• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 06:45
CEST 12:45
KST 19:45
  • 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
Serral wins Maestros of the Game 238ByuL, and the Limitations of Standard Play3Team Liquid Map Contest #22: Results and Winners7Code S Season 2 (2026): RO4 and Finals Preview12TL.net Map Contest #22 - Voting & Ladder Map Selection7
Community News
BSL Season 22 Full Overview & Conclusion5BSL Season 22 Full Overview & Conclusion5Weekly Cups (June 29-July 5): Solar Doubles0MC vs IdrA, Boxer vs Nal_rA to be Legacy Matches @ BlizzCon445.0.16 Hotfix (June 30) - Balance + Bug Fixes40
StarCraft 2
General
Most successful SC2 players of Q2 2026 Serral wins Maestros of the Game 2 MC vs IdrA, Boxer vs Nal_rA to be Legacy Matches @ BlizzCon Is the larve respawn broken? 5.0.16 patch for SC2 goes live (8 worker start)
Tourneys
GSL CK #5 Race War RSL Revival: Season 6 - Qualifiers and Main Event HomeStory Cup 29 Vespene Cup #1 — $300+ USD, July 10 Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond)
Strategy
[G] Having the right mentality to improve
Custom Maps
New Map Maker - Looking for Advice - Love or Hate Work In Progress Melee Maps [D]RTS in all its shapes and glory <3
External Content
Mutation # 533 Die Together The PondCast: SC2 News & Results Mutation # 532 Nuclear Family Mutation # 531 Experimental Artillery
Brood War
General
ASL 22 Proposed Map Pool ASL22 General Discussion BW General Discussion BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ BSL Season 22 Full Overview & Conclusion
Tourneys
[ASL22] Wildcard Qualifier [Megathread] Daily Proleagues IPSL Spring 2026 Top 4! CSLAN 4 is Coming!
Strategy
Fighting Spirit mining rates Simple Questions, Simple Answers Creating a full chart of Zerg builds Relatively freeroll strategies
Other Games
General Games
Summer Games Done Quick 2026! General RTS Discussion Thread Nintendo Switch Thread Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Dawn of War IV
Dota 2
Looking for a Dota Mentor 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
TL Mafia
NeO.D_StephenKing vs This Guy From 1 Million Dance TL Mafia Community Thread TL Mafia Power Rank Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread UK Politics Mega-thread YouTube Thread Canadian Politics Mega-thread
Fan Clubs
The IdrA Fan Club The HerO Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
Anime Discussion Thread Movie Discussion! Series you have seen recently...
Sports
2024 - 2026 Football Thread McBoner: A hockey love story Tennis[sport] Formula 1 Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
FPS when play League Of Legend on laptop How to clean a TTe Thermaltake keyboard? Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Major Shifts in the Gaming I…
TrAiDoS
An Exploration of th…
waywardstrategy
Gauntlet SC2: A Retrospectiv…
Ctone23
ramps on octagon
StaticNine
Funny Nicknames
LUCKY_NOOB
Evil Gacha Games and the…
ffswowsucks
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 13722 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
Sparkling Tuna Cup
10:00
Weekly #137
SHIN vs ShamelessLIVE!
CranKy Ducklings49
CranKy Ducklings SOOP6
LiquipediaDiscussion
RSL Revival
09:00
Season 6 - Group B
Solar vs NightMareLIVE!
Maru vs TBD
Tasteless1124
Ryung 662
IntoTheiNu 293
TKL 203
IndyStarCraft 200
Rex124
3DClanTV 72
Liquipedia
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Tasteless 1124
Ryung 662
TKL 203
IndyStarCraft 200
Rex 124
ProTech19
StarCraft: Brood War
Britney 19275
Calm 6624
Bisu 1286
Hyuk 600
Shuttle 471
Horang2 382
Jaedong 275
BeSt 221
Soma 196
Stork 155
[ Show more ]
hero 153
Mong 128
Soulkey 123
Last 113
actioN 106
EffOrt 84
Mini 79
Larva 74
Aegong 33
ZerO 33
Mind 32
sorry 32
Sharp 29
scan(afreeca) 29
Killer 28
soO 28
HiyA 24
ToSsGirL 23
sSak 23
yabsab 22
NotJumperer 21
Hm[arnc] 15
Light 12
Free 11
Sacsri 10
JulyZerg 10
ajuk12(nOOB) 10
Noble 9
Dota 2
Gorgc88
League of Legends
Doublelift2421
JimRising 649
Counter-Strike
x6flipin294
Sick176
Other Games
FrodaN1374
crisheroes195
DeMusliM175
Pyrionflax90
B2W.Neo28
RuFF_SC217
ZerO(Twitch)15
KnowMe2
Organizations
StarCraft: Brood War
lovetv 13
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
[ Show 11 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
League of Legends
• Jankos2936
Upcoming Events
IPSL
5h 16m
Bonyth vs Hawk
GSL
1d
Replay Cast
1d 13h
WardiTV Weekly
2 days
The PondCast
2 days
Replay Cast
3 days
CrankTV Team League
4 days
Replay Cast
4 days
CrankTV Team League
5 days
Replay Cast
5 days
[ Show More ]
RSL Revival
5 days
Clem vs Lambo
Scarlett vs Cure
CranKy Ducklings
5 days
RSL Revival
6 days
Classic vs Trap
herO vs SHIN
Sparkling Tuna Cup
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

ASL Season 22: Wild Card Qualifier
HSC XXIX
Eternal Conflict S2 E1

Ongoing

IPSL Spring 2026
Acropolis #4
YSL S3
CSL 2026 Summer (S21)
RSL Revival: Season 6
CranK Gathers Season 4: BW vs SC2 Team League
SCTL 2026 Spring
Eternal Conflict S2 E2
XSE Pro League 2026
IEM Cologne Major 2026
Stake Ranked Episode 2
CS Asia Championships 2026
Asian Champions League 2026
IEM Atlanta 2026
PGL Astana 2026
BLAST Rivals Spring 2026

Upcoming

Escore Tournament S3: W3
ASL S22 SEASON OPEN Day 1
Escore Tournament S3: W4
ASL S22 SEASON OPEN Day 2
Escore Tournament S3: W5
CSLAN 4
Blizzard Classic Cup 2026
HSC XXX
SC4ALL II: StarCraft II
Kung Fu Cup 2026 Grand Finals
Light Tournament 2026
Eternal Conflict S2 Finale
Eternal Conflict S2 E3
Logitech G Connect 2026
StarSeries Fall 2026
FISSURE Playground #5
BLAST Open Fall 2026
Esports World Cup 2026
BLAST Bounty Summer 2026
BLAST Bounty Summer Qual
Stake Ranked Episode 3
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 © 2026 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.