanian (1)
 
9%

South American (0)
 
0%

11 total votes

Your vote: What human race would you be most OK eating?

(Vote): European
(Vote): North American
(Vote): Asian
(Vote): South American
(Vote): African
(Vote): Oceanian





+ Show Spoiler +
If you have too thick of a skull to understand, this is irony. It sickens me that there are people doing this. If you dont distinguish Dogs from Cows or Pigs why would you distinguish a Chicken from a Human?


So how do you distinguish them? They are all animals, similar intelligence (pigs are cleverer than dogs), similar self-awareness. We are talking about dogs who are reared for the sole purpose of being slaughtered for meat, not raising them as pets and cruelly snatching them away from little children.

And even if we were talking about killing pets, the only difference is your emotional attachment to the dog. So its ok to kill and eat things you don't care about, but those you care about WOAH, hands off? Where is the logic there?

PS: I'm veggie. If you eat meat there is no rational argument to distinguish dogs/horse/fluffy bunnies from traditionally reared livestock.


There is a lot of logic in protecting the things you care about, I love my family and would rather see someone else hurt than having them hurt. I feel no need to place everyone I know on even footing as there will always be people that I value more than others simply because of my relation to them. If I was given the choice between the life of a complete stranger and the life of my girlfriend than I think the choice would be somewhat obvious to most.

There is nothing illogical in defending things you care about and that is why we treat animals we do not know to those who are our household companions. I am more willing to see other humans hurt that another, hence our treatment of our pets are different to other animals that we do not have a connection to (fish?).
"Turn Disadvantages into Disadvantages" and "Collect Telephones". The secrets of Chinese success.
Playguuu
Profile Joined April 2010
United States926 Posts
April 15 2012 20:28 GMT
#490
I'm sure I have before at random chinese restaurants, lol. I'm not going to go out of my way to eat dog meat, but I'm ok with people that do.
I used to be just like you, then I took a sweetroll to the knee.
Aelip
Profile Joined November 2010
Denmark321 Posts
April 15 2012 20:35 GMT
#491
On April 16 2012 05:09 StickyFlower wrote:
Animals are animals, who are we to discriminate? I am on my way of starting up a Human Farm. It taste like chicken but have the same Nutritional value as a pig. All I need to do now is to pick a race that less people would have problem eating then others and start the breeding process. Its OK to do because I breed them for the soul perpous of being eaten.

Poll: What human race would you be most OK eating?

European (4)
 
36%

African (3)
 
27%

North American (2)
 
18%

Asian (1)
 
9%

Oceanian (1)
 
9%

South American (0)
 
0%

11 total votes

Your vote: What human race would you be most OK eating?

(Vote): European
(Vote): North American
(Vote): Asian
(Vote): South American
(Vote): African
(Vote): Oceanian





+ Show Spoiler +
If you have too thick of a skull to understand, this is irony. It sickens me that there are people doing this. If you dont distinguish Dogs from Cows or Pigs why would you distinguish a Chicken from a Human?


Why does it sicken you? How is it any different from eating a pig? I know it'd be different if people were eating YOUR dog, but when it's a dog born and bred for eating i really don't see the difference between that and eating cows, horses, pigs, sheep and so on and so forth.
EleanorRIgby
Profile Joined March 2008
Canada3923 Posts
April 15 2012 20:41 GMT
#492
dogs are mans best friend and have been close to humans for so long, i would never eat a dog!
savior did nothing wrong
FallDownMarigold
Profile Blog Joined December 2010
United States3710 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-04-15 21:19:34
April 15 2012 20:44 GMT
#493
On April 16 2012 05:00 JingleHell wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 16 2012 04:50 FallDownMarigold wrote:
On April 16 2012 04:33 JingleHell wrote:
On April 16 2012 04:24 FallDownMarigold wrote:
On April 16 2012 03:14 JingleHell wrote:
On April 16 2012 03:04 FallDownMarigold wrote:
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.


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.


No see it was in response to the part in this thread where you clearly say:

"Humans can't be equated ethically to animals"

I don't care what the context was. It's an incorrect statement given that there exists an example where animals and humans can be equated, ethically. Saying they can't is incorrect, no matter how right it feels in the context of this little particular discussion. It's not some end-all fact that animals and humans can't be compared ethically just because it doesn't sit well with you "intellectually" or w/e


you're so busy trying to win an argument that you've forgotten what the fuck the discussion started it's life as


