• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 13:38
CEST 19:38
KST 02:38
  • 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
[ASL22] Ro16 Preview: Rough Waters8[ASL22] Ro24 Preview: Siren's Call8[ASL22] Ro24 Preview: Summer's End9Serral wins HomeStory Cup 2915Serral wins Maestros of the Game 244
Community News
Official StarCraft website teases new content ahead of BlizzCon?96Stellar Fest TWO the Moon (Dec 16-20)9Weekly Cups (August 24-30): Patches' balance mod takes over3New 3v3 BGH Ladder (and more) on ShieldBattery!45Weekly Cups (August 17-23): Zerg dominate the week6
StarCraft 2
General
Balance hotfix patch 5.0.16b (July 16) SC4ALL: II Winner Will Earn a Spot at HSC 30! Nexon wins bid to develop StarCraft IP content, distribute Overwatch mobile game Weekly Cups (August 24-30): Patches' balance mod takes over September World Ranking: herO leads, Serral climbs
Tourneys
2026 GSTL Announcement Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament Stellar Fest TWO the Moon (Dec 16-20) IntoTheTV X SOOP SC2 League : Weekly & Monthly SC2 INu's Battles#20 [BO.9]
Strategy
[G] Having the right mentality to improve
Custom Maps
Nexus Wars 2021 GUIDE [M] (2) Industrial Park
External Content
Mutation # 542 The Ascended Mutation # 541 Binary Choice The PondCast: SC2 News & Results Mutation # 540 Dodge This
Brood War
General
Official StarCraft website teases new content ahead of BlizzCon? BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Pros React To: Calm's Big Brain Play Vs Mini New 3v3 BGH Ladder (and more) on ShieldBattery! [ASL22] Ro16 Preview: Rough Waters
Tourneys
[ASL22] Ro16 Group A [ASL22] Ro24 Group F [Megathread] Daily Proleagues Brood War in Budapest ! WORTEX 2026 BW Finals
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Odyssey Mineral Stack Saturation Replay Review Process - What do you do? Game Theory for Starcraft
Other Games
General Games
Nintendo Switch Thread Diablo IV EVE Corporation [Maplestory Hardcore] Let's Play~!! General RTS Discussion Thread
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
[TL LoL EUW IHs] Teemo shall perish TSM pausing esports and CLG Dead
Heroes of the Storm
Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Deck construction bug
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Power Rank TL Mafia Community Thread NeO.D_StephenKing vs This Guy From 1 Million Dance
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine UK Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Artificial Intelligence Thread
Fan Clubs
MarineLorD Fan Club The Creator Fan Club The ShoWTimE Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Movie Discussion! Anime Discussion Thread
Sports
Football (Soccer) Thread TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 MLB/Baseball 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List Northern Ireland Global Starcraft
Blogs
F* the Children and Get Off …
TrAiDoS
Dreaming of BW patches (mod…
c3rberUs
Regacy Esports: The Bh…
regacyesports
LOCKPICKING NOOB
LUCKY_NOOB
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 6256 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
Monday Night Weeklies
16:00
#62
SteadfastSC787
RotterdaM655
TKL 247
IndyStarCraft 206
BRAT_OK 67
LiquipediaDiscussion
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
RotterdaM 655
ByuN 342
TKL 247
IndyStarCraft 206
SteadfastSC 112
BRAT_OK 67
Trap 29
MindelVK 14
StarCraft: Brood War
Calm 3432
Shuttle 1643
Soulkey 123
Zeus 97
Snow 78
Mong 45
Sharp 43
ToSsGirL 43
Hyun 33
PianO 25
[ Show more ]
Shine 12
Sacsri 10
ajuk12(nOOB) 8
Dota 2
qojqva4700
LuMiX1
Counter-Strike
ScreaM1692
fl0m1595
x6flipin631
byalli430
olofmeister246
Heroes of the Storm
Liquid`Hasu61
Other Games
Liquid`RaSZi2301
singsing1177
Beastyqt824
ceh9628
Grubby477
Hui .254
ArmadaUGS176
C9.Mang0139
Trikslyr48
Organizations
Other Games
BasetradeTV69
[ Show 19 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• StrangeGG 53
• Adnapsc2 7
• Reevou 7
• intothetv
• IndyKCrew
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• Migwel
• Kozan
StarCraft: Brood War
• HerbMon 27
• blackmanpl 22
• Michael_bg 3
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
Dota 2
• C_a_k_e 2908
• Nemesis1398
• WagamamaTV1023
Other Games
• imaqtpie681
• Shiphtur326
Upcoming Events
Afreeca Starleague
16h 22m
Leta vs ggaemo
Jaedong vs Queen
GSL
17h 22m
PiGosaur Cup
1d 6h
Kung Fu Cup
1d 17h
Replay Cast
2 days
The PondCast
2 days
KCM Race Survival
2 days
Escore
3 days
IntoTheTV X SOOP
3 days
CranKy Ducklings
4 days
[ Show More ]
Sparkling Tuna Cup
5 days
Shopify Rebellion Sundays
5 days
Spirit vs Mixu
Clem vs TBD
RSL Revival
5 days
Replay Cast
6 days
Afreeca Starleague
6 days
WardiTV Weekly
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Proleague 2026-09-02
PiG Sty Festival 8.0
Big Dog Cup 2026 Div 1

Ongoing

KCM Race Survival 2026 Season 3
K-JUNGMAN
ASL Season 22
Super Anchor Qualifying S3
CSL 2026 AUTUMN (S22)
Acropolis #5
Acropolis #5 - TRS
RSL Revival: Season 6
Calamity Invitational
BLAST Open Fall 2026
Esports World Cup 2026
BLAST Bounty Summer 2026
BLAST Bounty Summer Qual
Stake Ranked Episode 3
XSE Pro League 2026

Upcoming

Escore Tournament S3: King of Kings
Acropolis #5 - GSA
Blizzard Classic Cup 2026
Acropolis #5 - GSB
Acropolis #5 - GSC
SC4ALL II: Brood War
HSC XXX
Stellar Fest 2: Lunar Cup
SC4ALL II: StarCraft II
Kung Fu Cup 2026 Grand Finals
RSL Offline Finals
Stake Ranked Episode 6
BLAST Rivals Fall 2026
IEM Beijing 2026
Stake Ranked Episode 5
PGL Masters Bucharest 2026
1win Private Club #2
Thunderpick World Champ. '26
ESL Pro League Season 24
Stake Ranked Episode 4
1win Private Club #1
Logitech G Play Connect 2026
SL StarSeries Fall 2026
FISSURE Playground #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.