Actually I didn't bother to follow any of your discussion with that poster. I just caught the literally incorrect sentence and decided randomly to toss you an article that I assumed would interest you a bit: In the context of integrity ethics, animals and humans are equivalent in various examples. Thus the sentence: "I have an intellectual issue with the argument that animals are ethically equivalent to humans" -- regardless of any special context -- is not 100% sound. That is all. No response necessary, so don't worry about determining whether or not I deserve a reply
thurst0n
Profile Blog Joined December 2010
United States611 Posts
April 15 2012 20:44 GMT
#494
I'm suprised by how many people are okay with this. I have no opinion, but usually if this gets brought up then there is no one defending the eating of dog. Perhaps it's that we can hide easier online, or perhaps its that a lot of TL is not american but it's just very interesting to me..
P.S. I'm nub. If you'd like you can follow me @xthurst but its not worth it ill be honest
sc4k
Profile Blog Joined January 2010
United Kingdom5454 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-04-15 20:51:57
April 15 2012 20:48 GMT
#495
On April 16 2012 04:17 froggynoddy wrote:
Show nested quote +
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?


Nope not vegetarian but I still think eating dog meat should be illegal, and pig too. Too much intelligence to be allowed to kill for food. Same reason I would say it's wrong to eat humans and dolphins. Also, dogs are our best friends and that makes a big difference. They protect us, do loads of jobs for us (blind people, sniffer dogs, guard dogs), jump into ice cold water to save us, nurture our children, read our emotions better than any other animal etc. As far as I am concerned they should be given a 'free pass' in the food chain. Lots of other tasty animals to eat. Although as far as pigs are concerned yeah, they are damn damn tasty, but taste should not be a factor seeing as I wouldn't eat humans even if they were insanely tasty.
froggynoddy
Profile Joined February 2011
United Kingdom452 Posts
April 15 2012 20:48 GMT
#496
On April 16 2012 05:27 [17]Purple wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 16 2012 05:21 froggynoddy wrote:
On April 16 2012 05:09 StickyFlower wrote:
Animals are animals, who are we to discriminate? I am on my way of starting up a Human Farm. It taste like chicken but have the same Nutritional value as a pig. All I need to do now is to pick a race that less people would have problem eating then others and start the breeding process. Its OK to do because I breed them for the soul perpous of being eaten.

Poll: What human race would you be most OK eating?

European (4)
 
36%

African (3)
 
27%

North American (2)
 
18%

Asian (1)
 
9%

Oceanian (1)
 
9%

South American (0)
 
0%

11 total votes

Your vote: What human race would you be most OK eating?

(Vote): European
(Vote): North American
(Vote): Asian
(Vote): South American
(Vote): African
(Vote): Oceanian





+ Show Spoiler +
If you have too thick of a skull to understand, this is irony. It sickens me that there are people doing this. If you dont distinguish Dogs from Cows or Pigs why would you distinguish a Chicken from a Human?


So how do you distinguish them? They are all animals, similar intelligence (pigs are cleverer than dogs), similar self-awareness. We are talking about dogs who are reared for the sole purpose of being slaughtered for meat, not raising them as pets and cruelly snatching them away from little children.

And even if we were talking about killing pets, the only difference is your emotional attachment to the dog. So its ok to kill and eat things you don't care about, but those you care about WOAH, hands off? Where is the logic there?

PS: I'm veggie. If you eat meat there is no rational argument to distinguish dogs/horse/fluffy bunnies from traditionally reared livestock.


There is a lot of logic in protecting the things you care about, I love my family and would rather see someone else hurt than having them hurt. I feel no need to place everyone I know on even footing as there will always be people that I value more than others simply because of my relation to them. If I was given the choice between the life of a complete stranger and the life of my girlfriend than I think the choice would be somewhat obvious to most.

There is nothing illogical in defending things you care about and that is why we treat animals we do not know to those who are our household companions. I am more willing to see other humans hurt that another, hence our treatment of our pets are different to other animals that we do not have a connection to (fish?).


Thats an emotional reaction, not a rational one. There is no place for emotion in logic. You are also using a poor analogy. The question shouldn't be 'My GF or a stranger' but more 'is the intentional killing death of a stranger as morally bad as that of my gf'? I'm not asking you to make a choice, just asking you to assess the value of human life. Same way as I'm asking you to evaluate animal life.

Just to be clear, I don't blame anyone who wants to protect there loved ones.
'better still, a satisfied man'
froggynoddy
Profile Joined February 2011
United Kingdom452 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-04-15 21:01:17
April 15 2012 20:53 GMT
#497
On April 16 2012 05:48 sc4k wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 16 2012 04:17 froggynoddy wrote:
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?


Nope not vegetarian but I still think eating dog meat should be illegal, and pig too. Too much intelligence to be allowed to kill for food. Same reason I would say it's wrong to eat humans and dolphins. Also, dogs are our best friends and that makes a big difference.


Where do you draw the line then? You have to be careful using intelligence as a reason to differentiate species' right to life. Opens up the awkward problem of infant children or the mentally disabled (I obviously don't think anyone here thinks that that killing the former and latter is morally acceptable, just that if you distinguish solely on intelligence you have these problems).

Response to your EDIT: So, animals that are useful to us are more deserving of life?
'better still, a satisfied man'
Telcontar
Profile Joined May 2010
United Kingdom16710 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-04-15 20:59:48
April 15 2012 20:58 GMT
#498
Obviously if you have a pet dog, or have kept one in the past, the thought of eating one of them would repulse you. It's natural that you would associate the dogs being consumed with those you have come in contact with in the past. However, let me assure you that they are quite different. These dogs are bred for consumption. There's no real difference between them or any other animal being raised for slaughter. It's sort of like not wanting to touch pork for a little while after watching Babe. Once you put a face and a personality to an animal, it's a natural emotional reaction for you to be digusted by the thought of chomping on one of its kind. You just have to understand how it really works and try not to get stuck in your own perception.
Et Eärello Endorenna utúlien. Sinome maruvan ar Hildinyar tenn' Ambar-metta.
PaqMan
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States1475 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-04-15 21:06:13
April 15 2012 21:04 GMT
#499
But a Dog is man's best friend /:
I find the idea of eating a dog disgusting. Probably because dogs have a stronger personality than cats, birds, fish, pigs and cattle.
t(ツ)t
Fuhrmaaj
Profile Joined January 2011
167 Posts
April 15 2012 21:12 GMT
#500
I would try dog meat, but I personally think it's weird to eat animals that eat mammals. The only predatory animal I've eaten is bear and I'm not quite sold on the taste. I don't mind if the animal eats fish, but it seems weird to me if it's a mammal. That said, I wouldn't knock it until I had tried it so I'd try eating dog or cat if the opportunity presented itself.
Random player
Prev 1 23 24 25 26 27 35 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 7h 5m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
PiGStarcraft406
CosmosSc2 33
StarCraft: Brood War
Calm 2707
Larva 357
ajuk12(nOOB) 15
ivOry 5
League of Legends
Trikslyr63
Super Smash Bros
AZ_Axe76
C9.Mang072
Other Games
summit1g9849
Grubby2909
FrodaN2167
Day[9].tv359
ViBE171
ToD87
ROOTCatZ44
kaitlyn33
PPMD18
Organizations
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 20 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• RyuSc2 42
• musti20045 22
• Adnapsc2 11
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• sooper7s
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Migwel
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
StarCraft: Brood War
• HerbMon 51
• Azhi_Dahaki36
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
Dota 2
• masondota21272
League of Legends
• Doublelift3700
Other Games
• Scarra697
• Day9tv359
• WagamamaTV299
Upcoming Events
RSL Revival
7h 5m
Zoun vs Classic
SHIN vs TriGGeR
herO vs Reynor
Maru vs MaxPax
WardiTV Korean Royale
11h 35m
Replay Cast
22h 35m
RSL Revival
1d 7h
WardiTV Korean Royale
1d 11h
IPSL
1d 16h
Julia vs Artosis
JDConan vs DragOn
BSL 21
1d 19h
TerrOr vs Aeternum
HBO vs Kyrie
RSL Revival
2 days
Wardi Open
2 days
IPSL
2 days
StRyKeR vs OldBoy
Sziky vs Tarson
[ Show More ]
BSL 21
2 days
StRyKeR vs Artosis
OyAji vs KameZerg
Replay Cast
2 days
Monday Night Weeklies
3 days
Replay Cast
3 days
Wardi Open
4 days
Replay Cast
5 days
Wardi Open
5 days
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
5 days
The PondCast
6 days
Replay Cast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Proleague 2025-11-16
Stellar Fest: Constellation Cup
Eternal Conflict S1

Ongoing

C-Race Season 1
IPSL Winter 2025-26
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 4
SOOP Univ League 2025
YSL S2
BSL Season 21
CSCL: Masked Kings S3
SLON Tour Season 2
RSL Revival: Season 3
META Madness #9
BLAST Rivals Fall 2025
IEM Chengdu 2025
PGL Masters Bucharest 2025
Thunderpick World Champ.
CS Asia Championships 2025
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025

Upcoming

BSL 21 Non-Korean Championship
Acropolis #4
IPSL Spring 2026
HSC XXVIII
RSL Offline Finals
WardiTV 2025
IEM Kraków 2026
BLAST Bounty Winter 2026
BLAST Bounty Winter 2026: Closed Qualifier
eXTREMESLAND 2025
ESL Impact League Season 8
SL Budapest Major 2025
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.